Speaker 1: We get started, we have a public speech section of meeting where any individual may raise an issue. Mic is off. Any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda, and it'll be taken under advisement by the board. There'll 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 over five minutes. Does anybody have anything that is not on the agenda that I'd like to discuss today? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and get started.
The first is a continued public hearing for 16 Westfield Road for Hank Yin for a finding for Mass General Law, chapter 40 a section six, and the ex zoning bylaw section four B and five A, Speaker 2: I think it was on, and you might just have to pull it closer side of that. Speaker 3: Okay. Sorry. There we go. One more time. Thank you. The applicant proposes to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting nonconforming lot as shown on the plan submitted. And on this one we're gonna have Jason, Ari,
Allen, and Andy. Okay. It's a, it's only, there's only four members. So is anybody here on 16 Westfield, come on up. So you have, there's four members voting, because we didn't have five members at the prior hearings, even though I, I was present, I didn't file a Mullen's affidavit. So you have four members. Okay. Speaker 4: And you still haven't filed one? Speaker 3: Apparently I can't, it would have to be filed prior with the clerk's office prior to the commencement of this hearing. Although I, I'm not, I'm unfamiliar specifically with
that procedural rule, but that's what I've been advised. If you know, otherwise I'm here. Happy to hear it. Speaker 4: I mean, they typically are filed ahead of time. I just, my understanding is you'd only missed the one. I guess my question is, you've only missed the one hearing, correct. So you would be eligible to file a Speaker 3: Mullen? I think I might have missed two. Oh, missed two. That's the problem. Speaker 4: Okay. Not what I had understood coming in. So give one second just to con, so Speaker 5: Oh yeah, just to, just wanted to check point of order. Are we going to rehear as if we didn't, excuse me,
as if the voting members did not already vote on this last time Speaker 3: It didn't go to a vote or did All we did was continue. Speaker 5: No, that was the other one. Speaker 6: It went to a vote. Yes. And then procedurally it was determined that it was not correct. Speaker 5: So we're just curing a faulty vote, aren't we? As opposed to rehearing? Speaker 3: I, I, I'm not sure exactly what we're doing, to be honest with you. That's a thanks for, for raising it. But So last, were you here last week? Speaker 4: I was not. Yeah. Speaker 3: So last week apparently I voted I, what was the vote?
I I know it was a denial, correct? Speaker 7: Yes. Speaker 3: Yes. And, and what, what, but what was the nu what were the numbers? It was five voting members. And it was what? Speaker 7: It was 2, 3 0, 2 Speaker 3: In favor? Three opposed? Zero abstaining. Correct. Okay. So now you're, now you're down to four. I was a no. So that's probably a good thing as it turns out that I'm not gonna be voting, but you need to carry now three of the four.
And so I think the, probably procedurally, and since we haven't done this before, we're gonna figure it out together, is reopen the hearing. And then since the four voting members have been here, Jason, Ari, Alan, and Andy, we don't need to start from scratch. We we're, we, we'll let you start, right? And then questions from the board, questions from the assembled, and then we'll have another vote. Unless someone thinks that's not the way to go. Speaker 8: That's, I think that's right.
I think the vote both vote to close the hearing and vote to approve or deny. Were both invalid. So neither one of them Speaker 3: Would be in court. So to the extent we may be overthinking things, but why don't we vote to reopen it. So motion to reopen. Vote Speaker 8: To reopen the hearing. Speaker 3: Second. Second. I'm not voting, but all those in favor of reopening the hearing. So that's the four voting. Speaker 8: Mari, Ellen, and Andy? Yeah. Speaker 3: Okay. So it's open. And now why don't we let you go? Speaker 4: Sure. Thank you. Good evening. Mr.
Chairman, members of the board, Brian Grossman, attorney Mr. Frank Scott on behalf of the applicant. With me is Hank Yin, the manager of Gold Springs, LLC. Who's the, the applicant. Just so procedurally I understand that there's no, and, and this comports with my, what I've watched, there's no other eligible member to, to step in and vote. Right. There's just the four who have been to every hearing. That's what I thought. Okay. Which was different. I thought there was a fifth. So lemme just, if, if I can just take one second and consult with him. Explain, we'll, exactly what you were explaining. We'll Speaker 3: Just double check it on our end. Gail wasn't a member of the board at the time, right? Right.
Speaker 4: So Speaker 3: Andy's on, Jeff was s Rob was s I'm an idiot. And that's everybody, right? Speaker 9: Yep. Yes. Was here and I was here. Speaker 3: That's right. Speaker 9: I missed two months in a row. This was last month. Speaker 4: All right, we're ready to proceed. Good enough. Thank you. I'm Speaker 9: Sorry, can you repeat your Speaker 4: Name for me? Sure. Brian. B-R-I-A-N Grossman, G-R-O-S-S-M-A-N. Speaker 3: Okay, so let, let me, let me give you the setup for a second. Like I normally would, I know you watched it and this may or may not have occurred. The last one, the lot's too small
by 3,500 some odd square feet. You got plenty of frontage, you got depth, you got your front yard looks good, your side yard looks good. Your other side yard is good. Is there no rear in this? Is that No, there has to be a rear, right? Is that the corner lot? It's just lot the corner. Oh, front and two sides. Is that what we're doing? No, rear. Okay, so it should be two fronts, two sides. Right, right, Speaker 4: Right. Speaker 3: So I see one front, I'm just looking at the chart. I know we did this, but here we go again. Speaker 4: So to the, to help you to the northern side.
Speaker 3: Yep. Speaker 4: Is 13.3 feet into the eastern side is 21.5 feet. Speaker 3: Okay. So the side yard setback east is actually front. Right. Alright. And then no rear the coverage is within, the height is within floor area. It doesn't matter. Okay. So this is, this is just, this is lot size. You're, you're under by 30 a hundred square feet. And as I recall the discussion was, it's just a lot of house for the lot. That's where we started. So that's where we ended. And now you're back on. So
Speaker 4: Thank you again, Brian Grossman on behalf of the applicant. I, I know there have been multiple hearings. This is my first time stepping in, so I'm gonna try and keep it short and just cover a few of the high points that in discussing things with Hank, I wanna make sure that the applicant has called to the board's attention in terms of compliance, in terms of some of the, the issues that go toward the standard of not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. But I know my understanding is one of the things as well was asking the applicant to reach out to the neighbors. And Hank has done that. He's made a lot of effort to talk to and work with, with neighbors
and address the concerns to the extent he can. As you noted, the lot is in odd shape, it's somewhat shallow, kind of forces some things wider than, than narrower, which would be something you might ordinarily do to kind of try and tailor the building a little bit. Ian. So we, we've tried to, to work with the neighbors. He's talked to five or six of them. You've gotten feedback from some of them by email. I've noted that, that he's reached out, he's, he's done what he can to try and address things. One of the things obviously is trying to preserve the, the amount of vegetation on site to the extent possible.
And the other thing is working with the architects and, and they've done what they can, again, the, the original application was significantly larger. They received the feedback from the board to reduce size. They've done that to the extent feasible while still, you know, making it economically work and projects need to pencil right. There's acquisition costs, there's construction costs, tariffs, and a lot of uncertainty in the market. So all those things play together. The architects unfortunately can't be present tonight. The replacement ones away won the replacement at a surgery
unexpected on Thursday. So I'll talk to the architecture as best I can after talking with them about it. But certainly they're, they're the professional. I did talk to them significantly and I've been through the neighborhood and familiar with Natick as well. We do have a slide presentation that was, that was uploaded shows just a number of examples of, of houses in the neighborhood. And one of the things in talking with the architect and my own observations is the neighborhood really has no predominant style. The architect can can copy. It's not, you know, all English tutors, it's not all colonials, it's not all something you just kind of match. There's a variety of homes, a variety
of architectures in the neighborhood, both on Westfield and the surrounding areas. Mix of heights from single stories to one and a half to two stories. There's colonials, there's split levels, some have door doors, some have window, you know, window treatments with shingles, some don't. Wide variety of mix of materials from siding to wood to brick to homes that use a mix of the, of multiple materials, including siding and brick. So they've, the architects tried to propose homes that are overall generally consistent with the scale and proportion of the neighborhood speaking with the architects.
And certain they're more their domain than mine. They see it as, as aligning with kind of what they call the eclectic non-uniform character of, of the neighborhood. We took a look at a number of things to, to try and minimize things like views from public spaces. The road curvature four 16. Westfield naturally does that as you kind of proceed in either direction on the road, if you're driving and you're following the road and you're looking at the road, your eyes kind of draw away from the site no matter which direction you're headed. You'd have to kind of turn your head either left or right to kind of follow as you go around the curve. Sidewalk orientation does a very similar thing.
Obviously you're walking, it's going slower, but in terms of kind of following the general direction of travel, and it points your eye away from the site, not not towards it. Beyond that, the orientation and the scale is meant to minimize shadows and blocking of any views from neighbors. And as we, we talked about a little bit in terms of the things that speak to in the, or in the zoning bylaws, things that speak to size, generally size and density, things like setbacks, height lot coverage, all of those things. The proposal is less than the, the minimum or,
or provides more than the absolute minimum required for side setback. For front setback, it's the 35 feet is the maximum height in the district. The both, both properties in this property are under 30 feet as proposed. Lot coverage, even on an undersized lot, 25% maximum. Even in counting for the fact that this is an undersized lot, the lot coverage here is 19.24%, which is less than about 80% of what the overall max would ordinarily be in terms of neighboring views. Again, orientation minimizes the blocking of those views, minimum height or,
or not maximizing out on the height helps minimize those views and the preservation of the mature trees as well for provides additional screening. We did ask the architects to conduct some shadow, shadow studies or at least view the shadows because that was a concern of a couple of the neighbors. One at 27 and one at 77. The interesting thing about the shadow study with, with 77 is that the shadows go the other way. So the shadows fall away from 77, they fall towards the opposite side of Westfield, which is 23, 25, 27, and so on. Those shadows predominantly fall on the street,
extend a little onto the property and you know it and will make some extension. Not a significant difference between what's proposed and, and existing. No, this is typically an issue with larger buildings, but no, no effect on air circulation or anything like that. Obviously with a much taller building in, in other neighborhoods you can create kind of a wind tunnel effect or something like that and nothing like that. Here in, in closing, the architects have worked hard to try and put something together from a look in siding
and a material standpoint that is similar to other things found in the neighborhood. That includes eight Westfield, which was approved by this board not that long ago. Overall eight Westfield in terms of street presentation width and height, significantly larger, both in terms of width and height, but previously approved. And one of the things in the neighborhood that we were looking at in terms of trying to kinda mimic the look and feel beyond the, the general eclectic nature. So we've tried to be respectful of neighbor, neighbor, neighbors, views and community scale.
I said Hank has reached out on a number of occasions to various folks with some success, some didn't wanna speak and we appreciate that as well. But he has met with a number of the neighbors to try and address those concerns. And you know, we're, we're happy to receive feedback. If there's actionable feedback we can, we can act on that, you know, would change minds or make it more palatable. We're happy to hear that feedback as well. Speaker 3: So let me just ask you a question just so I'm clear. A month ago there was a no and now you're back and nothing has changed. Is that right? Except there's just a
better argument. There's Speaker 4: Additional argument, but part of it is the, they're trying to figure out but they're trying figure, Speaker 3: That's question. Speaker 4: No, no. It's a fair no, it's absolutely a fair question. Speaker 3: Are the same. Speaker 4: Yes. I I think that one of the, one of the things is in, in reviewing what I reviewed and, and trying to figure out how to give clients some direction, right? Part of my job was I think without further discussion, weren't sure where to make the cots. Like what is it overall square footage? Is it width? Is it height? Speaker 3: Let's find out. Let, let's find out. He's had apparently, or you folks, your team has had discussions
with the neighborhood between last hearing and today. Correct. Let's find out if any of that's been blunted, right? Because that's what we respond to. Sure. It's typ, it's atypical for the board to sort of just sort of invent, if you will, the detriment. So we respond to the neighborhood and before we let the board go, and I'm sure there may be some questions, let's find out, is anybody here to speak about this project at 16 Westfield Road? What do you know? There's nobody raising their hand. Speaker 5: Mr. Chair, we have several letters
that arrived over the past four weeks that are in the file, aren't they? Yes. From, from neighbors. So is this the point where you read those? Yeah. Speaker 3: Yep. It would Speaker 5: Be. Thank you. Speaker 3: Sure. So let's see what we have here. Here's one dated July 28th. Today. Today, dear, it says, dear planning board, but I think it's to us the developer. Hank has stopped by and texted several times to discuss his two home project in Westfield Road. I understand that both homes will be raised to make room for two side by side at 3,800 square foot homes.
I was surprised to learn that the Mill Street home will now be on the entrance to Westfield. While I'm grateful that I'm across the street and not behind or adjacent to this project, I sympathize with my neighbors who will be impacted by the loss of privacy. That 2 29 and a half tall foot tall homes towering over their properties will cause I am hoping that the developer will keep his word and salvage as many of the existing mature trees as possible. Having lived in Natick my entire life, I'm deeply disappointed in what the town of Natick has allowed to be built downtown, already as limited parking. The traffic is terrible and those apartments don't appear to be occupied as yet.
