Speaker 1: Before we start, we have a public speak section of the agenda, and any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda and it will be taken under advise by the board. There will be no opportunity to debate during this portion of the meeting section of the agenda as limited as 15 minutes in any individual addressing the board during this section. Mic's on by, yeah, sorry. Speaker 2: One more time. Public speak. Any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda, and it will be taken under advisement by the board. There will be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. This section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes
and any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. Does anyone have anything that they'd like to address that is not on tonight's agenda? Seeing none will get right. Started. Then the first matter is the continuation of public hearing for 25 Hillcrest Avenue, an application for Joni Shehu, if I have it right, for a variance per MGL chapter 48, section 10 of the Mass Zoning Act and sections four B and five a two of the na zoning bylaws. The project is for the construction of a single family dwelling on and nonconforming law is shown on the plan submitted.
Hello folks. Counsel, how are you? Speaker 3: Good evening. Kenneth P. Phillips on behalf of applicant to my right is my assistant Alex AKAs. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: Let's just take a quick peek. So we, we had you here once before or do we continue it? Speaker 3: We, we had a, a continuance. We had two continuances the meeting in December. There was no quorum present. Ah, I was not present in, in January. The good news is in December I did have the opportunity to speak to some of the members of the community
who I think are here this evening as well, so can stay ahead of the curve on a few issues that they've presented with this lot being built on. Great. Speaker 2: Great. Okay. Well why don't we turn you on and then you can tell us what you will and then we'll, we'll take on into Speaker 3: Consideration. Sure. First of all, thank you. Thank you to the board, great attendance this evening. Thank you for your, your volunteerism and staying active in the, in the community. What we have before you this evening is 25 Hillcrest Avenue. It is essentially in the triangle that is formed
by Route 27 South and Cottage Street. On the, on the south side of this lot is, is Edgewood Road, Elmwood rather. And on the east side of this lot, not directly is, is Cottage Street. So it's a, it's a great neighborhood and true to the name of the avenue, it is indeed a, a Hill Hillcrest Avenue. This is a nice piece of Natick history. One of the items that I have in our packet is the plan from 1911.
A gentleman from Connecticut of all places found his way to Natick in 1911 by the name of John Linsky, and he created what he called Edgewood Park. This is the Edgewood Park Edition, which he created 76 lots. He created the streets, Pinewood Hill Crest and Elmwood Ave. And and amongst those 76 lots, primarily they all have 50 feet of front. So obviously thinking back to 1911, there was, there was no zoning at that point in time
as developers would have it. He sold the lots that he could and he probably combined several of the lots and a hundred years later. This lot was, was not built upon the specifics of this lot. It's, it's a big lot. It's, it's 21,000 square feet, almost half an acre. It has 200 feet of frontage on the sides and unfortunately while we're here this evening, it only has a hundred feet of frontage on Hillcrest Avenue. It's an RSA zoning district, which which requires 110 feet of frontage.
So we're shy by 10 feet. The, the Hillcrest Ave. It is completed up until essentially this site and then down going towards Elmwood. It's what we refer to, I guess as a paper road, which is yet to be fully completed at this point in time. It runs the slope is, is fairly severe running from this lot down to Elmwood, which probably is why this lot was, was not easily sold by the developer and or built on in the past. The homes in this area are primarily single family.
I think there might be a couple multi-families on the east side on Cottage Street, but for the most part there are single family homes in the 2000 to, you know, 2,800 square foot. I'd say on average, the, the topography on this, like I said, it, it does go down severely towards Elmwood. The soil on the south side a lot, if you call it soil, is primarily ledge. So it is a, a tricky lot to build on, thus leading to some of the hardships
that the owner has faced. The, one of the other unusual things about this lot is that it's assessed at 427,300 as of, I think that's 2024, so it might even be slightly higher than that now. And there's a notation on the tax record card that it's potentially developable. So it's unfortunately the owner is experiencing a higher taxes due to being characterized as a buildable lot, however, not enjoying the benefit of being able to either build on it
or sell it as a buildable lot. Several of the nearby homes do have less than 110 feet of frontage just to go through them quickly. 23 Hillcrest Ave has 106 feet of frontage. That's the immediately abutting this property in 2018 is Zba granted a dimensional setback for a variance for an addition 22 Pine Road. Pinewood is 62 and a half feet of frontage. That was a 2019 construction
of a 2,760 square foot house. That's parcel 51 dash 23. I could not find a ZBA file on that. So I don't know if it was pre-existing non-conforming. Some of these H homes may have had structures on them. 24 Pinewood has a hundred feet of frontage. That's a 1998 construction of a 1,913 square foot house. Speaker 4: It's 110. Speaker 3: Which one's that? That's Speaker 4: 110. Speaker 3: Oh, it is it. Okay. So you built that as a Right. Speaker 4: I, they wouldn't let me build with 110 with the a hundred feet frontage.
I had to buy 10 feet of frontage. Speaker 3: Ah, okay. I stand correct to, so you about 10. So you've been, you've been, you've been before this problematic thing. Yep. So you should have sympathy for this. And then there's 53 Cottage Street, which I think they refer to as a lot, which has 93 feet of frontage and that's immediately to the east, directly across the paper road on 30 Hillcrest. That's parcel 51 dash 26. They do not have 110 feet of frontage. There was a single family home built on that, I believe somewhat. And it's, it's a little tricky. You'd have to speak to surveyors and
and engineers on how they actually calculate the frontage. Obviously this lot being just shy 10 feet, although having a severe down slope, depending on how you calculate that, you know, it might even be closer to, to 110 than what we think. And it might be even grated that way once they do some, some of the grading for the home. But that's 30 Hillcrest that's directly across the street. The idea here, here I, I know we're gonna face some pushback from the neighborhood, is that I think we can create a win-win out of this. And I've read through a very well written
document from the neighbors and some of their concerns. There was a development, I think on Grace Circle is what they're referring to, which was not done not that long ago within the last decade, which they perceived has created. And that was ledge has created some water issues in the area. I've done some work as of late for several developers over the last few years. By no means am I expert in water mitigation, except they've agreed to many things, including pavers instead of asphalt for the driveway, rain barrels at the end of each downspout. Collection areas on the property,
what they call rain gardens, which use indigenous grass and other plantings that really serve as sponges and soak up the water. Obviously maintaining any mature trees, which I know is a concern of some of the neighbors and having french drains utilized strategically. The idea being is to keep all or as much as possible of the water on the property, which I guess is the, is is preferably these days as opposed to simply routing it to storm drains.