I also question your definition of affordable housing. I don't think that's relevant for tonight, but McMansions are appearing everywhere. Natick that appear too tall and too big for the small lots they're built upon. This is especially noticeable in the neighborhoods of the Pellum style and slab homes which store up the surrounding homes. More importantly, Natick is now unaffordable for people who have grown up in this town, who want to live here to be close by their families. Sincerely, Nancy Sarillo Westfield Rot. The next one is dated July 22nd. The developer's emailed the plans for the new homes at 16 Westfield in 79 Mill to me,
just the other day, this is the first time I've seen the actual plans for these very large homes. I was also sent the video in the last town meeting regarding these new homes and appreciate the board's hesitancy to approve these plans. I have owned occupied the 1,474 square foot home at 27 Westfield, which sits directly across from 16 Westfield for 30 years. And my husband's grandparents were the original owners of this home. While I hesitate to be the person to raise concerns regarding someone else's property, I do still believe the plan structures are too big for the lot size and the neighborhood and should be downsized further, I understand that the homes meet the dimensional criteria by law,
but that is, is that really the only issue? The majority of the homes on Westfield Road remain modest, even with the additions and changes over the years. The exception is number eight, which was the first home to be completely raised and replaced with a giant home on a small lot. It looks out of place on Westfield Road. Other homes on our street that have been enlarged still look appropriate for the lot they sit on. If the town of NA continues to allow the construction of inappropriately large homes on small lots that the essence of our neighborhood and other neighborhoods in town will be lost. While privacy issues are not a concern for me in my backyard, I can't imagine the neighbors being the new
behind the new House are thrilled with having a home of the post scale looming over their existing backyards. A concern I do have regarding the large frontage is the effect of light pollution from such a large home co old fashion. But we still enjoy the darkness in our street at night that allows us to appreciate the view of the true night sky and the display of the fireflies that would be obscured with a multitude of lighted windows and exterior lighting facing our home. This is an argument that more expensive homes on my street will raise the property value of all the homes, but I will, I would argue that with higher property values
come potentially higher tax rates and may exclude my own children from remaining in this home community and town where they have grown, attended school, played on the high school sports teams and lived their entire lives while residing in the home where their great grandparents lived their lives. I have no doubt that any homes built here will sell in a minute and that there will be profit made even if the proposed homes were smaller, I would invite anyone on the board who hasn't done so to walk or drive my road and appreciate for yourself the hometown feel of my neighborhood now and how inappropriately sized homes on small
lots will diminish that feeling. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Amy dewitt and that is it now, Speaker 10: Excuse Speaker 5: Me, there's another one. Speaker 3: I don't have it. Speaker 5: The resident director, butter, who has attended all the previous hearings, wrote another letter because she couldn't come here tonight. Speaker 3: Hmm. Didn't make this one, didn't make the file. Speaker 5: Is it not in the, I mean it was in our email. Speaker 3: Alright. Does anyone have it? Speaker 10: One Det? Speaker 5: No. Sherry Brass.
Speaker 3: If anyone can bring it up, I'll put it on the record. I I just don't have it in my file. Speaker 10: Any idea when it came in? Speaker 11: I have Is Sherry b Yes, I yes, I have it. Speaker 3: Go ahead, Speaker 11: Read it. Sure. Dear Mr. Chair and zoning board members as to 79 Mill Street, I'm sharing my thoughts as I'm unable to attend because of a serious medical issue at this time. Speaker 3: 16. Okay. Hold on one second. Is that only with regard to 79 mil? Oh Speaker 11: Yes, that's, that's Speaker 3: Why I don't have it. Apologize. Speaker 11: Oh, it's only, that's for 79 ml. Okay. Speaker 3: Apologies. Alright, so we're gonna leave that off the record for now until the,
until the the next one comes up. Okay. So that's, that's what we have. And does any anyone on the board have any thoughts, comments, concerns, questions? The letters only reinforce one more time. The letter, the letters only reinforce how I voted before, so Speaker 10: I'm just curious, where, where are the positive, like feedback from the neighbors coming from? You met with them, you reached out to them. Speaker 12: So out of the six neighbors I spoke with, most of them didn't really want to be here. That's why they sent letters.
And the other ones who didn't respond are the ones, I guess they're not interested to, to leave a comment I guess so. Yeah. Speaker 10: So is that a positive or a negative? Speaker 12: They said they, they don't care. They just told me they don't care. So Speaker 4: I mean, look, I i board members know, I mean, the most vocal people tend to people who, who are opposed. If you're don't care or you're in favor, a lot of times you don't come out, you don't bother to submit a letter. They're certainly aware of the proceedings they've met with Hank, they've seen the plans, you know, leave it to the board to draw your own inference on.
Speaker 3: I take that position, although the folks who have already gone on record, I I their comments remain of record. And so, and that, and that goes really, it goes to each project that stand on stands on their own. Right. The one at eight Westfield, I don't recall it in the least, but when it did come before the board, there may have been zero opposition and that would tend to be approved for the reasons that I've stated. So again, here we are that, that certain people are to the extent
that nobody here other than the letters and the people who have already gone on record have spoken that there may be other people out there who have not. We, we don't credit anything that hasn't been spoken. Right. So with that, does, does anyone here on the board have any other questions, thoughts? I Speaker 11: Mean, I just would say that this has been before us like several times already in the, I think the feedback has been to reduce the massing of the house a couple of times and I get, and I think a meaningful way given the fact that a lot is
so small and it's an almost 4,000 square foot house. And so I think given the height concerns and whatnot that others have expressed and that we've said it, I don't know how I could sort of change my position. Sort of like, Andy, if nothing has really changed since the last time this was before us, I don't know that it's really persuasive to me to change my vote. That concur. Speaker 3: Okay. So that said, I'm going to echo what you've said, which is what, what would it take? Is that, that's your question, right? What is it gonna take to try to, to get this thing more palatable?
Well, I think the three, at least the three people who, who wrote letters today with concerns about, I think in general it's just massing Right? Expressed in different ways. There may have been others and, and Peg you may have them, the addresses of the people who were here and who did speak. It's in the minutes and were okay. They're in the minutes. So you, you, you, he said Speaker 11: He's been with Speaker 3: Them. You, you did meet with them. Yeah. Okay. So you, you, you, you, you can hear the way the wind is blowing, right? As as well as I can, I'm not voting,
but I What do you wanna do? Speaker 12: So what has happened since the first meeting? So during the first meeting, we submitted both proposed plans for at around forty six hundred and forty seven hundred square feet, which the board was voted out three over two. And then the board's decision was to have us reduce the overall blueprint of both houses by 10 to 15%, which we did. And during the second meeting, the board suggests us to
decrease and shrink the corners of the overall blueprint, which we did again. And by then, so far from the first to the third meeting, there has been no issues from the neighbors about the size of the house. Speaker 3: Well, I'm gonna stop you there. I just don't think that's genuine. I mean, that that's not true. You've just heard three letters saying the house is too big. Speaker 12: That was, that was just, just recently the they they, Speaker 3: They're on the record though. They're on the record. So I, I think, I think there's gonna be four people who vote. You want to, we want to go to a vote, we'll go to a vote.
But The, I'll leave it entirely up to you. But you, you come before the board a month ago, the thing dies and because of a procedural misstep by me, you get a third life essentially. But nothing's changed, you know, and I, and I think, and, and this is not meant to be pejorative. The the board is not here to punish this board. Of all the boards that I've seen act that I've been before myself. It, it, it, it, it's not punitive. It tries to figure out a way to find a balance.
And that balance is a, is it's a, it's listening to people who have concerns and asking developers to, to meet people, you know, at least halfway to, to get something that sort of, everyone can live with, right? We don't expect nothing to be built, but this is a lot of house on a little lot and you know, the zoning numbers are what they are, but if the lot were big enough, you wouldn't be here. And so you have a big house on a smaller lot and it's fairly imposing and curves are not, that house is there and it's big.
It's big. There's no way to describe it otherwise, it's pretty, it's nice, but it's large. So you want to come back, chop it down, and, and, and mute the concerns of the neighbors. And, and then maybe you got a better shot. Go ahead. Speaker 10: I don't see the, I don't see the interest in pro prolonging this much longer. We've been through this numerous times, Speaker 3: But I, i, I think that's true. I'm going to, I I'm doing this because there was some surprise here for this applicant.
They were not informed of the issue that we addressed at the outset number. Speaker 12: We need a number. Speaker 3: And so that's, that's why we're doing what we're doing. That's why I'm suggesting we're doing what we're doing. Speaker 7: Question. Speaker 12: I appreciate your feedback and that's what we've been doing since the first meeting. We've been following the guidelines from the board and yeah, I can check with the architect and engineer to see if there's any, you know, any more rooms. I'm certainly hoping so
Speaker 3: I, I'm not a builder. Okay? I but there's a way, yeah, there's a way. Your building's gonna get smaller and maybe your profit margin is gonna get smaller, but if with, if you don't make it smaller, and I'm not putting the cart before the horse here, but I can hear what's happening here. That house isn't gonna get built. So I'll leave that to you, to your decision. I I I, I suspect what you want is another crack, right? Speaker 4: Yes. Yep. Yep. To conferring with her. We, we, and I think I still go for the next one too, but
Speaker 3: On behalf of the board, I apologize for the, for, for, for the, for what occurred. That was entirely my fault. And so if we can have a motion to continue, Speaker 5: If, excuse me, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to point out that when we do many continuations, I've been through this myself as a resident, it is very stressful for the folks who live there, the people who actually live in this neighborhood. And I know you have some sympathy for folks what, what the impact is going to be, but to do yet another continuation, another, you know,
another on bat. You know, I, I just, I think that it's a slightly cruel thing to do to the people who have been sticking their necks out for months now, even though they're worried about possible consequences, even if those consequences are not real, people worry about them. And I'll stop there. Thank you. Speaker 3: I'm, I'm gonna speak as the chair of the board. I don't, I'm not blaming you for, for, for my mistake and for, for this board's mistake. So that's why you're coming back. So the motion to continue
Speaker 8: Move to continue the hearing of 16 Westfield to our next meeting, which is August 25, 20 fifth. Speaker 3: All those in favor? Okay. So wait a minute. Hold on. Can everybody Speaker 10: Just, no, it's only us Speaker 3: Four I think just the four. Just the four can vote. Do we need a second? Yeah, we need a second. Speaker 13: Second. Speaker 3: Okay, so we're gonna do a roll vote. Are you Conti continue or no? No. Continue or no one continue? No. So that doesn't continue it, that means it goes to a vote if I'm not mistaken. That means
Speaker 8: Somebody can make a motion. Speaker 3: Oh well something's gonna happen. So go ahead. Somebody make a motion. Speaker 8: I would, Speaker 3: This is unusual in our experience. I Speaker 8: Would move to approve the project based on a finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting non-conforming structure provided that it's built substantial conformance to the plan submitted and any requirements from the town departments who submit letters to the board. Speaker 3: Second, hearing none. Any other motions? Speaker 10: Motion to deny. Speaker 3: Second Speaker 9: That, that was Ari that Speaker 3: Seconded. Ari seconded All those in
favor of the denial. 1, 2, 3 denied. Okay, the next matter up is your matter Speaker 9: 79 mil. Speaker 3: Oh no, well a 47 high. We're gonna do we need to vote on that. It's been withdrawn. We can throw, yeah, so fine. We don't need to vote on the, except. Withdrawn. The next matter is number three on the list is to continue public hearing. Seven nine Mill Street. An application for Hank Yin for a finding for mass general law. Chapter 40 a section six. The zoning file law section four B and five A. The applicant proposed to raise these in single family
dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting nonconforming audit is shown on the plan. Submitted the application of, okay fine, that's it. 79 Mill Street. Same folks. Let's Speaker 9: Go Speaker 3: To, Speaker 9: Dang it. Speaker 3: Huh? Hold please. Speaker 9: I thought Speaker 3: We do have a seven nine. Speaker 9: Okay. From 77, yeah. Okay. Speaker 3: Alright, well we won't, it's the same deal, right? So, but we, we will put on the record the letters that looks like the exact same letter from Nancy Illa.
Word for word. And here's the letter from Sherry Brass. Okay, let me just look here. So we have a letter here dated July 28th from Nancy Cillo Westfield Road, which is precisely word for word the same letter that we read on the record for the last project. Consider that on the record For this project. The next letter is from 79. I'm sorry, it's as to 79 mil. I'm sharing my thoughts as I'm unable to attend because of a serious medical issue at this time.
We wish you best. I appreciate that Hank, Ian and his partner Gustavo was stopped by, unfortunately it wasn't evening when I was very ill and 90 degree heat. So my communication abilities are not my best. Gustavo came by a second time and I communicated the house was still too big. They spoke with some of the neighbors who I believe gave them direct feedback or they gave the board feedback. My understanding is that the builder did not make the house smaller than plan submitted around June 16th when asked to make the house significantly smaller. I want them to be able to build however it needs to be something that is reasonable for an 11,000 square foot lot that is not a substantial detriment to the neighborhood,
which I already explained at the last meeting. The majority of the board communicated at the last meeting that the house was still too big for the 11,000 square foot lot as they swapped the plans from 17 Westfield to mill per the chair in the last meeting, quote, I would still have trepidation. I get a sense walking through the neighborhood, little house, little house, little house, boom, big house and almost 4,000 square feet on a substandard lot massing to, it gives stature of bulk end quote. I hope I didn't say exactly like that. To give an idea, my house at 77 Mill Street is 1500 square feet, 79 Mill Street. The new proposed bill is 1600 square feet.
The new house on, on the new house on Westfield, which the chair commented on as above and is and too big is 3,500 square feet. And you are proposing to build a 38 to 3,900 square foot house at seven nine mil, which is even larger than beyond than the out of proportion sized house on Westfield and way outta proportion to mine. And in general, the neighborhood houses and it's substantial detrimental to the neighborhood. 3000 square feet is about double the size of mine and many others in the neighborhood. That would seem to possibly be reasonable.
Maybe discussion could be had at this meeting starting with that and go from there. I appreciate the builder has addressed my other concerns. Thank you. I hope they can address this one in the current meeting so they can start their project soon. Sincerely, cherry bass. I have nothing else other than those two. Does anybody have anything that I haven't read into the record on this project? Okay. Alright, and then just so we're, we're all talking about the same thing. I'm gonna go and just, we'll look at the zoning, the zoning envelope for a moment. Speaker 9: See Speaker 3: I just wanna see it on the
chart here. So 11,236 foot lot 15,000 is required. The frontage is good, the depth is good. The front is the front is good. This side is good. The west side is good. Is that east of front this side? 'cause rears the other side's a front Speaker 4: It it's all front and rear. It's all front and side. Yeah, Speaker 3: So it's, so the east, is it east? Am I right? East is front, west is front west. West, west is front east is good
and the rear is not applicable. So the building coverage 25%, it's 1996. So let's call it 20%. The height is 33.13. So that is within the 35. Okay, so now we know what we're talking about And you're gonna say, you know, it's the same, it's the same argument, right? Speaker 4: Pretty much other than this house has, the existing house has two nonconformities in terms of setback to front and rear that get resolved and removed. Speaker 3: Okay, so there's an improvement at the non-conformity. Correct. Speaker 4: And just as far as the shadow, I,
I know 77 had praised shadow is an issue. Shadow goes the other way. It's actually 77 that would cast to the extent anything cast shadow it cast shadow toward 79, not the other way around. Speaker 3: Fair enough. Okay, so go. Speaker 14: So to cut to the chase. So we, it was continued last time and so there have been no changes. No, Speaker 3: Wait a minute. What happened last time Speaker 6: We did continue Just Speaker 14: That continue Speaker 4: Just continued with no testimony. Speaker 14: Yeah. And so there are no, there are no changes. Well Speaker 4: Continued with no testimony. So there's been no, there was, there was nothing. No feedback at the last hearing and no testimony either.