If you can keep more water on the property, that's desirable. So we're willing to do that and incur those additional costs to do so. The proposed dwelling is a four bedroom, I believe two and a half or three and a half bathroom house, two car garage, approximately 3000 square feet, which will be fitting in with what's currently in the neighborhood. And just to really run through that, that's, that's about it on the, on the home itself. But there will be some grading from the north
to the south side that will be requisite. And like I said, we can be cooperative on not having full lawns necessarily, but maintaining the, the, the indigenous nature of it as much as as possible. Okay. I think that's about it really. Speaker 2: Alright, thanks very much. Okay, so let me ask you, as I look at this, are you not entitled to take advantage of the provisions under 48 section six? Speaker 3: We may be. I mean we, obviously the reason we're here is because we did apply for a building permit 48. Section six says if you have more than 50 feet of frontage
and more than 5,000 square feet, Speaker 2: Both of which you have Speaker 3: Correct. Both of which we have, and these lots were created in 1911. Well before the zoning, which I think in the town of Natick I wanna say was 1952 per se. Then as of right you, you do have a buildable lot there. So we exceed that. And my understanding too is with the Affordable Homes Act that was passed in conjunction with the ADUs and some other mechanisms that the state wants to create more housing that they've even done away
with some of the components regarding a merger of lots where that's no longer an issue. So that may be a, a fallback plan here if we don't receive a favorable vote this evening. Speaker 2: Okay. Well, do you guys have any questions? We find out what the neighbors think. Questions, thoughts? Okay, let's find out Speaker 5: Actually, are you proposing a merger of lots or is that just Speaker 3: No, but what it looks like is that we're all 50 by 100. And actually this, so this was in 1911, this was two lots, I think 54 and 55, which is now one lot has been taxed
and cheated as such for several decades now. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 2: Is that when you look at the, the subdivision plan? It's 54 and 55. Those are the two these ones? Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. So who el who would like to be heard on this project? Come on up. We'll just have you go to the podium and give you name and address for the record and then we will hear you on this project, right? Yes sir. Speaker 5: Do you mind speak? Speaker 2: Oh, right over here. Podium Speaker 5: There go. Alright, thank you. Speaker 2: Just your name and address for the record if Speaker 6: You would.
Alright, my name's Kim Vander be I have two houses, one on the opposite side of the building. Speaker 2: What's your address? Speaker 6: Which one? Speaker 2: The one you live in? Speaker 6: I live, I have two houses. Speaker 2: Do you live in both of them? Speaker 6: One, I rent this. Speaker 2: Which one do you live in? Speaker 6: I live on 24 Pinewood. Okay. Which is, Speaker 2: That's good enough. Speaker 6: Two houses around. Okay. Speaker 2: Away 24 Pinewood. Okay. Speaker 6: I also rent a house at 30 Hillcrest, which is across the street. Got Speaker 2: It. Speaker 6: To this now be I own also in
29, 20 17. I had a house on 22. My parents died. Sorry Speaker 2: To hear that. Speaker 6: And I had the house at 30 Hillcrest. Speaker 2: Alright, why don't you tell us, tell us what you think about this project. We just wanted to get you, Speaker 6: This is part of it. Okay. I had it divided by my surveyor and spent two two. So I had plenty of frontage for all three houses. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 6: But the town would not let me bill because they wanted me to put a
at the, it's a dead end. Dead end road basically. You guys Speaker 5: Like to see the planes talking about? Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. Thanks very much. Speaker 5: So this is a copy that I actually work for. I have a few, Speaker 6: The only way the town was gonna permit me to put three houses there was to put a turnabout. They wanted me to have a a put a driveway so you could turn, have an area to turn around so the police or the, the town could maybe snowplow go all the way down and turn
around without backing up. They Speaker 5: Went under, Speaker 6: So I wasn't basically, and the prices was like 200,000 I think put a turnabout and that's after I spent all the money to have it surveyed Right there. Speaker 5: Yes. Looks like. Speaker 6: So that's my, Speaker 2: Okay. So, yep. Do you have anything to say about this particular project? Yes. Okay. Let's hear it. Speaker 6: That because it, they're gonna put a turnaround about, Speaker 2: We don't, I don't, I don't know about that yet.
Speaker 6: Okay. That's, see that's my, that's the locus complaint. Oh, this is which Speaker 2: Is what? That's the loop Speaker 6: Allowing to have it turn into a building lot if I, if I couldn't do it. Speaker 2: Oh, okay. I got it. Did you, did you ask for a variance back then? Speaker 6: Yes, I I, same thing with my house. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 6: I live on 24. Okay. It only had a hundred, a hundred feet frontage. I asked for variance. They said no. Speaker 2: Did you come before the board? Speaker 6: I went to the board and it's, that's back in 9 99. Ah, Speaker 2: No. Good. Speaker 6: All right. They said no, can't do it.
Speaker 2: Each project we just take on their own merits. Right. Speaker 6: Yeah, I know. So I've been, I've been living in the same area for over 70 years. Okay. Speaker 2: All right. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you for your input. Appreciate it. Anybody else like to be heard? Yes sir. Just your name and address for the record if you would. Speaker 7: Dana Ross 45 Cottage Street. I abut directly behind this project. Yeah. And what Kim is talking about is that we did this plan back, I forget the date, Speaker 2: It's one you gave to us. Yes. Speaker 7: 2016 we submitted it to, to as an a and r plan. And it went before the talent engineer back
then was Mark Coviello. And he rejected it due to the road wasn't constructed in front of a lot. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 7: And you can see that the lot, one of the houses that they owned was passed where the road had stopped. So he was trying to do a lot between those two existing houses and Pinewood and it got rejected. And that's what he's talking about. They wanted to, I dunno if they wanted to turn, there was no room to do a turnaround. So that's what he's saying. End Speaker 4: Of the street. This is the driveway. Speaker 7: So there's no physical road built in front of this lot. Speaker 4: Right, right. Okay.
Speaker 2: But we're gonna find out about that then. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 2: Hard to get in and out if there was no road. No Speaker 7: The, yeah, the, the driveway stops before this lot even has frontage. Okay, Speaker 2: Well, we'll ask that question. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Anybody else wish to be heard? Yes sir. Speaker 4: I actually have more Speaker 8: Questions than kind Speaker 2: Of Okay, sure. No problem. If we get your name and address for the record. Speaker 8: Sure. Constantine Poway, 23 Hillcrest. Yes sir. So it was not quite clear for me from the plans how the lot will be accessed. Is it accessed through Hillcrest
or is it accessed through the Elmwood Street? Because if it's accessed through Hillcrest, my question is, how is the 20 plus foot elevation going to be addressed? Speaker 2: Alright, let's find that out. Let's, let's find that out right now. So where does the road stop as you, as you're coming from Hillcrest or Pinewood toward this lot down the hill, right? Is that you're going, you Speaker 4: Can see it on that plan where the driveway ends the, it's sketched in there at the end of 30 Hill Crest.
Same thing. You guys see it? Or you want, Speaker 2: Lemme just take a look here. Ly Speaker 4: It's plotted on there existing. It's right. There's a house 23 and it's actually just driveway that dash line. That's where the pavement is. Right on 23 access, Speaker 2: Right? This here, this Speaker 4: Line here? Yes. That's the end of the drop one. Pretty much. Yeah. One to one slope down and then flattens up right here a little bit. Yeah. It's pretty steep. Speaker 2: And this drive, this, this spot is, Speaker 4: There's no road at all built. How do you get
Speaker 2: Thank Speaker 4: You. Right Speaker 2: Here. Okay. So how do you get to the lot? Do you, do you, this is what we're this is what we're looking at here, right? What I'm, this is what they're telling me is as you come down Hillcrest and you get to about that spot right there, this road ends, right? So is it, would it be the, and this is the lot in question, right? So would it be the intention to, to pave this area here? Speaker 3: Correct. I think the easiest way, well it, you know, this gentleman referred to a 20 foot slope, but it would be the pave coming off of Hillcrest
and also where I believe where it's marked 29 number 29. I think that's coming off of Elmwood because we've had some discussions with TPW just about where to EAs most easily take utilities, you know, for Speaker 2: What, 29? Is there a house on 29? Speaker 3: No, Speaker 2: No house. What Speaker 4: Is 29? Speaker 3: I don't know why it's marked 29. That, that's the extens of Hillcrest. A is that, Speaker 4: Is that It's a private lot that's still owned by the original developer Linsky. It was never built on. And there is a driveway on it that
services the house next to it. 'cause they have no way to access their house. Speaker 2: The house on the, Speaker 4: Is it a private lot or a private way? It's a private lot. Speaker 9: Who owns Speaker 4: It? The town. The town I think took it because of, no, I don't think they took it. It's still listed as Linsky. Is the owner on the assess, did Speaker 10: The utilities run underneath it? Speaker 4: They utilities run my, my underneath Speaker 10: The town's utilities. Speaker 4: His, his Speaker 10: Accessing your house, Speaker 4: His store service runs under it, he says. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 9: And this is the little lot between 29 and 27 Speaker 4: Elmwood.