So there hasn't been a change, but there was no, no hearing or discussion on the, on the application either. Speaker 14: Okay. Speaker 3: Okay. So first let, let's find out if anybody's here. Who wants to talk about it. Does is anybody here on 79 Mill Street? Okay, seeing none, this is 79 went out. Do you have anything, did did you discuss this with the neighbors? That was Speaker 4: June Simpson? Same. Same discussions. I met with the same folks met with 77, which you heard both from us and from the email. Speaker 3: Did we take any test? We didn't take testimony from any abutters last week on this
project on last month we Speaker 6: Did not. The board and the applicant discussed the approximate size that members would feel would not be a detriment to the neighborhood and the applicant requested a continuation of the hearing in order to revise their plans. Speaker 3: Okay. Which, which again, I don't want to presuppose anything, but nothing has changed. Correct? Correct. Alright. Okay. So does the board have comments or questions for the applicant? Speaker 14: I, I do. Again, what's, what's the thinking behind coming in front
of the board again without any changes? Speaker 3: I Speaker 14: We, this is Speaker 4: Fair Look and I'm new to the, Speaker 14: Our time is your time is very valuable. Our time is very valuable. WII want it to be very helpful to find out the, the rationale for coming in front of the board again with no changes. Speaker 4: Look, I, I'm new to the process so I, I can't speak to what happened before. It's not new to the process, but I understand that. But in terms of discussing it with him and trying to understand a clear direction in terms of Which view, are there particular views that are important?
Is it, was it height? Was it, it was difficult to discern for me as an outsider coming into the process late even discussing it with my client and the architects. And so part of the question was, can, is there an opportunity for dial further dialogue with the board to get a more specific direction than or from the neighbor center? It's, it's just too big. Too big is very, in some ways specific but also very vague in terms of when you're talking about uniquely shaped lots that have unique sight lines to them. And there may be a particular direction or side
or a corner that is more of a concern than another Speaker 14: Short of having an an FAR, which Natick does not. And including the garage, this is a a 46 plus or minus 4,600 square foot structure on an, on an 11,000 square foot lot. Correct Those Speaker 4: Facts. It was reduced at yeah, Speaker 14: 38. Speaker 12: 38 Speaker 14: Including the garage gross floor area. Gross gross floor area, including the garage is 4,600 square feet. That's three times the size of the normal houses around in this neighborhood. I I, I think we're just sort of kicking the can around here.
I don't think there's been a meaningful attempt to, clearly there's been no changes. So, I mean clearly I think you can sense my frustration, I you're new to the process, but I think this is what the third or fourth time we've seen this project, Speaker 15: If I may, there was some specific guidance given, at least in March when I attended. And you know, a 900 square foot master bedroom was deemed sort of excessive. A dormer in an attic that's meant for storage is just increasing the mass, removing the three car garage wasn't meant to just turn a two car garage
but then extend the rest of the house. That whole concept was bring it in, bring it down. And I think just, you know, we still have a 900 square foot master bedroom suite, which is the size of a good size condo. So I don't think anything was really absorbed in, in respected is how I would summarize it. Speaker 14: So, Mr. Chair, do we ask for any community feedback and then move this along? Speaker 3: I think we, I think we, we already did that. Okay. Nobody here has anything more to add other than the, the, the two letters that have been read into the
record on the project. So I have nothing further. Does the board have any other comments, questions, or concerns they wanna raise before we close? Okay, so we'll close the public hearing and we'll hear a motion. Speaker 8: Well I think to, to Rob's point though, they did reduce the size by 11% from the original filing right when we asked them the first time to reduce it. Okay. So that, that, I guess the footprint, not the footprint, but the floor area got smaller square footage. Speaker 15: Yeah. Coverage. Speaker 12: And then from the second to the third we reduced the overall blueprint and then last
meeting. So just sure Speaker 14: That happened. Could you, could you point us to where that happened? Speaker 12: So the first, the first meeting was in April. The both plans we submitted the square footage was at around 46 to 4,700 square feet. And then the board suggests us to go 10 to 15% smaller, which we did for the second meeting. We decreased the floors, square footage down to just north of 4,000. And then the board told us to reduce further the overall blueprint, which we did for the third one. And that's why I was saying we didn't hear the neighbors
complaint about the size up until the third one, which was the last one. Sherry, she's the neighbor that complained for the first time for about the overall square footage during the third meeting. And then what we got from, 'cause I was not here on the third meeting as well, but what we got from the feedback from you guys was talked to the neighbors, which I did my best effort, spent a lot of trips there, knock on the doors to, to show them the plans. And as you can see, most of the feedbacks, if they were willing to give some were from this, this morning.
So we really didn't have time to make any adjustments per se. Speaker 3: Thoughts, anybody have any other re response questions? Thoughts? I think you, I think your, your options are, I, I have no idea if you're interested, vote to continue. If you want to, if you want to continue that conversation of, of, or a pure or pure vote, where do you want to, where do you want to, what would you like? I mean, if Speaker 4: Judging, hi, the, the last one went. I don't know that a continuance is, is in the offering,
but if the board would consider it, we would, we would take the continuance and try and sharpen the pencil one last time. Speaker 3: Is that, is that in the ing? Does anybody wanna make a motion to continue? Speaker 8: I'll move to continue the hearing on 79 Mill Street to August 25th. Speaker 3: Second. Second. Ari seconded all those in favor of a continuance. One, two. That does not pass any other motions. Motion Speaker 4: To deny the application. Speaker 3: Second Andy. All those in favor? 1, 2, 3 denied of course,
as you well know, the same project can't come back for two years. But the same project wasn't gonna get approved anyways, so modification may be an order. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 9: The Speaker 3: Next matter up for hearing is continued hearing for three Oxbow Road for Johnny Silva. Speaker 8: Oh, sorry Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. I've been notified that we should probably take a vote on 47 High Street the, to accept their withdrawal without prejudice. Speaker 3: Okay. Alright. Speaker 8: I would move that we accept the request from the applicant at 47 High
Street to accept their withdrawal without prejudice. Speaker 3: Second. Second. So who's voted? It's Jeff. Speaker 6: The four. Speaker 8: Oh, same four. Same Speaker 3: Four. Same four. Same four. Hang on one second. So Jeff won't second. I'll second. Ari will second. All those in favor of with accepting the withdrawal. 47 highs without prejudice. Four. Oh without prejudice, without it's four. Oh, okay. The next matter? Yes sir. Yes. I just wanna Speaker 16: Make sure you're skipping. 14 mil speed on purpose three. Speaker 3: Oh not on purpose, I'm sorry. That's okay. 14 mil is up next. My bad. Thank you. Continue.
This is now the next matter up is number four on our agenda, the continued public hearing for 14 Mill Street for John Christopher for a special permit for the aquifer protection District bylaw as per section three A five of the native zoning bylaws the applicant proposes to modify an existing CBA decision modify, increase a lawful non-conforming, use self-storage and to modify the preexisting non-conforming structure as shown in the plan submitted. Okay. Hello there. Speaker 17: Good evening. Hang on Speaker 3: One second.
This is 14 mil. Can Speaker 17: We be reminded who's Speaker 3: Voting on this one? So this is continued as well. Yep. Speaker 8: Yeah, Speaker 17: It looks like Andrew, Jason Re, Allen and then Michael Speaker 3: Michael's no longer on the board. Speaker 17: Wanted you? Yes, because this is back in May. May 19th. Speaker 3: Do we skip the June hearing? Speaker 17: We did, we continued the June hearing requested a continuance. So I don't know if there's anybody eligible. Who Speaker 8: Else was here in May? Speaker 3: I missed? May in June. Speaker 6: Mr. Chair, you have the list at the top of your, oh, Speaker 8: April. Sorry.
Speaker 3: Oh thank you. Welcome. May Jason, Ari Allen. Andy Rob. Was I here in May? That's what it says. Speaker 8: That's when we opened this one in May. Speaker 17: Yeah, May 19th was the minutes that I found. Speaker 3: I do not recall this case. Okay. But in any case you filed I read thoroughly It's all storage. Yeah. Yeah. But in any case, you haven't filed the, the affidavit, which now apparently is required before this hearing starts. Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 3: So Speaker 17: Is that, is that confirmed? Because I know I've been before the board where we've It's been filed after the fact or Right now.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean that's always been my practice but I think it's gonna be Speaker 6: Filed right now because I can't stamp Speaker 17: It in, well not filed but yet submitted. Speaker 6: Right. But I can't stamp it in at the town clerk's office. That's the problem. Speaker 17: Okay. So we either go with Speaker 3: A and it was, he doesn't need to sign anything. Yeah, extended in June. So go for 4 0 4. You're good. Wait a minute. You were here in May. Speaker 17: Continue it. Yeah, he Speaker 3: Can vote. I was He doesn't need an affidavit. Yeah. Oh, so you were here in May. Have a fifth Speaker 17: Number. Speaker 3: We can vote. And you're here in July.
You haven't missed anything. I wasn't here in June and nothing happened. It was, it was continued. That's my point. Oh, okay, fine. So you don't need, there's no affidavit required. He was here in May, so Speaker 17: He was here. So he heard it. Speaker 3: He heard it. And there was nothing happened in June when he wasn't here, he missed nothing. So Speaker 17: He can sit on it now? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker 3: Okay. So then again it's, Speaker 17: That solves Speaker 3: The Jason, Ari, Allen, Andy and Rob. Okay. Okay. And so we had some issues. The building commissioner is as, as, as indicated to us. Yeah.
Speaker 17: I can give you a quick recap if you'd like. Please. First of all, George Richards from South Natick Law on Pleasant Street. And I think shortly after the May 19th hearing and the Abutter may be here tonight, I think filed a complaint with the building inspector in terms of compliance with the 97 decision, which provided no outside storage. A client immediately reacted to that and brought the site into compliance within a couple weeks. And the building, 'cause the building inspector issued a cease and desist back on, I'm not sure
what the date is, but it's in the file. Speaker 3: Six 12 Speaker 17: And then on seven 16 he issued an updated letter that the properties in compliance. So that's something we are now very sensitive to and will look to clarify in this decision. But to certainly prohibit, continue to prohibit outside storage. Speaker 3: Okay. Alright. Can you, can you describe for us what it is that you're trying to do? Speaker 17: So really quick, yeah, 2018 I believe the decisions in, in the portal, but 2018 we sought, I did not,
but the, the applicant and the owner sought a special permit to basically reconstruct three of the buildings that are in disrepair and are not currently being used for self storage. So that decision was, for a variety of reasons, the pandemic and other reasons was never acted on. So it lapsed. So the 2018 decision, which you see is really no longer effective. But our, our goal is to seek to basically reinstate
that decision with the same conditions at this point. And we are not seeking any increase in footprint. We are just reconstructing those three buildings and adding additional cell storage. And we would ask for your consideration to approve that in similar fashion to 2018. Again, depending on, I realize it's seven years ago depending on the, the abutters and public input. Okay,
Speaker 3: Let let me stop you just for a second. Yep. And you're trying to modify a special permit decision that is not Speaker 17: No, I'm sorry. There's a decision in 97 that's also in your, that's what you're trying to modify. That's what we're modifying. 'cause the two, 2018 virtually doesn't exist. And now I'm just using that as a framework for Yeah, yeah. What we're seeking to, in essence have a new decision modifying the 97 decision. That will be a 2025 decision similar to, or exactly the same
as the 2018 conditions. And Speaker 18: What was different, what is different between the 2025, this one and the 2018? Speaker 17: There's really nothing different other than the date. Other than the date. And you know, the issue we had with the outside storage, one of the provisions of the 2018 was to not have vehicles permanently parked on the east side of the parking lot, which is the left side as you're looking at it. And is where the abutter, I believe who was, who was at the prior hearing
and complained to the building inspector that there was some storage or parking of permanent parking vehicles in that area. Which we are, we've eliminated and are prepared to fully commit to not have permanent parking over on that side. Speaker 15: Was that, what does that mean? Will you eliminate those parking spots? Will you take that? No Speaker 17: Asphalt out. No. So the, we're relocating the office from building F to building a or I'm not sure, but we're, we're moving the office over onto that east side. Speaker 15: Yes. Building Speaker 17: D, building D.
So there will be parking at that office in that area, just not, you know, for short term parking to go into the office, et cetera. But not to have vehicles stored there or permanently parked there. Speaker 15: So there's about eight or 10 parking spots right up against the building today. Correct. Is that correct? Yeah. And there's about 20 along the property line of the abutter who complained. Speaker 17: That's probably accurate. 20. Speaker 15: Just curious. Speaker 17: Well also that building D that we are adding or adding to will require
that face is the same side east side. And so we would like some parking for people using that storage area to be able to park directly across from it. Speaker 14: Mr. Chairman, if I could jump in, so to refresh my memory, I believe that it was building D that was an issue, meaning that our, well, one question first. Is it the, the, the prelim preliminary CD set, which is dated, at least the file is dated March 24th, 2025. That, that's just in the files that I see. Is that, is that the current
design that we should be looking at? Is that the same one? Speaker 17: I believe so, yes. Okay. Speaker 14: So building D and I'm just refreshing my own memory that there, right now in the CD set, it shows that there are a series of seven roll up or coiling overhead doors. I, I don't believe, I think that was not in conformance with the special permit of having a door to the outside with that. And I think that, I think that was a concern of the un abutter as well. So he may be able to speak to that when he gets his chance. But I just wanna make sure that that is, I think
that was one of the main issues here and I just Speaker 17: Don't wanna have it. Could you again say the, at the exterior door? Yep. Speaker 14: Don't you come take a look. Okay. Building D. So right now you've got in your architecture drawings, you've got these seven roll up doors if everyone can hear me, these seven roll up doors facing southeast Speaker 17: And it don't exist right now though, just so you know. Speaker 14: Okay, well this is what you're proposing. Speaker 17: That's what I'm proposing. Correct. Just to clarify. Speaker 14: Okay. And I don't, I don't believe that, I think that came up in previous discussions that that was not in conformance with the rules
of this special permit, et cetera. The Speaker 19: Access or the, the doorway on this side, Speaker 14: Which having the doors themselves, Speaker 19: Having the door access to the Speaker 17: Exterior. Speaker 14: Yep. In the sense that it kind of becomes a, a, you know, a potential, you know, workshop, et cetera. Okay, Speaker 19: Well that, Speaker 14: Yep, so, so that's just a, an open question. Open topic. I don't have any answers but, Speaker 17: So I believe that was sought in 2018 and was not an issue at that time. That does not mean it's not an issue now. I understand. Speaker 14: Okay. Alright. So we could just leave that open and figure it out.