Yes. And my water goes uphill. I think the intent originally was the road was gonna go through. Yeah, I yeah, but that was a separate lot that was cut out on that lot plan. Speaker 2: Yeah. So I think what we're hearing is the intention would be to pave the area in front of the lot, but then would you also pave, would you be able to drive out onto Elmwood or Speaker 3: No, just to, I I don't know. The, the driveways for, for 30 and 23 Hillcrest aren't that far from where the entry and driveway to the present lot 25 would be.
Speaker 8: So, so one thing to note is where the driveways between 23 and 30 meet as soon as they meet, there's literally probably a close to 45 degree drop. It is gonna be difficult. I mean, unless you pave it out like in a circle, like you can, it's gonna be really tough to maintain an angle that's safe to say the Speaker 2: Leaves to go down and take a right into Speaker 8: This lot.
Yeah. Especially, especially during I'm I'm also concerned during the, the snow when they plow the snow, where, where's the, usually they put the snow at the end of that. Like where the driveways meet Speaker 2: Today. Speaker 8: Where does the snow plow actually leave the snow today? That's where they leave it today. Today, yeah. What the, the gentleman here is proposing is to build a road from there. So if the snowplow needs to go down 45 degrees to continue plowing it through, I'm just, it just, I'm just trying to understand logistically
how it's gonna work before we, so that's, that's, that's one second question is the utilities, but I think it got answered. The utilities are gonna go down onto Elmwood. So you'll be using gravity to, because if you are not using gravity, they need to install like a pump and pump it all the way up to top of Hillcrest Avenue, which the health inspector made me do with, which is the right way
of doing it with a backup pump. So, so that needs to be taken into consideration because this is probably over a hundred feet of pumping sewage up the hill. So that means are we, you know, opening up Hillcrest that, that end of Hillcrest to, to install? I'm just trying to understand that piece. Speaker 2: This is what, this is what the engineering division says. It's an empty lot. No water or sewer service presently extends to this lot. There are town water and sewer mains approximately 200 feet away prior
to submitting a building permit. The engineering division recommends the applicant and or their engineer meet with us to discuss utilities and how best to service this lot. All utility work should be performed by a Natick licensed excavator. Speaker 8: So that means they most likely talking about top of Hillcrest Avenue pumping sewage up the hill. Speaker 9: Essentially Speaker 2: It says, just says 200 feet away. I don't know if that's down the hill or they Speaker 10: Haven't decided yet. They're gonna Yeah, if this were to get Speaker 8: Approved, if if they're talking 2, 2, 200 feet, it's up the hill because Elmwood is
closer about Speaker 9: 200 feet away, David. It's 125 foot. That vacant lot we were talking about Speaker 2: Down the Speaker 9: Hills. It's 125 foot down to Elmwood. About half of the a hundred feet of this lot makes it about a hundred seventy five, two hundred Speaker 8: Feet. Okay, so we're talking about down, down downhill. Speaker 9: That's what I would, Speaker 4: It's 200 feet either Speaker 10: Way. Yeah, I would say engineering hasn't decided yet. I don't think they're saying if this gets approved, you gotta come to us and we gotta figure it out. Yes. I Speaker 4: Don't think they legally have rights to go on that lot. The Linsky law
Speaker 9: Is linsky live? Speaker 4: No, no. Speaker 9: Who actually owns Linsky? Not Speaker 4: It's still, it's still under, it's owned probably about a hundred family members. I went down, one of the sons lived in Connecticut. I went down and he's a lawyer and I asked trying to get permission Speaker 9: And do you need a right of way? So what's in some trail crest? It says private road. Speaker 4: He says go, go. Who owns, who owns Goldcrest? Speaker 8: It's a public, this, this Speaker 4: Is about 40 years ago now. Speaker 2: It says private way Speaker 8: Publix. It's Publix,
Speaker 4: It's, it just means it's not accepted. Speaker 2: Okay. Here, this is the board of the board of health here it says in order to connect to municipal sewer, an injector pump system may be required if an injector pump system is needed, plan shall be submitted to the board of health and installation shall be done in accordance with all applicable provisions of three 10 CMR 15 and the native board of health regulations chapter five. Speaker 8: So that means it's going to be pumping up Speaker 2: Like once again they said Yeah, Speaker 3: I'm not, so to that, not sure. Just to that point, we did some due diligence on this.
We've, we had several Natick licensed site individuals go to the site just to see if this was viable from a financial standpoint between the grading and, and what was necessary. There were pros and cons off coming off Hillcrest and Elmwood they looked at it from, and there's really no definitive answer, which would be preferable, but they did come up with some viable alternatives for us. So that's why we moved forward with this. But this, this obviously will lead to more conversations with port of health, DDPW and engineering as well.
Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 8: Okay. So clearly there's quite a bit of elevation there, there will be digging going on. Is they plan to build some sort of retaining wall? I am on the top of the hill. Is are they, is there gonna be earth moved from the hill? Just, was that discussed at all or is the house itself going to retain that, you know, that earth and, and, and ground through the foundation?
I mean that's, that's a difficult lot to build on, so I'm just, just wanna make sure. Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that, so if you're looking, Speaker 8: The side of my house is not sliding. Speaker 3: Yeah. If you look at the, at the, if you're looking at the house from the front, the, the right side being abutting, your, your home, the nice part about it is the two car garage, it will be created, there'll be a two car garage on the, on the left that's on side, left side, lower left side of the house. I do not see on the renderings. Do you know if there will be a retaining wall necessary? Un unlikely. I, I don't know for sure. Mm. But like I was saying, when we, we were speaking to the site, individuals we're wanna
create a win-win out of this. It wouldn't be a large retaining wall. And what they wanna do is create at the base of the retaining wall, the French drain, if you will, with a retention area at the end of it to keep all the water on this lot the way it is. I understand your concerns and I think let's say we go forward tonight, nothing ever occurs and it just sits there as a, as a lot. It'll probably continue just to degrade in some manner. Everyone hasn't years, everyone will push snow there, water will run through it, whatever. Right. So, and I understand it's a convenience for the neighborhood. I Speaker 8: Haven't Speaker 3: Start Yeah, I know. You know, I know Mr. Vande be, I was honored enough to know his folks.
This site, this site map here isn't making me feel any younger because the old pool, I used to swim in the old pool. So I know he went through some, you know, through some iterations of this. And this is, this is a great site map to give us some vision into it. I just think what you are pointing out is I think we can create, like I said earlier, just a win-win out of it. Okay. Instead of continuing to let it degrade, which you've gone through this process Speaker 8: As well, I want to make sure that it's stabilized. Sure. I do not want it to be dug out. And Speaker 3: I understand, I think, you know, whoever's gonna spend X dollars for this home probably wants to buy a stable home that we'll do some due diligence.