Speaker 3: Alright, well let's see who wants to talk about it? Is anybody here on 14 Mill Street? Yeah, come on up. We just ask you to identify yourself, your address for the record. Speaker 20: Thank you. John Whitney, two Victoria Circle. I am the abutter that mentioned the storage. Thank you for cleaning that up. It looks a lot better. It really does. Yeah, Speaker 17: It's a big improvement Speaker 20: And, and my concern was mostly about activity happening ear really early in the morning or late at night. Trailers being loaded, trucks being moved around. But hopefully that's behind us. I will say all Americans still has
outside storage on their website, so that's something that you probably wanna look at 'cause it's still advertised as a, an offering as far as the doors, it wasn't a special condition of 97 or 98, but when the applicant went before the board, It was stated in the application that all access to the storage units would be from the inside, nothing from the outside. So you'll see there are some overhead doors there. But that goes way back to Bostonian beverage.
What I'm talking about is the storage units. And what I'm concerned about is, as you stated, somebody using it as a workshop, going in there early in the morning, setting up a trailer, working on equipment, things like that. So I don't necessarily have a problem with the building. The footprints are not changing, it's just that outside access and the noise that could potentially come from that because it is a residential area and you know, there's a But is close by. Speaker 3: Do we have the 97 decision? It's not in my folder. It Speaker 15: Is in the, it's in there on the internet. Alright,
Speaker 20: I have a copy Mr. Chair, if you want to Speaker 17: See. Yeah, I do too. Great. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Speaker 17: Want a copy? Speaker 3: Someone's got. Thanks very much. Thank you. Speaker 15: It's Speaker 17: A little marked Speaker 3: Up. That's alright. I'll give it back to you. Speaker 15: What time do you hear these loading Speaker 20: And unloading? You know, it's, it's mostly landscapers and contractors loading their trailers, working on equipment. It's even moving trucks. But that's been moved, that's been taken care of and hopefully it stays like that. But there was up to 21 vehicles the right
before the May meeting, I counted them Speaker 15: And it would be external storage if you go to the south, I guess, or west east of that east, you Speaker 17: Would face east Speaker 15: Property in the back. There's a substantial amount of, is that the external storage? Speaker 20: It was actually on that side and along the east side. Speaker 17: It was primarily the east side, I think was the concern. And there were a number of vehicles that had been there for a while. But Speaker 15: Should there be a concern in the back? Speaker 17: Well, no, there's no concern. We have no problem with outside storage. I think one of the questions is parking. Is he, they do lease out parking, so,
but the parking is come and go. It's not storing a vehicle there for a long period of time. It's for parking and is used regularly that would not take place on the east side. Speaker 15: But is that a use that was ever approved, paid for parking? Speaker 17: Well, in the 2018 decision, which again, I know it's not binding, there was a condition saying to the extent that vehicles are permitted to park on the site, those vehicles shall be, not be permanently parked on the east side of the parking lot. And I would submit that parking is a ancillary use
for storage, that it's, you know, part of the storing of material and people will lease parking spaces to access it and, and to park their car there. But that would not take place at all on the east side. So Speaker 10: Help me understand this, if you would please. Yep. Who is paying for what Its parking spaces? Speaker 17: I, I can let Raj answer that, but people pay individually for the storage spaces. Some people also pay for parking spaces as well.
And then other people pay for just parking spaces Speaker 10: And they're just having the vehicles parked there. Correct? Speaker 3: How many? Correct. Speaker 21: It's on the backside. So maybe 15 on the, I'm excluding the easterly side because that's what it says. You can't park on the Easter light in permanent parking. Speaker 3: Is that not a violation of this prohibition in the 97 Speaker 17: Is is what A violation? No, Speaker 3: Outside storage shall be permitted on site. Speaker 17: Well this is the, you know, the distinction between storage and parking? Speaker 3: The parking is daily. Speaker 10: Oh Speaker 17: Yeah.
I mean it might be monthly lease. Like a monthly commitment. Like Speaker 10: I might park, I lease a monthly spot downtown. Yep. Like come and go. Right. Speaker 17: Once a day. Right. Speaker 10: Is this for something like boat storage over the winter? Speaker 17: No, no, no. I mean, there was a boat there previously and is a commuter thing. So clearly we're not looking to have storage of boats or vehicles long term that are gonna be just sitting there. And that was the, seemed to be the concern at the last
decision was the no permanent parking on the east side and thereby read between the lines permanent parking is loud elsewhere on the site. Speaker 10: For what purpose? Speaker 20: Yeah, I, thoughts on that? I think I would disagree. I mean, those trucks are sitting there for a long time and that's where the noise is coming from. That's, they leave them overnight, they pull in in their pickup truck and then they load their equipment onto the trailers. And that's happening really early in the Speaker 17: Morning. Speaker 21: So we are not doing that anymore. Speaker 3: This says, first of all, this says not before Speaker 10: 7:00 AM Speaker 3: Not before 7:00 AM and not
after 9:00 PM seven days a week. Speaker 17: And that is, you know, there may have been exceptions where landscapers have come earlier, but we are, we have new management company and they're gonna be monitoring that to make sure that those hours are complied with. Speaker 3: And Speaker 17: Then, Speaker 3: And then it says, Speaker 17: And Mr I'm sorry, Speaker 3: Whitney Speaker 17: Can obviously let the town know. If that's not the case, Speaker 3: Then this one also says, oh wait a minute. The site has room for approximately 40 to 50 parking spaces currently most
of lot a on the plan submitted is not included in the self storage plans. And there's no intent to demol any. The board agreed to close the hearing subject to receipt of a landscaping plan to include provisions for fencing, parking, lighting, and entrances to both the property and the buildings. Plus anybody getting landscape for the neighbors. Speaker 17: Yeah. As part of the 97 plan, we eliminated pavement and put in landscaping in the rear. Speaker 10: If I remember correctly. You amenable to like adding fencing. Speaker 17: Yeah, we didn't talk about that on the east side. I mean to fence to fence an entire lot. How much should, that's a big number. And I, and I understand the concern was from the east side
in terms of visual and or noise. Speaker 10: But ideally that would be one way to enforce your timeframe of people being allowed to get in and out. Would not, Speaker 17: Yeah, it Speaker 10: Would time controlled gate for entry Speaker 17: To time controlled gate. The problem is could back up onto Mill Street. But we're open to suggestions in terms of other ways we can protect Mr. Whitney and his property and use of his property so that we don't affect it. Speaker 3: Yeah. So he says this is John Whitney Ray's concerns over
the parking on the property and the traffic coming to and from the site since school buses are allowed to park there Speaker 17: No longer, okay. No more school buses. You can Speaker 3: Just Speaker 17: Put that where you can add that as a condition if you want. Speaker 3: And then the parking on the light, it is a legal distinction between parking versus storage, right? I mean, I suppose if the board were inclined, so the relief specifically here is, let's just, let's just look at it. The modification is exactly what this, this one here says storage units would
be accessible from the interior only. No drive up units. Yes. Speaker 17: That is Speaker 3: Nine seven Speaker 17: In the nine seven. Okay. So we are seeking to modify that one provision for the, for building D And we're also willing to, let's just go Speaker 3: Through the, the, the modifications Speaker 17: And just so you know, we're willing to, I think it shows seven bays on and we're willing to reduce, consider reducing that if, if the board would feel more comfortable. It sounds like it's all or nothing that it's either outside access or not. But for certain uses in storage, having access from the
outside is, is is very valuable to the client. And I do understand the con Speaker 3: I'm not you, you're not done here. We're going to, we're gonna keep you around. Does anybody else here want to talk about this other than Mr No, no, you don't have to leave. Gonna find out if there was anybody else here. It looks like you're, it. I, I support you. Josh, you're with him. Okay. Thank you for that. Mr. Speaker 14: Chairman, if I could, yep. Just for my clarification, Mr. Whitney, so are you, are you opposed to the seven roll-up doors that, that directly access the exterior? Speaker 20: I mean if they were strictly storage units
where you drove up, you put your stuff in, you closed the door and you went away? No, 'cause it's no different than the rest of them. But I could see, just from the noise that I've seen from the outside, I'm concerned about a mechanic, a carpenter, somebody, you know, setting up shop in there. And also there would have to be some access control because right now people are in and outta there all night. Well they used to be, there's no gate. Maybe the units could have card access that only allows them to get in at eight o'clock in the morning or seven. So it's not, I mean, reasonable, you know.
Speaker 15: Mr. Mr. Chair? No. Regarding the parking, I don't mind jumping too much here. Speaker 3: Jump away. Speaker 15: If in 1997 there was a, for 1996 there was a application for variance to do interior parking and so forth. So if you look at the prior requests before the board in the 97 hearing notes, it says there was a hearing for the property to use for the inside storage of new voter, new motor vehicles within the structure for the unloading of vehicles within the confines of the property. And that request was denied
because it's not in harmony with the use of the neighborhood, which is residential. If inside parking was viewed as not consistent with residential usage, I would definitely think outside parking is not consistent with residential usage. Makes sense. Speaker 3: Yeah. I also think it contemplated there was a certain amount of parking that was gonna be on the lot. Speaker 17: Yeah. I don't know if it'd be helpful that the building inspector, I mean this use has existed since 97, Speaker 15: But it's meant to be, it's meant to be storage and they've defined storage as, you know, 80% residential and what's commercial is papers for lawyers and so forth.
There's never any contemplation here of paid for parking. Speaker 21: The, it did not want, fire department did not want vehicles to be inside the building. So inside was denied because it was a fire, fire issue. It is not because the neighborhood didn't conform to it. Speaker 15: I'm reading it right here. And it says it was denied because the request for variance for special appeal on the grounds that the said uses would not be in harmony with the intent or purpose of the zoning bylaw to be stand substantially more detrimental
to residential abutters, which has nothing to do with fire other than the fact that their houses would catch on fire, which is pretty damn detrimental. But I think the point being is this is a residential neighborhood and to have tractors and buses and trucks and to have paid for the paid for parking lot is, was never, I don't think ever intended for this original variance as I interpret it. Speaker 17: Well the, Certainly I would imagine
that people using the units and paying for parking would be an appropriate accessory use and has been in fact in existence for a long time. I understand the comment on paying for parking, but I guess I'd like to make that distinction. The client would like to be able to still allow parking if it's done in an organized, and we're not storing the prop storing vehicles, but they're being used on a regular basis to provide income for the site and to, to make it,
you know, a a, an efficient site. The, and, and I don't have the breakdown of how much of that is people who do use the storage and pay for parking as compared to just pay for parking. But I would leave it up to the board. But our request is to allow, and if you wanna limit the number, but is to allow parking on the, certainly the south side of the lot behind the, the building, which again, if you go out there, is completely protected from the residential uses and cannot be seen from the street.
And I don't think even Mr. Whitney can see behind the building. He can correct me if I'm wrong. Speaker 20: No, I can't see it again, it's more than noise. The noise carries, you know, in, in the middle of the night or in the morning and it's not from my experience, it's not just parking, it's what the folks do when they get to the site. A denial left all night and then they come in in the morning. Speaker 3: Is there a current denial letter Speaker 15: From the chair? I mean from the building commissioner? No, because it's a special Speaker 17: Permit. Yeah, I think he just said there's Speaker 8: A denial letter.
Speaker 3: You, you, you, yeah, there's one in there somewhere. There is one. Yeah. You file a modification, he denies it right then it comes up to us. Speaker 8: He's, I don't think he denied it, but he said it was within the authority of the zoning board to approve or deny the request to modify. Although the commissioner's letter references an existing special permit decision 20 18 0 42, Speaker 15: Which was the one that was not acted upon and expired for. Speaker 17: Correct. So I think that's an error on his verdict. He probably meant to refer to 97 where he was aware
that 2018 maybe didn't know it had been had lapsed. Speaker 8: But also along with that, you're not looking to just reinvigorate the 2018 decision. But you wanna make some tweaks to that as well now, right? Speaker 17: Well to the 1997 decision as the chair just read, that doesn't allow, what was it you said parking or Oh, the exterior access. So 2018 allowed exterior access, but it's, you know, it's lapsed. So we're looking to modify the 97 decision, which apparently prohibited exterior access.
Speaker 15: Did we explicitly so allow exterior access or Speaker 17: Not specifically in the decision, but it was in the plans that were filed in 2018. But the decision is silent. I remember it coming up is silent on the issue of yeah, exterior access and I was not, I was not involved. Speaker 8: Just so I understand, you're not looking for us to reissue the 20 18 18 decision or are you Speaker 3: Essentially, Speaker 17: Essentially yes, but with modifications we would want to have, I I would recommend that you get language about the access,
the outdoor access, whether it's allowed or not. Speaker 8: So that's the only change. Speaker 17: So that's really the only, Speaker 8: Only change of clarification to the 2018. Correct. Speaker 17: Okay, Speaker 3: So so what what, what's the middle ground, right? I mean the is is the middle ground gated, put a, put a combination lock on it that the clients will get, the hours will still be seven to nine. You can leave the cars, they have to move to every two weeks. These, these are just, I'm riffing. Speaker 17: No, I understand. Speaker 3: Move, move the cars every two weeks.
No outside, no outside storage, no doors on the, on the exterior units and the rest gets approved. Is that the middle ground? It is. Does it work for you? Speaker 17: I didn't get all that. Speaker 3: One more time. Speaker 21: So building D which we are talking about, but the doors are, we still have to enter one common door or some maybe two doors so people can go inside and we'll have units on the inside. Speaker 3: Fine. Speaker 21: So, so that way we still need entry point,
but it won't be individual doors. Okay. Speaker 3: The idea is not to be able to pull up a door. The thing goes up, makes it whole bunch of noise. Guy pulls in, he's in there, shuts the door, fixing small engines, working on his landscaping equipment and all that business. Speaker 21: So we don't do that. We don't allow anybody to Speaker 3: You don't have what you're asking for? Speaker 17: No, but even in their existing business, they don't allow people, they're not allowed to work on vehicles, service vehicles, whether it's landscaping or machines that that's not something that they allow. It's storage not issue is and
Speaker 3: You, you show up, you throw up the metal gate, right? There's all kinds of noise associated with that. You close the metal gate and then what happens behind the metal gate is anybody's and nobody knows. Right? All you know is that it's likely to generate noise. Speaker 20: I'm more concerned with the doors open frankly. Speaker 3: Yeah. And doors closing and it's slamming the ground. Or, Speaker 20: Or, or even just the doors left open while whatever activity is going on in there, you know, it's just loud. If it's not controlled by time Speaker 17: We could require that the doors always be closed. You obviously to open them and to access 'em, but to
otherwise have them be closed at all times. I don't know if that's Speaker 21: Feasible. Yeah. Speaker 10: How we gonna enforce Speaker 21: Keep the door open security. Speaker 10: How are you gonna force stop? Speaker 17: Well, onsite grooming manager there's Speaker 10: 24 7. Speaker 17: Well if we have a gated then it's only seven to nine is the, is the issue or the time? Speaker 20: I'm just struggling. Why you can't just be like it is now in the whole rest of the building. Why do these seven units have to be different? The sizes are the same as a lot of the existing. So why can't it just be you go in a common sliding glass door with a cart and you go to your unit
and you do your thing and then you leave and it's no different than the whole rest of the building. Speaker 21: So we may have to open a bigger opening on that side of the building, one opening so people can go in through that rather than individual doors. Speaker 15: But the question is how do they currently get to their storage units? So in building D today, Speaker 21: We don't have it building D because it's not storage right now. Alright, Speaker 15: So you want to turn building D, which is currently underutilized. It's gonna be Speaker 17: Non polish under non utilized Speaker 21: In 97 when you got approval, I was doing incrementally the whole,
all the buildings were approved for self-storage. So I in incrementally it modified it to self storage. But this section over there is, it was built in building in DNE. It was very, Speaker 15: It was the bottling thing. Speaker 21: Yes. So the, that was most difficult to do it, so we had to do much more work to convert it. So we didn't, so the whole property was approved for self storage? Just we did incrementally, that's all. Speaker 15: So building D, you wanna demolish whatever's there or is there nothing there? Demo at all. Demo. Speaker 21: You want demolish building, Speaker 15: You wanna add a building D, you go up the second
Speaker 21: Story. Know inside all this we are doing on the inside of the building, not outside. Speaker 15: Okay, so there is a structure Yes. Which is called building D. Speaker 21: Yes. Speaker 15: And it exists today as a shell or something. Yes. It's not currently rented. There's no spaces in there today, correct? Yeah, correct. You want to lease out building D, you want to finish it and Yes. Make it leaseable. And you're saying that there's no current AC no access to building D from the current ingress point
for everybody else and building A, B, and C, is that correct? Speaker 21: There is a small one, but if there's a very big overhead door, so from that O it is one end of the building. The building is 40 feet by 80 feet. Speaker 15: So you gotta go all the way down. Speaker 21: So you cannot use that if the far end of it. So Speaker 17: It's really to give the clients access to the space. Speaker 21: So I wanted another access on the front, big access, Speaker 15: But you don't need seven doors. One door in building D can give every access to all the internal units. Speaker 21: Ideally I wanted it, but we can compromise on that. Sure. Speaker 15: So Speaker 10: I'm, I'm just curious in your description
of the project, do you say demolish section of build building and rebuild add additional storage units to the newly rebuilt section? Speaker 15: Yeah, so we just said makes sense. Okay. He's adding a second floor to building. Oh he's adding on top of, Speaker 10: You said you're not demolishing Speaker 21: But Speaker 10: The, I'm confused de Speaker 21: Sorry. Speaker 17: The height doesn't change though. Speaker 21: We are keeping the height the same as that was in 2018. That's what we are requested. Keeping the height the same footprint the same. And we were adding a floor to it within the same envelope. Speaker 17: So the roof lines would change in the 80 2018 decision.
The foot part will not change, but the roof lines will Got it. I got it. No increasing Speaker 15: Building today is one floor. 2018, it was approved for a second floor, 2018 lapsed. Correct. And now you want to just refresh 2018 and build a second floor. Yes. So it's not just taking an existing shell and carving up the inside. It's actually changing the outside as well. Speaker 21: So building D is somewhat newer relatively because building D and a e, building E is 2020 timeframe. Yeah, 19, 20 timeframe, sorry, is 1920.
So the foundation, everything is in bad shape. So we have to tear it down to do anything. So we have to, we will, that's why we're saying we're tearing it down with a bit in the same envelope. Got it. We will put a floor in there and convert itself stories. Speaker 15: I think this is actually the purview of the chair to get this back and say, well what are you trying to actually propose? Speaker 17: No, thank you for clarifying, Ron. Speaker 15: Yeah, I can't see the plans though because they're all sideways and yeah, it's Speaker 21: Huge and Speaker 15: Not, I don't know what really Speaker 3: Well. I basically, basically have it. I I don't see any need to, I mean particularly in light of the fact
that you were in such flagrant violation of the rules and regulations that were imposed in 1997. It's, it's been corrected. But this gentleman and, and I presume his neighbors suffered through, through whatever they suffered through that. We don't need to modify the sort of modus operandi of storage there with seven metal up and down doors. I just don't think it's necessary. I think one should be sufficient and, and I think it's a fair compromise. So a gate
that's controlled, I mean I I I don't know how the lock is. I guess we don't need to dictate that necessarily. A lockable gate accessible only by your clientele Speaker 18: During certain Speaker 15: Seven Speaker 3: Nine. Yeah. From se from seven and nine. No, it's, it's locked all the time. Right, right. Yeah. Speaker 15: But you're only gonna access it. You can't access it. Yeah. Speaker 18: And you hit your code, you can't Speaker 3: Get, see Speaker 17: There's no tool doesn't No, it's only seven to nine. Speaker 3: Seven to nine. Boom at nine o'clock. It's locked permanently at 7:00 AM you want to access it, you gotta use your whatever.
Is it a key? Is it a code, what have you? You go in, you do your business, you go out, you lock the door. Right? The next guy comes in, same deal. He accesses it, he does his thing. When he leaves it, he locks the door. Right? Speaker 15: Yep. Speaker 21: So we, we, we put a keypad next to the big door. That's how we access control. That Speaker 3: It's about access to the lot. Is that not the concern if, Speaker 20: If there is still going to be parking in the back? That is my concern as far as access into the storage units.
That's just like the rest of the building. A patron. Speaker 3: That's security. Yeah, that's security. That's your business. When Speaker 15: You say in the back Speaker 20: The Speaker 15: South side side, south side, which all the buses and everything else have gone. Yeah. And now there's back stuff which has trailers and what, and that's the noise that happens at five in the morning that's disruptive. Speaker 3: Five o'clock in the morning. What the noise is from what Speaker 15: There's, if you look at a map, you can see the back of the building has 20 or 30 trailer Speaker 17: Pad, Speaker 15: All kinds of stuff.
Speaker 3: Well first of all, no one's getting in there before seven o'clock. Speaker 17: Right. So that should Speaker 15: Eliminate. Well no, that means you've gotta gate the whole property. The whole, not just the building, the whole entrance because people are gonna walk in and get their trailer or their bulldozer or whatever's it has being rented there. I don't think we should be renting it in the first place. Yeah, it has to, it's not a, it's not an approved Speaker 3: Use. Speaker 10: We have to gate it from the church to the house that's next door, the red house. That's the only way I see that you're gonna have a controlled access Speaker 20: Or from the back of building d perpendicular to the back
of the building something there. Because now no one can park overnight on the east side. So that would control people from going down into that lower southern lot. Speaker 10: Is there another access point that I'm missing on the space, on Speaker 15: The slot? Speaker 17: There is access to the building from, you know, the north side and the west side on the far side of the building. Can't Speaker 3: Get in there Speaker 17: Coming. So people do go down there to access the, wait a minute. Storage. Wait, building D right here in that, back in building, right?
Two driveways. Is that building a? Yeah. Built with Speaker 15: This away. Speaker 3: Yeah, but you have to go through there. Four. Yeah. You Speaker 15: Have to put two gates there and lock 'em two gates until seven in the morning. Speaker 17: Yeah, I was just gonna say unfortunately we're gonna have to have two gates. Yeah. If you're gonna require a gate. 'cause on, Speaker 3: On Mill Street, one in one to, you have two entrances, right? Yep. Because you can drive around the vehicle, correct? Speaker 17: Correct. Speaker 3: Counterclockwise. Speaker 17: Correct. Speaker 3: So two gates. Yeah, two gates right there and there. Yeah, Speaker 10: That's what I was saying. Yeah,
Speaker 3: Fine. Okay. I mean you can do that, right? But that's Speaker 15: Presuming Yeah, Speaker 17: We can figure that out. Use Speaker 3: I don't, I know you don't want, you, you you're talking about a use that's existed for since 1997 with, with no no. In a similar use since, but no, but but again, no, no, no involvement by the building commission. Speaker 17: No zoning enforcement issues whatsoever. Alright, Speaker 15: Well everything I've read says just because you're breaking the law does forever doesn't mean it's legal. Speaker 3: That's a great thing about zoning. No meaning
Speaker 15: Breaking a zoning by Speaker 3: Law. Yeah. I mean we are highlighting it, it now are we not? So yeah, the Speaker 20: 25 year, Speaker 3: Yeah, it's being highlighted now. Possession. Speaker 21: So before this was self storage, it was PepsiCo plant there. They used to have lot of trucks going in and out through this whole facility. So it was not a big thing in 97 because there were trucks going all the time. So self store, very good use. Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a, it's low Speaker 17: Impact comparatively Speaker 3: A less impactful use than, than the existing, than the existing users.
I'm sure people were happy to have this versus the activity that precedes modeling trucks. Yeah. And, and and you know, you come in here with a modification that was granted seven years ago that was for whatever reason was now filed through. You come back seven years later and say we'd like the same relief. And to, to my knowledge, the, the issues here that have changed since 2018 that are worth discussing are outside storage, which can't happen again. And this additional issue,
which is essentially noise and that noise is generated by Pete. Speaker 20: One more time. He's where on this? No, him. Yeah, Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah. So can can you just come here for a second? Just point something out to me. Speaker 20: Of course Speaker 3: You're here. Speaker 20: Yes. Yeah. Speaker 3: That's building d there's some cars, right? Correct. They generally don't come and go too, too often? Speaker 20: No, they, they park overnight
and they go out during the day every day. Okay, Speaker 3: So that's not storage that that's parking. But you're saying the noise is generated by cars pulling in and out of the lot. Speaker 20: A trailers equipment being loaded up onto the trailers Speaker 3: There. Speaker 20: Yep. And box trucks moving trucks are all on here. And is it more Speaker 14: A function of the, of the time or just the event itself? Speaker 20: It's more the time because, you know, during the day I don't care about that. Speaker 14: I mean, I'm wondering if it's just, you know, with, with the two gate theory that just they can't get in.
They can't get in or out. Speaker 17: That's what we would submit that that's gonna address any noise prior to seven or after 9:00 PM which I think is Mr. Whitney's concerns. Alright, Speaker 3: So the parking can stay but they have to leave, you know, they can't stay more than two weeks at a time. Speaker 17: Okay. Speaker 3: And I don't know if Speaker 20: That's called Speaker 3: Seven days. Seven days. It's not Speaker 9: A commuter lot. Speaker 3: Two days Speaker 18: It's not parked. It doesn't have to be a commuter lot. I, I go, I leave my car, I'm allowed
to park my car on my lot and there's some weeks that go Speaker 3: By, go on vacation. But Speaker 9: You're charging, it isn't a residential area. Parking your lot, parking your driveway. It's a car Speaker 3: Regularly. Leave my car commercial in my parking space and go to Logan there. Speaker 18: Theres some time. There's some time between storage of parking and storage. Speaker 3: Se seven days. Seven days. Yes. Speaker 18: I would submit two, two weeks plus. Speaker 17: Yeah, I would ask for that. Just 'cause like we just said, you're on vacation. If somebody's gone for two week vacation and now we're in violation 'cause they haven't moved their car.
Speaker 3: Two weeks. Two weeks. 14 calendar days. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 3: Gates? Speaker 17: Yep. Speaker 3: Hours of operation. Seven to nine. No outside storage. Speaker 17: Only one door outside. Speaker 3: Yeah. One door into D. No drive up. No drive up. Was it seven? No, no, no, no, no. The loading. The loading. It's Speaker 18: Yeah, you, you can't Speaker 3: Hold on. Sorry. Yeah. Elimination of the seven drive up Speaker 9: Doors. Is that what you're talking about? Yeah, Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 9: No, for sure. That Speaker 3: Those are gone. So now, I mean all the requirements of the 97 decision remain in full for full force in effect. So Speaker 17: Yeah. And other than the outside storage, I think we're in full com. We have been in full compliance with 'em Speaker 3: From the interior only, no drive up units. Will that be a condition? No. Drive up units. Okay. Okay. No drive up units. 'cause I think that's gonna be noise producing. Speaker 18: Yeah. And that's already in the nine seven, right? Speaker 17: Well, especially we're Speaker 3: Building conditioned on it. It's just part of the fact finding Speaker 17: Comments on it. Speaker 3: It's way into the, but it will now, excuse me.
No, no repair work that's on there. No. So all, all restrictions from nine seven remain full force and effect. And then we'll just look at 18 as guidance. Speaker 17: Obviously we will abide by the letters to con con DPW and Board of Health. Yeah. And no parking on the, or permanent parking on the east side of the parking lot. Only short term to access the, the stor, the actual storage units. Speaker 3: Yeah. Here it is. To the extent that vehicles are permitted to park on the site, those vehicles should not be permanently parked on the east side of the parking lot. So I think it contemplated parking. There you go.