Okay. And in, you know, conjunction with our site folks. Speaker 8: Okay. And the, my last question is, plenty of mature trees on the lot create a lot of privacy for people. You taking it away by building there. What, what are the any plans? Because you are literally building Elmwood. Neighbors literally gonna be looking into the, you're gonna be on top of their backyards and, and with our house the second floor, I'm literally gonna be looking into their bedrooms based on the plan, which I doubt
that they will appreciate Normy or I Speaker 2: So is the question, is there gonna be some sort of landscape buffer? Is that what it is? Speaker 8: Yeah. So right now you come to this lot in July, you cannot see a house literally, I, pardon my French, I can walk out into my backyard Speaker 2: In whatever. Good enough. I think we, you know, I think Speaker 8: We get and, and, and nobody sees me, nobody from, you know, the entire neighborhood will be able to see me. Yeah. Now I have neighbors who are literally in front of me.
Well to the side of me, to the side. I literally will be like, I open my first first level windows and I'll be staring straight into their bedrooms. Their bedrooms are right. Facing the hills. Speaker 2: Yeah. And so you're looking for some sort of landscape buffer. Is that it? Yes. Speaker 8: Yeah. Yeah. Sure. It's, it's what do we think about? It's a huge, it's a huge benefit to have it, it's, it's an unbelievable lot to be able to Yeah, Speaker 2: That's, I mean Speaker 3: That's, you know, that's agreeable for the most part.
The home will be situated, I believe on the, the southwest corner of the lot. We can do a, I used to say Aber, but they don't like aber anymore. Something more indigenous that grows higher. And also, you know, we could do a, at least a one for one or not a two or a two for one. If what trees we do need to take down, we'll replace and like kind Speaker 8: There. There's some, so if you gonna be moving any of that earth, there's some much like big oak trees over there that need to be moved. So as long as, again, I am,
I'm not saying huge oak trees need to be planted, but just something that's at least blocks off the first level. So I don't have to usually they Speaker 2: Usually they, they plant evergreen. Some sort of evergreen. Speaker 8: Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Substantial canopy. And, and I hope you do it on the other side. I do not know if anybody from Elmo is here, but Elmo is probably even more so because they're gonna be in their backyards, you know, facing the wall of the garage while before that they were facing nice green, you know, greenery and Sure.
So it, it definitely from that perspective is very detrimental to the neighborhood. I think. I understand developers. I meant to make money though. We get it. But we have to consider also people who live there, so. Speaker 2: Okay. Thanks very much. Yep. Speaker 8: Appreciate it. That's Speaker 2: All. Thank you. Anybody else wish to be heard? Yes ma'am. Just your name and address for the record if you would. Hi, go ahead. Speaker 11: I'm Laura Barty. I live at 15 Hillcrest and my dad lives at 21 Hillcrest. So I've been there my entire life.
So just, I've seen a lot of building that has gone on over the years. I, that drop off that we talk about at the end of Hillcrest is definitely a lot higher than it used to be. We used to sled down there. So what's that application? Yeah, I just, I just wanted to point that out. Point that out in, in, in terms of 23 Hillcrest saying with the trees, I totally get it with the trees, believe me. But my dad who lives at 21 Hillcrest had to put up a fence because trees were taken down. So I just wanted to point that out. That's it. That's all I wanted to say. Thanks very
much. Thank you. Description. Speaker 2: Anybody else wish to be heard? Yes ma'am. If you could give your name and address for the record. Speaker 12: Sorry, Speaker 2: Take your time. Speaker 12: Had an unfortunate incident last week out front. Speaker 2: Oh, sorry. Speaker 12: Bus kneecap, broken wrist. Woo-hoo. Not skiing. Not skiing. Okay. Gail Western Roberts. 26th Western Avenue. So I know this is gonna seem like sort of a simple-minded question, but it's because I don't know how these surveys are conducted. What, what kind of examinations have been done on the property
to ascertain whether or not there were any natural springs or water flows within the ledges, underneath the property, or close by and by whom? Was it anyone within the town or was it a company that you hired? 'cause you know, the obvious thing being, as we know from the fracking disasters that have been happening in various parts of the country, I'm wondering what kind of water flow already exists beyond what whatever rainfall creates on the property and the properties nearby. Speaker 2: Do we have an answer to that question?
Speaker 3: We didn't, we didn't do any test or borings, if that's your question. Obviously our site people did walk the, walk the property and speak to the individuals at TPW in engineering and they have some, you know, a lot of schematics for the area. It is on top of a, a hill that's, that's a lot of ledge. So I I I can't imagine there's a spring up top there, but one never knows. But as they get into the site work, obviously that would be an issue problematic for the basement and whatnot of the home as they, as they get into building it.
Speaker 12: And the, and it how there is going to be blasting or not for the basement base of the house? Speaker 3: Not, no, there won't be blasting not, this isn't like a gray circle where it's a eight or 10, six or eight home, you know, large, large home subdivision. This is one. You know, and they'll, they'll use the existing topography to the best of their capability. Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you. And another question being, has a tree inventory been conducted on this lot and by whom? And has the conservation commission visited the site?
Have they had a look at the, the importance of the trees relative to, you know, the erosion issues when they're removed? Speaker 3: We're not at that stage just yet, so we haven't had anybody come from conservation come out. I don't, the preliminary permit that we told was denied by the building department, but we can request that they come out if you know, if necessary. Do Speaker 2: We have something come in the file? I think we do, yeah. Speaker 10: Yeah. Yes. Speaker 3: Is Eric, is there a ComCom letter in the folder Speaker 10: And a ComCom says that the project does trigger the storm water management
and erosion control bylaw, so we'll have to submit storm water. Correct. Plan, there's no tree bylaw in the town right now. So this, Speaker 12: Right. Speaker 3: Sorry, I've that in the separate compartment, Speaker 12: Stormwater, can you, can you give us a rough idea of what percentage of the existing trees are either going to be removed or compromised by the excavation? Speaker 3: Just wanted to do rough. I mean, I think the, the home's only gonna be in roughly 15. It's a 21,000 square foot lot. So the home's gonna be gonna be in 15 to 20% if you include the pavers for the, for the driveway.
So that area would be disturbed but not, you know, the exist other 75 to 80% of it. Speaker 12: Okay. So, so that, that estimate for ComCom hasn't taken place yet. Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean the storm water issue, that's, that's, that's different. I I don't consider that necessarily as intricate on identification of trees or run off. Speaker 12: Yeah. Oh, I, I did, I, I ask because I, I know from previous cases that when conservation commission has given permission to remove trees and then they insist on them being replaced, in some cases
they are weighing the value of the existing trees depending on what species they are and how large they are and, and so on. And obviously that's a wooded and very steep site. So I'm picturing a significant impact on the erosion down toward Elmwood at the very least. And so that's why I'm asking these questions. Thanks very much. Thank you. Speaker 2: Does anybody else wish to be heard? Okay. Seeing none, can I, yeah, one more time. Yep, please. So Speaker 7: My, my question is Speaker 2: Just, just so we have,
because it's all being taped, can just get your name again. Speaker 7: Okay. Dana Ross, 45 Carter Street. Thank you. So the plan that I showed you guys, sir, for the, for van Derby that we did, we were rejected because the road wasn't constructed. Right. So I don't understand if we had a conforming lot and we couldn't build on it, how can you give a permit to do a non-conforming lot and build on it when you, we weren't allowed to build on a, a conforming lot. So that's my question. Speaker 2: Know what happened? We, well we don't know what happened back then, but we'll see what happens now. It's different board. We
Speaker 10: Haven't given a permit. What's that? We haven't given them a permit to build. Speaker 7: Well you're, once you get the variance, they'll be able to get a permit. Speaker 2: If, if the, if the board did grant a variance, they would no longer need any zoning relief. They would still need to comply with the building code. ComCom engineering board of Health. That's, Speaker 7: I I yeah, I understand that. Yeah. So Speaker 2: That happens outside the purview of the board. Yeah. This is just the zoning issue that Speaker 7: Correct. Okay. Speaker 2: And so, I don't know, we don't know what's gonna happen. We're, that's what this hearing's about. Speaker 7: Yeah, I I I understand that. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 7: But I, I was just curious that if you couldn't build,
Speaker 2: I don't know what happened back then. This was in, what'd you say? In what year? Speaker 7: 17 Speaker 2: May, this is dated May 8th, 2016. I I just don't have any Well Speaker 7: It, it was, it was rejected though. Yeah. Because the road wasn't constructed. So I think that should carry some weight in. Speaker 2: These are, there's no presidential effect on the decisions that the board makes. So the board's not bound by decisions it's made in the past and the decisions that's made here does not necessarily reflect what'll occur on the next plan that comes before the board. Okay. There's, there's, there's no precedent. Alright.
Thank you. But appreciate the information. Thank you folks. What are we thinking here? Speaker 10: I don't, to me it doesn't seem like this is the avenue to approve and what's considered a non buildable lot. It doesn't meet the zoning for a, for a new home. In my mind, the variance mostly is for existing structures. It seems like a planning board issue to create, basically create Speaker 2: I think the lot's there. The lot's there, Speaker 10: Right. Not a conforming lot. Speaker 2: True. But the, but the lot exists,
so the planning board doesn't need to weigh in on it. At least that's the way I see it. And that's just my view of it. The lot exists. The planning board doesn't have any, any additional jurisdiction because of the lots there. But the, the project, I'm sorry, the request before us is, is essentially to wave the 10 feet of frontage that it lacks. The question is, does it meet the criteria for the grant of a variance? Speaker 13: I'm wondering whether they need a variance or whether they fall into the exemption under section six. Speaker 2: Well, that's another question. That's another question they Speaker 13: Might be entitled to bill by. Right. Speaker 2: Does that, is that a board of appeals issue?
Speaker 13: It's, it's, it's simply that bylaw does not apply to a lot that exists. That, that any change in the zoning bylaw after that lot came into existence would not apply and, and it can be built Speaker 14: On. So I have to confess ignorance here. When you first brought that clause up, you said it would, it would be a section six Speaker 2: Different, section six, just it falls under section six. That's Speaker 14: Where it's found, that's under section. So we don't have, would we have to issue a finding No. On that or is it, as you were saying? Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a diff the provision of 48 section six states as follow.
So just put it on the record. Any increase in area frontage width yard or depth requirements of zoning ordinance or bylaws shall not apply to a lot for singular two-family residential residential use, which at the time of recording or endorsement, whichever occurs sooner, was not held in common ownership with any adjoining land conformed to the then existing requirements and had less than the proposed requirement, but at least 5,000 square feet of area and 50 feet of frontage. Then any increase in area of frontage with yard or depth of a zoning ordinance or bylaw shall not apply. Okay. That's, that's, there's a zoning
freeze is the next section. So that section, and I don't, it's, it's unclear to me whether that you fall within the, the, the provisions of that, that section, that portion of section six such that the lot would in fact be considered buildable. I think that it would take an interpretation by, by the building commissioner, maybe by the law department. And if they, Speaker 10: That was saying it when, if it conformed to the zoning when it was created, Speaker 2: Which there wasn't, Speaker 10: There wasn't any zoning. Speaker 2: Right. Right. So it that's a hard, so it conformed I suppose. Right? It
Speaker 10: Was 'cause there was none. Speaker 2: Yeah. So, okay, well let, let, let's look, look at the petition before us and Speaker 9: I'm sorry David. One, one last question. Were these lots joined? Did I hear you say that Speaker 13: There were two smaller lots that joined to make 25? You saw it in the application. Speaker 14: Yeah. Speaker 9: Does that void that one paragraph? Speaker 10: No, this lot was was always this size or it was Speaker 9: Sounds like two Speaker 10: Joint Speaker 14: Together. It was two 50 is what you were saying, correct.
Speaker 3: In in, yeah. In June of 2011 Speaker 2: They were joined. Speaker 3: It was lots 54 and 55. Speaker 2: So this section may not apply rid Speaker 10: Of, Speaker 13: Didn't exist Speaker 2: Because it was prior to the zoning not held in common ownership with ajo, with adjoining land. In any case, I don't think we need to solve this portion of it tonight because that's not before us. The building commissioner sent it up and so we've got our job to do. You remain unconvinced. Correct. Wait, we need to assign, so do we have the one skip 2, 3, 4, 5.
Right. Speaker 14: My concerns have, have to do with nothing that has to do with this board. Meaning the, the access, the utilities, the, the, the steepness of the slope. Sure. If this were somewhere else and this kind of unique situation, we don't get to see many vacant vacant lots. Yeah. Or unbuilt lots. So it doesn't seem reasonable to not grant something. 'cause it's, it is just a 10 feet. 10 feet. And that means this lot can never be built
unless the zoning has changed without a variance. Speaker 2: Jason, Speaker 13: I'm trying to find something that relates to the soil conditions, shape or topography. Not merely the size. I'm not coming up with it, Speaker 2: Rob. Speaker 9: I'm in the same with Jason and I question why this wouldn't be our, the classic section six, but I guess we're not tearing down an existing Yeah, you don't existing structure. Speaker 2: You don't get the six six. Speaker 9: We're trying to build from brand new and therefore I got it. Speaker 13: There's no preexisting. So Yeah, Speaker 9: This isn't your classic soil topography.
Speaker 2: No, no, no. It is, it is your classic. I mean it's a variance. So we need to tie something associated with the lot to the hardship that's been created here. Speaker 13: I guess Mr. Chairman, I, you could say that the size is adequate, right? All that's lacking is 10 feet of frontage. Correct. So that may may speak to the shape of the lot Speaker 14: If it were shaped like Speaker 13: That. Right. So I I think reasonable mines could come down on either side. Speaker 2: 21,000 square feet of land at a hundred feet of frontage. I, I think it is unique in Boston. I remember an argument that was, that was valid at the time.
I believe it still is that if you're being taxed as a buildable lot, it, it, it's, it almost works a taking to, to tax you as a billable lot but then not allow you to build, I mean I think it does say something that it's being taxed as a 400 something 400 and something thousand dollars lot. That's, that's unbuildable. Which makes it that essentially worthless. No. Okay. So Speaker 14: And this is different than say the, and I know the owner of 23 is here and they're not cleaving off this
site from 23, for example. And then creating a non-conforming lot. This is a non-conforming lot that has, well it was two non-con, very non-conforming lots up until 2011. You said when the lots were combined? Speaker 3: Oh no. That, that was referring to the 1911 original Speaker 14: Subdivision. Oh, 19. 19. So they were, they were combined in 1911. Speaker 3: That was when the whole subdivision was created. And it was lots 54 and 55 that each had 50 feet of frontage. Speaker 10: And when were they combined into one? They Speaker 14: Combined in this, Speaker 3: I do not know off the top of my head. Speaker 14: I don't believe they are combined.