Speaker 21: Can we change the two weeks to a month because we leased by the month and two weeks does not fall anywhere. Speaker 10: This returns to my question of what are they doing for two, for like a month? Speaker 15: One Speaker 18: You can still lease for by the month, but they need to, Speaker 17: They just need to move it like, I mean, to be frank, take it out. So it has to be Speaker 18: A, a vehicle that's in use, not a vehicle that's just sitting Speaker 17: There. So we're not storing it for a month. Speaker 3: We Speaker 21: Do ask people to have a, their vehicle should, has to be registered and insured. Yeah. Only those, those vehicles Speaker 3: And operable, I mean for you, for you,
the less they move the better. Yeah. So 30 days is actually is better. Right? Anybody? Speaker 15: I feel like we're expanding the use of that property. Speaker 3: Look, it was contemplated right here. Look, to the extent that vehicles are per permitted to park on the site, those vehicles should not be permanently parked on the east side of the parking lot. I mean certainly that compli that that that implies Speaker 15: Parking lot. But basically says you're not allowed to lease storage for the east side of the parking lot. It doesn't say anything about the south side. But nor do we say it's okay to,
Speaker 3: To the extent vehicles are permitted to park on the site, those vehicles shall not be pre permanently parked on the east side of the parking lot. Speaker 15: Right? Speaker 3: Yeah. But certainly parking that contemplates parking, Speaker 15: Temporary parking. Yeah. Which this is, as a matter of fact, I think the best way to code that would be no cars overnight on the east side. Speaker 3: Yeah. But the thing is, you, you realize that his concern here is one of noise, right? Daily noise. The cars that you require to come in and go out every day are likely to increase, not decrease noise. So having the cars sit there for 30 days at a time
is i is a net reduction Speaker 14: Again, it's it's solved by the by the time though, I mean it is solved by limiting it to 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM Yeah. Speaker 15: We were not allowed to park your car overnight. Speaker 14: Right. So it's a little, I think it's a little mo I don't know if we need to talk about it much more. Speaker 15: Well, no, we're trying to, trying to come up with wording that nails it down so that people don't wiggle through the cracks. Like Central Street Garage. Speaker 3: Well I'm, I I I, I'm, I'm sort of lost as to what you guys are arguing. So what's Speaker 15: Your, what I'm arguing is there is no overnight parking on
the east side at all, Speaker 3: But, but parking elsewhere on the site, Speaker 15: I'd say there's no parking anywhere on the site overnight. Speaker 17: So we, we'd be agreeable to no overnight parking on the east side. Speaker 3: Fine. Done. Okay. And then any parking on the other remainder of the site will be No, Speaker 17: No more than excess of 30 days. Okay. That works Speaker 3: Fine. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 18: And to be clear, the car can be there every day of the, of the year for a year. As long as it's moving Speaker 14: Periodically. Speaker 17: Once, yeah. That's essentially registered. It's not storage Speaker 3: Insured and operable.
Speaker 21: Yep. Yes. We, we require that Speaker 3: Got that registered Speaker 17: Richard and operable. Speaker 21: And we also required no work will be done on the vehicles. That's in, Speaker 3: That's in the 97 Speaker 21: Decision. Speaker 17: Yeah. Speaker 21: One thing I would like is on the building D where all the, the seven units were. If you're gonna remove the seven units, I will need a big opening there. Yeah, you can, it won't be drive up access, but it'll be an access to to the Speaker 14: Problem. Sir, I think you do on your plans, you already do show one of your typical three panel slider doors.
You do show one of those already in building D Speaker 21: The overhead door. Speaker 3: I'm sorry, Speaker 21: The overhead door. Speaker 14: Well, I, I would kind of go back to if, if three panel door is good everywhere else, why don't you, why wouldn't you do Speaker 21: We need somehow panel building a very long, so right now there's a door on one end of the building, so the other end is 80 feet away. So we need something in the middle somewhere. Speaker 14: That's So you're saying that's on the south side? Yes. The new door that you're talking about is on the south side. Speaker 17: Yeah. So it's over here. The new doors. Speaker 14: Okay. Yeah. Does anybody Speaker 3: Else have anything to say about Speaker 21: This project? No One that's existing on the east side.
East side because you put to door in the middle, it'll be 40 feet and 40 feet for the, for Speaker 3: The customer. Okay. I think we've heard enough. Speaker 14: Yeah, I think overall though, I would, I don't know where we're going if we're gonna vote with conditions or it's a continuance, but it feels like I'm leaning towards heck the architects just needs to update building D so we're really exactly clear. Speaker 3: I think that's a fair point. Yeah. So, so you, you've heard everything bring it back to us. That shows you, that shows what this looks like one door into D, not seven.
Because the first, the first condition is that it should be built in substantial conformity with the plan submitted and the plan submitted. Don't show what we're talking about. No lights spill off the property, no rooftop units and the rest we've talked about. Alright. Speaker 17: Yes. Is there any way to close the hearing and have that as a condition that will provide that to the board as compared to coming back? No. No. Okay. No. Speaker 3: So, okay, so good. We're good. Continue. Alright, I think we're good. Yeah. Speaker 17: Thank you very much for your spending. I have a motion Speaker 14: Please. Speaker 3: He's gonna motion right now to continue. Move, go.
Go. I Speaker 22: Move to continue the hearing until August 25th. Speaker 3: Second. Second. All aye Alan, all those in favor? You, you, you four five. Yep. Five oh. Yep. Thank Speaker 17: You for giving us so much time. I appreciate it very much. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Everyone here, Speaker 3: Here, council. Speaker 17: Yes. Thank Speaker 3: You Ms. Thanks. Thank you Mr. Chair. Yeah. Can I have a Yeah, break. We were on a break. Five minutes. Speaker 1: We're on. We got number five on the matter. So Johnny Silver for filing
for Mass General 40 bylaw. Mike please. Your mike. Speaker 3: Alright Speaker 1: And we're back. Speaker 3: We're back. Continue public hearing for Johnny D. Silva for finding per chapter MGL chapter 48, section six, Natick zoning bylaws, section four B and five A. The applicant proposes to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting nonconforming audit shown on the plan submitted. Hello? Hello. Hi. Okay. As I recall you were here and we asked for a height calculation,
some drainage calculations and to at least address some issues with regard to size. So you folks submitted a letter, correct? Yep. Okay. This is who we are. Purpose of building? Yeah. Dream Home six Speaker 1: Oak five. Okay. Three oxbow Speaker 3: And Speaker 23: The concerns that have been addressed. The design, Speaker 3: The concerns are indicated, Speaker 23: The changes between the designs. Speaker 3: We're gonna let you tell us about that. We also have some Is Ruth Friedenberg here? Okay.
Ruth, if we, if we have your letter, you can testify or we can read the letter. What would you like to do? This Speaker 1: Making a Speaker 3: Difference to me is what you would say at the podium. What this is written in this letter. Speaker 1: You can read the letter it make it shorter. Speaker 3: Okay, here we go. Then I can, then I Speaker 1: Can answer any Speaker 3: Questions. Oh, fair enough. Okay, we're gonna go outta order. Letter of concern. As a resident of Millbrook Road, NA Na Natick neighborhood, I have grave concerns regarding the proposed construction of a 4,366 square foot home on a 12,031 square foot lot at three Oxbow.
Our community encompasses Oxboro, Millbrook roads representing well established residential area that has maintained its character and charm for decades. This proposed structure will fundamentally alter the character of this community that has been successfully raising families and supporting residents through all stages of life. Many of our neighbors are working professionals and retirees who have chosen this area specifically for its established residential character and sense of community cohesion. Community character and values. This is a cohesive community that takes tremendous pride in maintaining their homes, actively assist neighbors in need
and operates as an effective community watch group. The social fabric of our neighborhood is built on mutual respect, shared values regarding appropriate development and a collective commitment to preserving the residential scale that makes this area desirable. Scale and proportion concerns. The proposed structure represents a dramatic departure from the established building patterns in our neighborhood based on the existing homes that define our community character. The following data illustrates the concern concerning disparity. There's a chart here showing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 6, 13, 14, 15
millbrook and 16 and 17. It shows the current square feet, the lot square size, the percentage of the structure of the lot, the proposed square feet of this proposed project, the lot size of that. And it shows who lives where. And so essentially what it's showing me is that the total percentage of structure versus lot on most of the lots, 11, 4, 9, 11, 6, 8, 14, 4, 1, 12, 0 6, 17, 85, 10 91, 15, 95, 14 56, 12 24 and two of them are larger. That would be four oxbow at 2295.
And this is and three ox boat. 1441, that's this one. And also 17 Millbrook is 20.62. The proposed home would be more than twice the size of the largest existing home in the immediate area and three times, three times larger than some neighboring properties. This represents a 140% increase over the current largest home, creating an unprecedented inappropriate scale for our established neighborhood hood infrastructure and quality of life. A structure of this magnitude will create several concerning impacts.
Traffic and parking. A home of this size typically accommodates larger families or multiple vehicles potentially straining our quiet residential streets that were designed for more modest residential use. Privacy and light. The massive scale will likely impact neighboring properties through overshadowing loss of privacy and alteration of site lines that current residents have enjoyed Precedent setting approval of this oversized development could encourage similar autoscale projects, fundamentally transforming our neighborhood's character permanently. Drainage, environmental impact, the larger structure footprint may affect natural drainage patterns and reduce permeable surface potentially
impacting neighboring properties. Property values and community stability. While proponents might argue that larger homes increase property values as a result is more complex, homes that are dramatically outta scale with their surroundings can actually destabilize property values by creating an un inconsistent neighborhood character that may deter future buyers seeking cohesive communities, potentially pricing out the working professionals and families who currently form the backbone of our community and disrupting the established residential patterns that make our area attractive to long-term residents. Conclusion, I respectfully urge the planning board, the zoning board to reject this proposal require significant
modifications to bring their structure into appropriate scale with our established neighborhood character. Our community has thrived precisely because it has maintained reasonable residential scale, foster neighborly relationships and preserve the qualities that make it an ideal place for families and retirees alike. The proposed 43 66 square foot home represents more than just an oversized building. It represents a fundamental threat to the community value, scale and character that current residents have invested in and worked in, worked, worked to maintain. We ask that future development respect the established patterns that have made our neighborhood desirable and stable residential community.
We're not opposed to appropriate new construction or, or home improvements that enhance our community. However, we strongly believe that any new development should come compliment rather than dominate the existing neighborhood character. A home that is more than twice the size of the surrounding properties fails. This basic test of community comp compatibility. I hope that the planning board zoning board will carefully consider these concerns and the data presented recognizing that the decision made regarding this proposal will set important precedence for future development in our community. We trust that you'll prioritize, prioritize the interest of the established community in the long-term
character of our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration Sincerely. Ruth Friedenberg 13 Millbrook Road. Let's just take a look at the thank you. Current square feet, lot size. So we have 1400, 1400, 1800, 1400. This is 1800. You say 1800. Oh, I'm sorry. It's currently 1800. So 1400, 1400 1800 Currently 1400 3227 14, 19 19. These are existing 14 and then 24 98.
This is 1820. It's proposed at 4 43 66. That would be 36.28% of the lot, which is well in excess of the others. That's the point. Right. Okay. Alright, well thank you. Now there's another opposition. Is somebody here? Is Scott and Paula Wilder here. Okay, same thing. Would you like to speak or would you like me to read this letter? Speaker 24: No, I'd like to speak. Speaker 3: Please do. I mean, I think Speaker 24: If I may. Speaker 3: Yep. Speaker 24: I I i,
as far as your letter we submitted last week, I mean I think that is, that's Speaker 3: The letter I'm referring Speaker 24: To. Okay. Yes. So, but there are a couple of things just to recap some of my concerns on this. Again, I think as you guys have been dealing with, we got a corn lot, we have a house that's too big for the property. That's, that's, that's being proposed there. We did meet with the owner, we had, we changed numbers after the last meeting as requested by the board. Very nice people. You know, like I I said before, nothing here is personal and we exchanged numbers. We had a meeting at his house, myself, my wife,
and one of the other neighbors and he basically, him and his architect showed us, you know, a little bit more of what they were planning to do and seeing what he's posted. Since then, the only concessions offered in the plans were the removal of the third floor window that looked into our skylight into our family room, which is much appreciated. And there was a small, a small reduction in the size of the house and I really wanted to clarify it. And I thought maybe when we were talking last with, with the owner, the new owner that about the Remo paying
for the, the new fence install, he was gonna take care of that for me, which I appreciate. But that fence is not ours. It's the property of three ox boat. So basically the, the previous owners have put that up over 30 years ago and you know, owners after that have added onto it. That's all I just wanna do. I don't know if you really need to recap the letter, I think, Speaker 3: No, I think we have it. Okay. Speaker 24: I appreciate, Speaker 3: Thanks very much. Thank you. The Speaker 24: Board. Speaker 3: Thank you. Anybody else wish to be heard? Okay. Alright, so you've heard some of the other hearings tonight.
You heard the concerns of the neighbors, you've heard sort of the general concerns of the board. We have a set of plans here from the last time you were here. Has anything changed? Speaker 23: Yes, we did the change, we did downgrade by 233 square foot. Speaker 3: Okay. Due respect, this is a 4,000 some odd square foot property. And by knocking it down by 200 and something square feet, do you think that's gonna move people? Speaker 23: The the reason for that, first, when I invested in this house and I'm the homeowner, I'm not a builder.
Speaker 3: Right. It makes no difference. It, these are judged not on who, but on what? Speaker 23: Okay. It's fine. So I was planning to have a 15, my needs are like 4,500 square foot house that I want to, to build. When I find out that there is no basement because of the soil, I just spread that into two levels. And that's the reason why I, I, I did two levels for that square footage. If I had the, the basement, I was allowed, I would have done the basement and just 1500 each, each level and I'm fine. But because of the, the family needs,
Speaker 3: Let's talk about where we really are, not where we wish we were. If this, then that. Here we are. You've got a house here expressed grave concerns about the total size of the house on the lot. It's well bigger than anything there today. You have expressed concerns here by two of the direct abutters. The board has commented that it's a big house on a small lot and you knock 200 feet off or 236 feet off.