When when are they, when were they under common? Speaker 4: In, in the sixties. Because my lot was three and combined on 30 Hillcrest. Speaker 14: But, but my point remains is they, they want it is not a, it's, it's not a newly con, newly created non-conforming lot formed for the creation of a, of a development of a house. It's Speaker 2: An existing lot. Speaker 14: An existing lot that's been there since before the zoning came in. And Speaker 10: There's site plan's calling it lots 54 and 55 still referring of it as two lots.
So you're trying to combine two lots to get one buildable lot that still doesn't quite get you the frontage it sounds like to me. Speaker 2: For purposes of zoning, they would've merged Right? Speaker 14: They Speaker 13: Come into common ownership. Speaker 14: GIS it's combined as one. Speaker 13: If they were held separate and separate ownership, they would be treated separately under zoning. But once they are both owned by the same person, Speaker 10: They're combined merged already. Speaker 2: Yeah, they're they're merged for for purposes of zoning. They're merged Yeah. When they come into common ownership. Okay, well we gotta move it off the Schneider somehow. I just, so if Speaker 9: We take the argument for a second that says, you know,
it's the shape, it's conformed in all areas except for frontage and that's because it happens to be a weird shape. What prevents every lot? That's largely conformant except for one dimension from being, all right, well let's buildable, you know, aren't we opening up Pandora's box? Speaker 2: Well, we don't have, there's no precedent. But Speaker 10: But still it's the, if it's, if it's a lot that's close, but it's not built, like to me that's not a buildable. Lot of it doesn't meet the zoning requirements
when there's already a house there. We, you know, we make all these concessions. Well Speaker 13: That's the difference between a section six finding a variance. Yeah. Speaker 10: Right. Yeah. If this, if there was a house there, even a little crummy house, it would, that's a preexisting would be outta here at no time. Yeah. Speaker 13: This is not that, this is not a pre-existing, Speaker 2: If the lot looked like that, this is a Speaker 14: Preexisting non-conformity. This Speaker 9: Pertains Speaker 14: To just not to a structure. Speaker 2: If that, if the lot looked like that, Speaker 13: That's what section six applies to Structures Speaker 10: Basis. Yes. Speaker 2: Yes. Structure. The lot looked like that. We, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Right. Because there's a clear causal link
between the shape, the lack of frontage. Right. An existing LT that looked like that we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be the paradigm. Right? Speaker 10: Yeah. Speaker 2: So what is it about how, how can, how can we tie, how, how can we find the causal link here? This is what we do. We, we, we, we, we see if we can fashion something here where it seems to make some sense. Speaker 13: I think it's a uniquely shaped lot that has adequate frontage and meets all the other
requirements of the zoning bylaw. But for 10 feet of frontage because of the shape, which is unique to that lot and not common throughout the neighborhood. I could Speaker 10: The rectangular shape. Well the fact that it's got perfectly rectangular. Speaker 14: Yeah. And, and, but, but I guess whether the lot shaped like this or like this is the reason, that's the shape. That's the shape. But it's also the reason there's no frontage. The fact that it's rectangular or trapezoidal is almost irrelevant. And that's as much a question as a statement.
I'm willing to concede, Speaker 13: Well let me read section 10 again, a little bit of it. Where the special public grading authority specifically finds that owing to circumstances relating to the soil condition, shape, or topography of such land or structures, especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it's located. A literal enforcement would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. Speaker 14: And a literal enforcement, the substantial hardship is you now have, Speaker 13: You've been paying taxes on a $450,000 lot. That's now not, Speaker 9: That's, that's a problem that unfortunately they should have attacked years ago.
Speaker 10: I feel like you, we could, they should fix the tax issue, not the, we can build a house on it. Speaker 2: What's what, what were you saying about the road? Speaker 14: Me? Yeah. About, but it doesn't seem to be much access here, but that's not our purview. Right, Speaker 2: Right. Oh, I see, I see what you're saying. Speaker 14: And what 29 Speaker 9: They Speaker 14: Would potentially develop Yeah. Going to Elmwood. But the status of that is unclear as, as to what that is and you know, the sewer
and the ledge. I i I do agree that there's engineering ways to mitigate the, the groundwater and flooding and storm and stabilize this stuff. That stuff doesn't necessarily, doesn't concern me from a zoning standpoint. I, I know it can be dealt with, but it's the access and be a roadway and stuff like that and, and how to, how to deal with that Speaker 9: And the intention of topography, shape soil. The real intent of that clause is the siting
of the structure on the lot might force you into, you know, into a setback. The picture draw that you otherwise draw wouldn't've been forced into if there wasn't a little small mountain sitting in your middle of your lot. Speaker 2: Mike Scotty. Speaker 9: Yeah. What Speaker 10: Did he say? I said the picture that Dave always draws on the wall. Here's the ledge, therefore we're gonna move the house forward. That a variance for the front yard setback. Speaker 9: Not that Exactly. That's the intention. A non shape. The shape is like David said, it's sort of like a piece of a pie. Speaker 2: So what, what, which forces you, what's the conclusion? What, what, what's your statement?
What's the, what are we to take from that? Speaker 9: That this isn't a real shape situation, which is forcing the sighting of the structure on the lot to be in violation. Speaker 14: But it kinda, I mean it's the shape, the the shape and the frontage is affecting whether it's a buildable lot which affects whether there is a structure or not. That's right. And I don't think it was ever the intention that a 21,000 square foot lot with a hundred square, a hundred linear feet of frontage, even though it's 110 foot zoning district is,
was ever intended to be an unbuildable lot. It wasn't combined. Again, I have no idea what they, which is why it brought it up. They're not ccle if if the owner of 23 was trying to clean this off from Yeah. 20 to, to have a buildable lie. Yeah. Speaker 2: Then that would be like a self-created hardship. Yeah. Speaker 14: Self-created hardship. And this, this, we would've been done 55 minutes ago. That's not the case here. Speaker 2: The reason this conversation is still occurring is like what I think we know Jason's going what? The way Jason's going, I think I can get there. Sounds like Jeff could get there. Mike will not go there.
So Rob, you're like the, you're linchpin. You're well. And, and and we're tipping our hand here. No, I got it. Which is what we do. So do you want to tip your hand here and clue these folks into your thought process and then we can make some moves after that? Speaker 14: And Rob said, and I, this might influence Rob a little bit or not. This has to go through a lot of other Yes. Boards that we're gonna make sure there's access. It's gotta go through town engineering.
The road has to to to meet. It's gotta meet building code. It's gotta be stabilized. It's got the soil and erosion and water. This is whether 10 feet of frontage makes a difference. And if that's all I'm looking at, I think that's, Speaker 2: You can get there. Speaker 9: It is harsh to hold this development back for 10 feet, which is otherwise a very sizable lot. I get it. Speaker 2: Is that all we're gonna hear? Speaker 9: That's it. The other side of me says we got a bylaw.
Yeah. Pretty clear says you need 110 feet. You know, Speaker 14: But again, if there were, if there were a shed with a bed in it, Speaker 10: If this would be or if it had 110 feet Yeah, it would be great. Doesn't it would be Speaker 9: Fine. It would be, Speaker 10: And I know we're not a precedent setting board, but you know, it is opening up creating a new lot. I I know you're not calling it a new lot, but, but a build a new buildable lot on anything that's, there's a bunch of places that aren't quite buildable. You know, Speaker 2: I don't think that's true though. Who knows? I mean, there, there are, we've seen them. We've, we've come before us. Speaker 13: I, I would point out, Speaker 10: I want hear
what the building inspector, what his general thoughts were. Speaker 2: It doesn't matter. No. Do you know Speaker 10: Peg might, Speaker 15: This property has been before the building commissioner more than once by different applicants, by different attorneys. And his conclusion is in his letter, it's a non buildable lot and it has been a non-billable lot since the beginning of time. Speaker 2: Right. It's a non buildable lot without the grant of a variance. Oh, variance. That's what they're doing here. Which kind of speaks to the did you purchase this? Not, yeah. Whoa. It doesn't, that's not relevant.