And, and I, and I ask you, like Andy's about to ask you, which is that, how do you think you can come back before the board and things will be different? Speaker 23: So the, there are other houses in the neighborhood, there isn't only oxbow and there is only Millbrook, there is a bottom lane. There is a, yeah. Speaker 14: If, if I could just, just for perspective on it, just looking at the cover sheet of the, of the drawing set, there are five line items where you break out, you know,
first floor, second floor, unfinished attic, bonus room, et cetera. So if you do just take the line items of the first and second floor that is around the 4,500 square feet. But just for sort of, you know, clearly the sort of argument of the bulk of the house. If you add in the bonus room, if you add in the unfinished attic, which is space and the garage, it's over 7,000 square feet. Speaker 23: I'm, I'm not using it at all. I I'm not, I'm not looking, I don't even need it. Speaker 3: You're missing the point, meaning Speaker 14: That, that, that it's a direct relationship
to the bulk of the house. 7,000 square feet of, of footprint. If it's garage or attic, whatever it is. Even if you may say you may not use the attic at all, that certainly adds to the bulk and the presence of the height. So that combined with the fact that the, you know, you're really maxing out the coverage, the site coverage and the height. You know, I think you can tell where I'm leaning towards on this, on this proposal. Speaker 23: So just wanna understand one thing. So if, if Natick, if Natick requirement and law tell me these are the laws, these are the rules
you built within the box and I'm building within the box. Right? Why, why will, but Speaker 14: You not though you don't have a large enough lot, Speaker 23: But those ones are within, Speaker 14: You're building a large box on a small plate. I, you know, whatever. I don't know the Speaker 23: Metaphor use, but, but the rules, I'm sorry, I just want understand. Sure. I'm not trying to argue it. Just, if they come and they tell me this is the setbacks, this is the height, this is the percentage, how much you can build, and that's the box. You, you can, you can don't, don't go beyond that. And I'm within those bylaws, where am I? Am I
Speaker 25: But Speaker 23: Have you looked around the neighborhood at the other buildings? Yes. There is a, there is a, a Brookdale. Yeah. It's 47 nearby. Nearby around. Yeah, it is nearby. Green leaf is 4,700 square foot and there is Brookdale, I went to the house myself and they have attic that is unfinished also. And it's 40, 4700 square foot with unfinished attic. Speaker 25: Full size lot. It's a full Brookdale has a full size lot and you cannot see Brookdale or any of the houses on Brookdale from where we're on Speaker 3: Millbrook.
Okay. Let, let me, let me stop you just for a moment. Let's be very clear. If your lot were big enough, you wouldn't be here. Speaker 14: Yeah, you wouldn't be here. Speaker 3: Okay. So, but you are here. And so this board has a job to do and this is one of those projects unique in my experience where we absent concerns by the neighborhood, I would have concerns, which is rare as this board knows, this is Way too big.
It's just too big. It is going to tower over the other properties in this neighborhood. It is humongous. I'm not sure I could say it any other way. I we could take a straw vote right now. Okay. In my experience, and I've been doing this a while, this is not gonna get built like this. It's just too big. And you heard the same thing last month and we're here talking about the same things and it's like there's a certain tone deafness
about I want this, so I want this too. You know, but you know, there's a, you need relief and the people in the neighborhood, they matter. And, and I think you have a fairly restrained reaction given the nature of this project, to be frank. Speaker 23: The only thing that is restraining the, the, the biggest constraint about the la the lot itself. I know what it's, it's very narrow. Yeah, yeah. Speaker 3: I get Speaker 23: Get it. It's, it's very, if if I, you're making I i my point Yeah, it's
Speaker 3: Fine. You're making my point. You are trying to do too much with too little. You need to do less, Speaker 23: But it's not gonna be the house that I want at all. I Speaker 3: I, I know you bought the wrong lot. You know, you gotta, it's gotta, it's, you have to be more modest if you want these things to get approved by the board, right? It, it's Speaker 23: Just, it, it's not about it. I'm sorry. It's not about, I took the neighbors inside the house and I told them, let's just walk. It's from here to there. How I cannot build a room here. Do you have and then a kitchen, it's very narrow.
It's very narrow in nature. Speaker 3: Plus or minus, I don't know, 3000 square feet. Speaker 14: I mean, sir, please look, look at the floor plans. I mean, you're, you're in your living room where you have your tv, your, your couch and your coffee table is literally eight feet away and then another eight feet away to the next sofa. We, we can't comment on interior design, but there is a tremendous amount of excess space within this. So I'm not criticizing your architect just saying that
that is might be something to take a look at. How Speaker 3: Much, how much of the space is, is, is unusable. In other words, no one's gonna live in the attic, no one's gonna live. You know, that's what they're saying, right? How much of that adds to the overall mass? Speaker 14: So right now it's 4,500 square feet for just the first and the second floor. If you add in what they could use as a bonus from above the garage and the garage and the attic space, that's another over 2,500 square feet. Speaker 23: If I remove, if I remove completely the attic,
the house attic, will that be fine? Speaker 14: It's a whole new design. I mean, Speaker 3: I mean, I don don't know. Speaker 23: Would that be fine? We have to see it, but because I'm not gonna use it for me. It's just there. If I don't, if I remove it, will that be Nobody Speaker 3: Makes any promises, but yeah, Speaker 14: We can't, yeah, we can't. I, we're gonna get nervous ourselves in hot water. Speaker 3: Yeah, it, it sounds like, I mean, we can't make any promise. We gotta see it. We've gotta look at it, you know, we gotta actually experience it. But I'm gonna suggest to you that you're way closer to getting it approved if you did something like that than what we're looking at today. Speaker 15: I'm not voting Mr.
Chair, but this footprint is maximizing every inch that it can. And it's even staggering to trace the weird angle of the lot. This is just, it's an overreach in every possible dimension. Not calling it an attic and lowering the roof by two feet is not going to fix this. This is just too big in every possible dimension. Speaker 10: And Speaker 15: I, it's massive. So Speaker 23: By, so by the completely the attic, it's, it's still not, and who, Speaker 3: It's Speaker 15: Everything. It's like the guy who was in here, you know,
who had this big huge house and he shaved off 250 feet or whatever. And still way too huge. I mean, I don't know how to Speaker 3: Get it, it through. I can't Speaker 15: Sort of modesty. Some modicum of modesty Speaker 10: And I wanna like, thank you. I I did read your, your wife's letter. I did read it and I thought about it and I still come back to, I don't understand why people aren't understanding. It's too big with respect. No, Speaker 23: That's fine. Thank you. Speaker 3: Yeah. So it it, you can't say, if we do this, will you approve it?
Who knows? We gotta see it now we gotta hear what's happening back there. But at the same time, believe me, there have been many projects that come in that are relatively modest, larger than what was there. Right? Larger than the neighbor who are readily approved because people are resistant to change. That's not what I'm hearing today. Not even close. Right. What I'm hearing today is what's there is just too big. And, and I'm, and I agree implicitly.
So there you have it again, tonight's a bit of a weird one in terms of what happens. What would typically occur is we give you a crack at, at, at redesigning it. Are you interested in that? Speaker 23: If it's, I think it's, it's going negative here. I prefer to withdraw. Speaker 3: Done motion. To accept to withdraw somebody. Yes. Did somebody do it? Speaker 23: Motion to accept the withdraw for three ox board Speaker 3: Second. Second is over at Andy. And all those in favor? That's Speaker 9: Without prejudice. Without
Speaker 3: Prejudice. That's without, without prejudice. Speaker 23: Without prejudice. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry, who Speaker 3: Was who? I Andy Re Oh me. J Jason. Speaker 9: Not me, not you. Speaker 3: Actually I don't even know. Go. You, you. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I didn't know Rob wasn't voting. I wasn't here. Speaker 9: We did it before. Speaker 3: Oh, oh, okay. Fine. So you were, you were, you were here last month. The four. Okay, so 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This is J Did you make the motion? Does it matter? I don't think it didn't matters. Speaker 9: I made the motion. Yes, it matter. Speaker 3: Jason made the motion seconded by Ari. Motion. Seconded.
All those in favor. We'll see you on August 20. No, that was a withdrawal. Oh, sorry. See you later. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys. You, you again. You, you have those folks in the back there, you know, you could show them plans, what have you. Speaker 9: The motion. Speaker 3: Yeah. Ari did public hearing for six Oak Noll Road for Silva Development for re finding of Mass General Law Chapter 48, section six and the A zoning bylaw section four B and five A. The applicant proposes to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the pre and nonconforming audit.
Shown in the plan submitted six Oak Knoll Knoll. Hi, how you doing counsel? How you doing? Speaker 26: I'm Peter Harrans for Silva Development. Speaker 3: One more Speaker 26: Time. Peter Harrans representing the applicant. Speaker 3: Alright, hold on. A second. Speaker 26: The green light's on. I don't know if it's a close or not. Speaker 3: This is new. Alright, so the, the lot's too small. You don't have enough frontage. You're good on the depth. You're good on the front west. East Rear coverage. Yeah. Height. It's all there. Okay, let's see.
Speaker 9: This is Speaker 3: A PD. You gonna put some subsurface stuff in there? Yes. Yes. Storm water. Yeah, we, Speaker 26: We got all the letters. I think we didn't see any from the neighbors, or I haven't heard anything to Speaker 3: My knowledge. No. Infiltration. Alright, let, let's go outta order here. Anybody here on six Oak Knoll? Okay. Seeing none. Alright, so this is a sort of typical kind of section 60 kind of thing. Speaker 9: Alright, so 21 for cover. Speaker 26: Yeah, 21% for the, for the coverage.
Height is about, we have 33 on there. When I look at the final architecturals, they have it around 30 feet, so a little shorter than the table. Speaker 3: The table I'm looking at says 30, so yeah, Speaker 26: 30. Yeah. And I, it's 28 point something on the, the front elevation, but it, yeah, 30 feet. Speaker 3: Anybody have any questions? Speaker 9: I Speaker 3: Just wanna look. Oh, so that was Ari who just walked out. So let's go. Alan, Rob, Jason, David. Wait, no, actually it has to be Gail. Gail, Rob, Jason, David and Alan.
Jeff Lee. He's, he wasn't feeling well. Okay. So Alan, you're in this one. Okay. So I mean, I think we can see it all here. You know, I think it, it, it all looks really fairly modest to me. It's, we don't, it's all within the, within the setbacks. You got a smaller lot smaller building. I have no questions. Does anybody else, Speaker 8: I just wanted to make sure the height was right because it looked like they were raising the grade somewhat too. Speaker 9: When I looked at it earlier, Speaker 3: Let's see, it's at 13, eight.
No, it looks like they're dropping it. Speaker 9: Do we have Speaker 3: A grading? Speaker 26: Have front elevation on the Architecturals Has it from a, that's it. Pop of concrete. A two one. I think it's Speaker 9: Missing. Okay. Wow, that's modest. Hell, it's, Speaker 26: I was gonna paraphrase and say I hope this is one of those applications that he was talking about with a modest increase. Speaker 3: Anybody? Oh, anybody? Anything? Okay. You want a motion? Oh, sorry. Sorry, go ahead. Sure. Yeah, go ahead. Speaker 5: Yeah, so when I was looking at the plans, I noticed
I was confused because a number of the square feet for different parts of the house are not specified. Like we have a total, but we don't have specifics. So for instance, there's floor areas for square footage for bathrooms, closets, a walk-in closet, and even a laundry room where it's not clear to me whether those square, those square feet are included in the totals for those floors. Speaker 26: And the ones noted. So the, they have the,
the living space on each at the bottoms. So you're saying you don't know if that was Speaker 5: Right because I was trying to compare the total that's listed there with, to, you know, match it up and make sure that there aren't any small errors. And because those numbers are not included, I wasn't able to verify. So that's what I was hoping you could clarify for us. Speaker 26: Well, I didn't, that I didn't draw the architectures. I can confirm for the board with them post-meeting if I, if I have to that, that the ones noted are accurate.
I mean, I did, I'm assuming the architects calculated it correctly when they put these together. Speaker 5: Also, I don't have the drawings up on my computer, but I didn't see the attic level or the, let's see, the un the unfinished basement now, I mean that is basement is part of the total floor, gross floor area. So that's why it'd be good to have that. It did I miss something? Speaker 26: I think the gross floor is based on the footprint as it relates to the percentage. So where the, the building sits relative to the,
the lot coverage. It's not necessarily like if the bathroom is a certified, Speaker 5: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I think, I mean, living area. Speaker 26: Okay. Am Speaker 27: I right? Living area, Speaker 28: Basement living space. Is Speaker 26: It 915 is what they have. So like Speaker 27: This unfinished, there's no number for that. Speaker 5: So you know each, each of the parts of the basement that you'll have the, like let's say it's 14 by 11 for one part of the basement, but then another part of the basement, which appears to be normal, usable height. I think you're running about eight feet maybe on this one.
I'm not sure if I'm mixed up with a different one, but there's a lot of space down there and it doesn't specify that it is being taken up by HVAC equipment or other utilities. And it's, there's actually quite a bit of room in there. Speaker 26: Yeah. Well I think for the purposes of the zoning, the zoning calculations, these aren't the final building plans. So those would, the mechanicals and the locations of those are the next step of planning before they construct it. But for the purposes of the relief being sought here
for the small lot and the frontage, I think the calculation of the lot coverage is accurate. I can confirm that, but I believe that that's accurate. So I mean, like, I guess if I were looking at the basement and we just put a bunch of blank spots, we didn't note it as unfinished or noted as d it wouldn't impact the application. Speaker 5: Okay. So I'm looking at the checklist and under the, you know, site information that all projects have to supply the building floor area, the gross area for, for the proposed versus the existing.
I couldn't find the calculations for the existing house. What, what am I missing in the application? Speaker 26: Do you mean like the Speaker 5: Gross floor area as opposed to Speaker 26: It's currently a 12.9%. They have it at, Speaker 3: Well wait, let, let wait, Speaker 5: Let's no, that's coverage. Speaker 3: Yeah, let, let's make sure that's what we're talking to. Apples to. Apples to. Yeah. The total living area is not necessarily relevant to any of the dimensional controls here. The building coverage is the footprint against the lot, right?
Yes. So if we had an FAR, then the GFA starts to make a difference and whether or not those areas in the basement are used for mechanicals or they're used for living area start to become relevant. But when we look at our table, I, I'm not sure that that it's relevant Speaker 14: What she's referring to. I think it's a, is a interesting point is that in our zoning chart that is that last one before we get to the nr, that the building footprint Yep. Building floor area close. Most folks do fill that in.