That's all it goes to hardship. No, no, no. Okay. Not relevant. Speaker 10: Sure. If he did as a Speaker 2: Contingency, Speaker 13: I think I was gonna want, I wanted to speak to Mike's point though when he said that there's probably a bunch of other lots around town that just marginally don't qualify under zoning for buildable lot. But if you look at the language in section 10, it talks about the shape of the topography and the soil conditions. Def it does not mention area. So you can't grant the variance because a lot is too small according to this, my interpretation. So it has to have the area and then it just becomes a matter of the shape of the lot,
which I interpret as furnish all of dimensional ones. Yeah. Yeah. So I don't think anybody should be afraid that all these little tiny lots are gonna get built on under a variance liver parcel. Speaker 2: It's almost a surveying area. Speaker 13: It's gotta have the area first. And then I I was gonna say this too, for the applicant, at least, you know, they've got a second swing at the, at, at the ball here because they could try and prove up the case that it existed before the current zoning by law it was not held in common ownership and it had 50 feet plus 5,000. You could make that argument. I don't know if it's to the zoning board or building commissioner or land court,
but I think you also could have a second bite at the apple at that if we choose not to approve a variance. Speaker 2: Anybody have anything more? No. Well, let's hear Speaker 13: It. Do they wanna vote? Speaker 2: Wanna vote? Okay. Do I, Speaker 13: Does it give 'em a two year freeze out or Speaker 2: On the project That's before us. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 13: And we don't really have, we haven't talked about any conditions or, or anything else. Speaker 2: True. So you want to, you were, you were taking good notes. Speaker 13: I generally that there were concerns about no blasting,
there was concerns about how many trees to be removed and how many to be replaced. Providing a vegetative screen between your property and some of the abutters and to take care of all the other concerns from all the other town departments with drainage and runoff and engineering with utilities, board of health with groundwater. I think those were pretty well laid out in the letters from the, in the letters town Speaker 2: Departments. Yep. Yep. Speaker 14: And was the groundwater laid out pretty clear?
I mean, you mentioned the applicant mentioned, you know, rain gardens and everything and that's not, I don't think what we're looking at, I think we're looking at Speaker 2: I think that's gonna be a a, a board of health or Speaker 14: Con unit Or, Speaker 2: Or or Speaker 13: With the stormwater permit. Speaker 2: Yeah. Or both of them. Speaker 14: And how, how does provision of the road on a private way get dealt with, Speaker 10: I mean we're about to approve a non buildable lot with no roads, with no road to it. Speaker 14: Which is why that's, that's, Speaker 10: Yeah, that's why I'm not gonna approve it.
But Speaker 13: I think the building commissioner has done, I've seen it in my neighborhood where if you've got frontage on a paper street, the building commissioner before he gives a building permit, will require you to upgrade the road. So it is passable by emergency vehicles to provide Which, which Speaker 2: Is real, which is what I, I assume is the, is the way, I mean, just 'cause the Paper Street doesn't mean you own to the center line of the way Right. Under the derelict fee statute, by Speaker 14: Way Hillcrest is private. Speaker 3: No, I don't know why that notation. Yes, Speaker 14: It is private. Speaker 3: It's pri it hasn't been accepted, but it's not a private road in the, in the sense hasn't been accepted by the town, shall we say
Speaker 14: It's a public way that has not been accepted by the town. Correct. Which is a little different. It's not accepted public way. Okay. So the, so the town does have jurisdiction go, what happens on that street? Speaker 2: I assume so, yes. Otherwise, how do you get to, Speaker 3: There's drainage, utilities, easements, hydrants, schematics. Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, engineering would've told us, right? Speaker 3: They use Alinsky's property perhaps for decades. Speaker 13: It was a private road. They wouldn't have frontage no front correct. Private road Speaker 14: That was zero frontage, not a hundred feet.
Speaker 13: All the roads in my neighborhood and evergreen are public unaccepted. Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 14: And it's one year one year to exercise, right? Speaker 3: Yes. No, no, Speaker 2: No. That's, that's to put the first nail in the, in the, in the, but it's if you, if you're denied and you're locked out for two years on that same project, Speaker 9: No, this says if the rights authorized by a variance IE gets approved are not exercised within one year of the date of grant of such variance tonight, such rights shall lapse.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, that's not that different provision Speaker 9: Is a discussion is written application. Okay. Speaker 2: That was a diff that the issue that, that Jason was raising is if you get denied. Yeah, yeah. Speaker 9: I'm saying he'd have to resolve all these road. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Anybody have any other questions? All right, well, we'll close the public hearing and then we'll hear some music. Alright, let's, Jason, you wanna see if you can fashion something? Speaker 13: I can try to fashion something. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 13: I would move that we approve the project and,
and approve the variance based on our finding that this, let's see, owing to circumstances relating to the shape of this lot, and especially affecting this lot, but not generally affecting the zoning district in which it is located and by shape, I'm referring to the fact that it meets the minimum required area, but is short of the required frontage by 10 feet, which I attribute to the layout and the shape of the lot. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial
hardship, financial or otherwise. And those hardships being that this lot could never be built on, given also the fact that someone's been paying taxes on an assessed value of over $400,000. And so you've gotten some investment backed expectations there to the petitioner or the appellant. And that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially delegating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or bylaw. I believe that it could be built without nullifying or substantially deg from the intent of the bylaw
because it does have quite a bit more frontage than a minimum, I'm sorry, more area than the minimum required. It's in a residential area. The plans look well designed. I believe that the town departments, if they were to issue a permit, would enforce appropriate rules for the construction regarding drainage screening utilities, so that it could be done tastefully and without detriment to the neighborhood. So I would approve the variance also with additional conditions, including any of the requirements from the town departments,
which has been in letters to the board tonight, and that the applicant would work with the neighborhood and the abutters regarding preserving trees to the maximum extent practicable and replacing any removed, to the extent practical to create an appropriate screen between the proposed and the existing houses in the neighborhood. Speaker 2: Second, Jeff. Okay. All those in favor? 1, 2, 3. Does not pass. You need four. Speaker 5: Didn't we have I have my
Speaker 2: Hand up. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. I apologize to me. I I didn't see your hand. The half part. It was low. It was low. Okay. One more time for the record. All those in favor, Mike is down four up. It does pass. Good luck. Speaker 5: Thank you for your time. Speaker 2: Thank you. Appreciate. The next matter is public hearing for 19 Longfellow wrote an application for Grant goo for a finding per mass general law, chapter 40 a section six, and then it's zoning bylaws, section four B and five A. The applicant proposes to construct an addition, an addition
to the, or on the, in addition, the, on the pre-existing non-conforming audit is shown on the plan submitted 19 Longfellow. Hello. Speaker 16: Hello. Good evening. Speaker 2: How are you? Speaker 16: Great. Speaker 2: Okay, let me just take a look at this for a second. Speaker 5: So we asked last month and we tested updated plans. Speaker 2: Oh, oh, okay. Regard the Speaker 5: Height Speaker 2: Of Oh, oh, thank you for that. You Speaker 5: Have updated plans beginning of Speaker 2: That. Okay, great. That's great. Okay, here Speaker 5: Last time. Speaker 2: Okay, so rob's out and we'll put re in.
And this is frontage, correct? That's it. Am I right? Am Speaker 16: Right. Yeah. The 65 fees, the frontage, yeah. So Speaker 2: That's the only thing that's non-conforming Speaker 16: And the front setback, Speaker 2: Oh, sorry. Let's see. Front yard 30 27 change. No. Okay. It's current nonconforming. Yeah. Okay. Alright. So our question was height. And you now have that indicated on the plans, Speaker 16: Right? So the height's gonna be 26 feet, Speaker 2: Right? But remember the, the question was the, the calculation
'cause of the, the, the spot grades we talked about around the building, right? Remember this? Yes. Is that now on here? Speaker 16: The gray's on the, let's see here. This should be on the site plan. Speaker 2: Does anybody see him? So just while they're looking for that, I'll just drop the Speaker 5: Picture here. Speaker 1: This is the, the lot, right? Speaker 5: And Speaker 1: This is the lot. This is the house. So the lot slopes away this direction, right? So if the elevation is, you know, here it's 10 here, it's eight here, it's six.
Then you just take these all and add 'em up, right? Ten eight, that's 26, 32 divided by four. It's eight is the average, right? So now we know when we measure on this building from the bottom to the top of the, this is the, now we've established average grade plane at eight. Here's the house, right? We to the highest point on the, on the peak, that's the distance right? Elevation eight to elevation X. So Speaker 2: Is that on the plans now? That's that's what we, that's what we asked
for the last time you were here, if I'm not mistaken. Correct. Speaker 16: Actually, the board was asking for the elevation drawing last time. It looks like the, the surveyor didn't include the spot elevations on the side plan. However, the, the proposed building height is 26 feet and it's substantially less land that required the, the maximum lot, which is 35 feet. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 16: So, Speaker 2: So let's see now we're, we're we're seeing the house though. Okay, so maybe that was the issue, right?
Just to see what we were, look what was built as opposed to specifically the height issue. Speaker 5: The last two pages, the elevations with no que Speaker 2: Inches. Yeah. Yeah, Speaker 5: That's a it you Speaker 2: See I don't see a talk. It's a topo on here. I know that name. I see him anyway. Speaker 5: No, the, we has the elevations but no dimensions. No, that's what they're saying. Yeah. Speaker 2: Oh, here we go. Speaker 5: This, no,
Speaker 2: There's no Speaker 5: Architectural. Speaker 2: The site plan doesn't have any, any grades on it at all. Is it a flat lot? It's flat. It's flat. It's Speaker 5: Flat. Flat Speaker 2: Lot. Anybody here to talk about this project at 19 Longfellow? Nobody. Okay. Okay. Well, whatever the grade is, you're gonna be stuck at the number you've given us, right? Yeah. From the average grade 26 feet to the highest point on the, of the peak. That's gonna be your, your height, Speaker 5: Right? Yep. Speaker 2: So it's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Can you guys, can we accept that for this on a flat lot?
On a, on a building that's substantially lower than the other than the, than the height requirement? Absolutely. Yeah. Speaker 13: Yeah, I Speaker 2: Think so. Good? Yep. Okay. Speaker 13: They're stuck with 26, if that's Speaker 2: What we tell. 26 it's, yeah. Okay. Alright, go ahead. Just Speaker 13: Put in there no grade changes. Yeah. Also, Speaker 2: Yeah. You're not changing the grade. No, we're not. Speaker 13: I move that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting non-conforming use and structure provided full and substantial conformance of the plan submitted and any requirements from the town departments who submitted letters to the board tonight.
Noting specifically that the maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed 26 feet from the average grade plane surrounding the lot. And that there will be no changes to the grade of the lot during construction. Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Second? Second. Alright, all those in favor? You're all set. Thank you. Thank you. The next matter is 19 Harwood Road and application for new generation custom homes for a finding for MGL chapter 48, session six, NA zoning bylaws four B and five A.
The applicant proposes to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the previous nonconforming law is shown on the plan. Submitted. Hi there. Good evening. How are you? I'm very good. Good. Okay, let's just take a peek here for a second. Alright. So you're shy on area. Shy on frontage. The depth is good. The front's good. Side's good. Other side? Good rear. Good coverage? Good height. Good.
Okay, so this is the one, the front and the area, right? Speaker 5: Correct. Speaker 2: Alright, can we just get your name for the record? Speaker 17: Sure. Attorney Vin O'Brien. Speaker 2: Okay counsel. Alright, so why don't you, you do your thing and then we will ask questions. Yeah, Speaker 17: We, we provided to the board the existing conditions and the final proposed site plan. We also provided the construction drawings, the existing grades about 1 75. Our finished grades gonna be about 1 75 0.5. Our building height from finished grade will be 33 feet, three and a quarter inches.
And as you mentioned we're the required areas. 15,000, we're at 10,890, the frontage is 110 and we're at 105.55 and we meet all the other setback requirements. Speaker 2: Alright, so requesting Speaker 17: Relief on the 48 section six. Speaker 2: Okay, let's find out. We're here to, you're with this project. Okay? Okay. Any, would you like to be heard? Speaker 10: Oh, you're looking at me? Speaker 2: Yeah, you're the only one left. Yeah, it's true. Okay, so nobody wishes to be heard. Alright, let, let's just take a look at the letters here.
Do we have any, I see it looks like you have a retention basin in the back there. Speaker 17: Yes. Speaker 2: A recharge area. Yep. Okay. Alright. It's about as vanilla as they get and Speaker 10: Good set of plans. Speaker 17: Thank you. You Speaker 10: Know, clear plot plan, all the info, you get that Speaker 17: To your point. Height Speaker 2: Calculation. Speaker 10: Height calculation on Speaker 2: The plan. Topography. Speaker 10: Topography. So at least we Speaker 2: Know what we're exemplary. Speaker 17: You tell my wife Speaker 2: Exemplary Speaker 13: A plus, Speaker 10: A plus. We know what we're looking at, which is recess, which very helpful.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Makes our job easier. Okay, so we'll close the public hearing. Jason, oh wait a minute. So it's this time, it's Alan and it's gonna be on this one. So it goes Jeff, skip down. Oh no, I'm sorry, I apologize. Wait a minute. Wait, wait, hold on. Did I already do that? No, that wasn't the last one, right? I did the last one. Yeah, but why did we do that? Rob Speaker 10: Was out. Just Speaker 2: Rob's here. I was not here. Oh, he was out previous. He's gotta stay in then under the rules. So, sorry. Rob, you're back in. It goes. Jeff.
Mike, me, Jason, Rob. Okay, sorry, sorry. It's a little housekeeping. Jason. Speaker 13: Jason moves that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the previous non-conforming use and structure provided. It's filled substantially conformance with the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submitted letters to the board tonight and Speaker 2: Second Ike. All those in favor? You're Speaker 17: All set. Thank you everybody. Good luck. Have Speaker 2: A good evening. You too. Now do we have business with you? Maybe not. I, no, thank you. Have a good night. Don't apologize.
Thank you. Good luck. Seven 15 pound the over. That's what I was saying the whole night. No, we didn't get there, huh? No. I should have known a variance. That's motion to adjourn. That was a bush lead. I'll move to Ajour second, Alan. All those in favor? Adjournment? Yep. Good. Aye.