We don't have an a I know we don't have a, an actual, Speaker 3: It's only because of this. It's because that form I think does double duty. It's 40 a section six finding forward slash variance checklist. Speaker 26: So if I was coming in for a variance or Speaker 3: Then the rest of those blocks start to have some relevance to the extent people fill in that next blank, they do so sometimes Speaker 14: To help us. Speaker 3: So for example, there are, they do so at their peril. Speaker 14: Yeah. Well, okay. Speaker 3: Some of the, some of the uses within Speaker 15: Town do require an FAR, like Right. So you would have to fill it out,
but you don't have to fill everything out. Speaker 14: No, I know we're just talking about the one, the one where it says a Yeah, it says, yeah, building flow Speaker 5: All projects. Speaker 14: Yeah. And it, so it doesn't say not required. It does say a and I think that's why some folks do fill that in. Got it. Maybe more of an internal discussion for us about motor, Speaker 3: But, but I guess I just want to know what, where, where we're going with that inquiry. Speaker 5: Oh, because the total floor area is one of the actual facts we can use to compare between the existing house and the proposed. And I'd like to make sure
that we're really doing our due diligence on comparing with the existing house, because the existing house tends to be underrepresented in our, in our application files. And so it's, it's an actual data point as opposed to, well, my gut says this is too big. Sure. Or, you know, so it it's really to, to make, you know, have a firmer footing for saying, you know, maybe you should think about making this house smaller. Sure. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah, Speaker 26: No, I, I do. And in this case, the house that's existing there
a stiff breach and it, it's very old disrepair. It, it, it wouldn't be, I'm not sure if it would be very helpful in this instance. And not to say that I, I can fill it in if you guys need to for other applications or this one if, if it has any bearing on the decision, I guess. But yeah, I, we just didn't include it. I guess the square footage again in, in the interior, like where, where the living area is compared to how old this house is and what the living area was back when it was built. It's, it's decades and decades at this point. And I, and not to, I, I understand it's different in different applications,
but in this one, this is a very, very old house and removing another ancillary structure that's also in a, a pretty bad state of disrepair in general. Speaker 5: So I have one more, one last question, which is about retaining walls. I didn't see anything indicated on the site plans unless I missed it, that you're gonna be putting in any retaining walls. I noticed that the property to the right has a fresh concrete retaining wall and I wanted to check and see what's happening with, you know, is there any kind
of grading and so on that's gonna involve Speaker 26: If one chairman, I Speaker 3: Don't know if that's in our purview. Is that what Yeah, yeah. That's within us, that's within our purview. I'm, Speaker 26: I'm, yeah. And again, I, we've dealt with retaining walls as it comes up. If we do need one there, I don't believe if, if they don't show it on this, then they don't believe they need one. Now if they were to, you'd see me again before we did something like that. Fair? Speaker 3: Yep. Okay. Anything else? Speaker 5: No thank you. Speaker 3: Anything over here? Okay, so again, one, two, no.
Oh, sorry, Gail, me, Jason, Rob, and Alan. Right. Okay. If you would, Speaker 8: I would move to approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming structure provided built and substantial conformance with the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submitted letters to the board. Speaker 3: Second. Second by, was that Alan? Oh no, it was Rob And all those in favor? No abstaining, Speaker 9: No voting against. Speaker 3: Oh, okay. All those against. Okay. So four. Is it four to one? Four to one. It passes.
You're all set. Thank you. Okay. Good luck. The next one is the public hearing for two third street for Chris ti for Jack and Kerry Veer for fighting for chapter 48, section six, zoning bylaw section four eight. You proposed to construct an addition front porch and second level and extended current garage. Hello there. Eight. Okay, hang on one second. Okay, so you got a small lot with not enough frontage. You got the depth, you got the front,
you don't have the rear. No, sorry, you don't have the west, but it's non-conforming currently. And it's gonna get a little smaller. The east side is non-conforming and that's gonna get a little smaller. Then you have the rear, which is good, the coverage, which is good. And the height, which is good. And then, let's see. So you're gonna, I don't know if it's on the plans already, but you have to put in some storm water infiltration. Yep. Okay. Okay. So you're putting an addition on the back with a deck. BH is what is BH on there? Bulkhead? Yeah, bulkhead. Yep. And then you've got a little proposed porch in the front
and then a little something in that square right in the front. What goes in that? Oh, proposed edition. Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I, I can run you through it. You know, when you're ready, Speaker 3: Just fill in that, you just fill in that gap Speaker 9: In front of the garage. What's, oh, that's, yeah, just the extending the garage. Speaker 3: Oh, extending the garage. Okay. Speaker 4: So I'm Chris Caio, I'm here with Jack Veer, so thank you. We are here. I was just waiting for my turn. You know, I, I, so Jack, you know, with this increase in family after looking at all expensive homes in Natick, you know, we're here looking for relief and increasing the size of his existing home per the plans.
The existing house is a Cape style home, you know, already two floors, which we're gonna turn into a colonial very similar to the neighbor's house. On number four, the house was built in 91. It has a solid foundation, title V passing Title V. So there's no need to tear it down. So we, what we wanna do is extend the back, you know, we're not going any wider left or right. We want to extend the back 16 feet along with the garage and the farmer's porch, the second floor. So we're gonna keep it a three bedroom.
It'll be two and a half baths, 2,800 square feet. And that's about it. You know, I, I have the renderings here. Speaker 3: Nope, we got 'em. Speaker 4: Say again? We Speaker 3: Got 'em. Oh, Speaker 4: All right. Yep. And I get a picture of the neighbor's, ne the neighbor's house. And, and I have a letter here from the neighbor if you, if you'd like to Speaker 3: Sure. We can put that on the record. Speaker 4: Yeah. Incorporate that. Sure. Speaker 3: While you're doing that, I'm gonna just find out if there's anybody in here who wants to talk about it. This is two third Street. Is anybody here on two third? Thanks very much. This is,
this is the direct neighbor. Four third. Take a look at that. Speaker 13: I think it's 2020 sixth third, second Street? Or is it? Speaker 3: This is a bunch of Speaker 4: New houses on, Speaker 3: This is two third, second two Speaker 13: Third Street. Okay. Speaker 3: 2, 2, 2 third. And then this is four third and this is five third examples of, Yeah. And this is a letter from the direct Ofbut mortar alley who's to the right as you look at the plan to the south, it says, dear members of the board dated July 28th. I'm writing as the resident of four third to inform you,
I have no objection to the pros of renovation taking place at two third as a direct neighbor, I understand the scope of the Unco upcoming work and support the property owner's efforts to improve their home. I have no concerns you the impact of the renovation on my property or the neighborhood. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely. Steven Mortar rally. Okay. I'll return these to you at the end. Oh, you can stay there. I'll return 'em to you. Okay. So is anybody Yep. And we have someone, oddly enough, Speaker 29: I own 18 third Street and I didn't know they were here. Speaker 3: I didn't like that. Speaker 29: I'm, I'm in support of it too. Speaker 3: Alright, can we just get your name and address for the rat? I don't even know what it is, but I
support it. Kevin Griffin. Speaker 29: I own 18 third Street. I don't live there anymore. We actually rent it out, Speaker 3: But, okay. Your name again? I never seen Kevin Griffin. Kevin Griffin. Okay, Mr. Griffin. Thank you. Okay. Does the board have any comments? Thoughts? Questions, concerns? Just look in three bedrooms on the second floor. Is that right? Speaker 4: Correct. Speaker 3: The, the renderings are, are really helpful. Thank you. Yeah, they are. Yep, yep. For sure. Speaker 5: So I have a question. The, as we,
I mean I visited the site so I have some observations when I look at your house and I looked to the left. So that's the neighbor who's on Fisher or something? Yep, Fisher. Okay. So have you talked with that neighbor and how, how was I Speaker 30: Haven't talked, I haven't talked to them yet. Speaker 5: Okay. Because the thing I, the one thing that concerns me is there are trees all along that line. And when I, I saw where the stakes were placed, are those stakes demarcating the property line or the where the new wall is going to reach
to when you redo the garage? Speaker 4: Those stakes are the the property line? Speaker 5: It is the property line. Okay. So that means are, are you doing any excavation on that side where the garage is or is that simply adding on top where, what's happening? Speaker 4: It it extends to the front and to the rear but not to the side. Speaker 5: Okay. So, alright, so you're gonna have to remove some of the overhanging branches. Correct. 'cause those are in the way. Yeah, Speaker 4: They just have to get trimmed back. Speaker 5: Okay, but you haven't talked to the neighbor. Speaker 30: Oh well they're just, they're like overhanging like my garage now.
Speaker 5: Right, right. So, and I know that legally it's your right to remove them. However, sometimes that can be dangerous for the trip. I have Speaker 30: A relationship with them so I'll talk to 'em before I do that. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 3: Anybody else have any thoughts? Okay, so why don't we have a motion? Speaker 8: I would move to approve the project based on his finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the pre-existing nonconforming structure provide its and sub, Speaker 3: Sorry, did you, did you want say something? I was going to make a motion. Oh I'm sorry. Sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. Speaker 8: Provided its built and substantial conformance
with the plan submitted in any requirements from town departments who submitted letters to the board? Speaker 3: Second. Second it, that was Rob and it's Gail. Speaker 8: Member? Member. Member Speaker 3: Member. David, Jason, Rob, Rob and Allen. Okay. Did I say that be right? Okay, so all those in favor and that's five. You're all set. Speaker 30: Thank you. Alright, thank Speaker 3: You. Look, the next matter is the public hearing for 14th Drury Lane by Daniel Burke for finding for chapter 48, section six native.
So section four B, the applicant opposes to raise the existing single family dwell a new single family dwell of preexisting non formula shown on the plan submitted and 14 Drury. Hello? Hello. Okay, just gimme a second. Alright, here we go. So the lot's substandard. The frontage is not there, the depth is there, front yards, front yard setback is there, side setback is there, the other side is there, the rear is there.
The coverage is there and the height is there. Okay, so this is lot area and lot frontage and storm water infiltration, you know that? Speaker 4: Yes. Nick Arthur, property owner and home builder. Speaker 3: Great. Speaker 4: We did receive a letter from conservation that will be required to get a stormwater permit for this project. Speaker 3: Great. Right. That's a funky looking lot, huh? Is Speaker 9: It? Speaker 3: Okay, I think we can see what's going on there. Anything you want to tell us before we find out if there's
anybody here wants to talk about it? Speaker 4: I can tell you a little bit about the project. We're proposing to tear down a single family home and rebuild a single family home that is 3,300 square feet on two floors. We don't have any intention to finish any attic space and we don't have a plan to finish any basement space at the moment. I would say overall the site is not going to change that much in terms of grading. Right now there's a decent amount of grade change from left to right and we found a way to design this house by utilizing that grade.
So there, there will be a, there's a currently a walkout basement and we're proposing a walkout basement. Any alternative to that would've required filling in the lot doing retaining walls, drainage probably would've been an issue. So we're going to keep the slope in the backyard the same, the same way that it's currently shown. Got it. And I don't think there's much more to it than that. We designed the home in a way to, it was a little bit tough with this site, but we wanted to make sure we fit the home within the building envelope.
Speaker 3: Okay. Which Speaker 4: We did. Speaker 3: Okay. Let's see if there's anybody here to talk about it. We are on 14 Drury. Anybody here on 14? Drury? Excuse me. Seeing none. Does the board have comments, questions, concerns? Is it the same five again? Oh it is. No, it's gonna be Gail, Jay, Jason, Rob, David and Ari. But anybody can ask a question. Speaker 31: Yeah, it looks good. Speaker 3: Does anybody have any questions? Yeah, I do. Speaker 5: Surprise, surprise. So I, when I visited this site,
I noticed the frontage is particularly narrow given that it's on a curve like that and the hill and so on. I'm glad to hear that you're not trying to level the lot. I was when I saw how steep the slope is in the back and that it's, you know, hills to say, going down to your neighbor's yards where the kids have play equipment and they don't have much space to move that around. I'm glad to hear that you're not gonna be creating a wall. Speaker 4: We didn't think there was any great alternative other than utilizing the grade that we have. Speaker 5: So, yeah, so, so here's again, I mean I'm gonna keep just
so all the folks who come here know I'm gonna keep asking every time I see that the building floor area is not included on, because again, as I stated, it's because this is an additional data point to compare with the existing house. Can you tell me what the existing gross floor area is? The existing house, Speaker 4: 728 square feet. And that was, I believe filled out on the variance checklist. The section six finding, well Speaker 5: Not the one looking at it right here with this one? Speaker 4: Yep, Speaker 5: That's the one I have. Speaker 4: It's included in under the building coverage entry.
Speaker 3: It's one Speaker 5: Floor. Oh no, no, I'm talking about floor area, not footprint. Speaker 4: Oh, Speaker 5: Well total floor area. The Speaker 4: Building usable Speaker 5: Floor Speaker 4: Area. The, yes, the building plans do show the livable floor area. And maybe, I know you asked the same question two meetings ago. I, in our, in my practice, it's standard that that total is inclusive of all of the area on the square, on the first and second floor minus the area of the garage. We don't generally include that unless there is an FAR requirement. So this total floor area,
I believe is two 3,299 square feet. If you total up the first and second floor. Speaker 5: So you're talking, you're talking about the existing house? Speaker 4: No, the existing home. I only have the, the first floor, which is 728 square feet, I believe. Speaker 5: Yeah, see, I mean that's the thing. Since the practices vary, I've been checking page to page and trying to find information since it's not on the checklist and it's kind of a time killer. I'd just like to point out, Speaker 4: I will certainly make sure to include that moving forward. I that's, I see the writing on the wall.
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, and again, I mean it's a, it's an actual fact that we can use as opposed to impressions. So, so that's, so the basement ceiling height, is that gonna be eight feet? I didn't see elevations for the basement. Speaker 4: Basement ceiling height will be eight feet. Yes. On the site plan it shows a proposed basement floor and a proposed top of concrete. And that, I don't have it spelled out specifically, but if we do the math, it's, it will be finished at seven foot ten seven ten.
Speaker 5: Okay. Yeah. And the grading in the front, before you hit the slope and everything, is there any increase in elevation? Speaker 4: I zoom in here very tired. If there is, it's very minimal. Speaker 9: It's very tired. Yeah. Speaker 4: 1 63, 1 64, 1 60. No, it's, it is, it's pretty much identical in the front. The gratings not changing. Speaker 5: So less than a foot or Speaker 4: I, I would say less than two inches. Oh, Speaker 5: Cool. Speaker 4: Yeah, it's not, we're, we're really not proposing to change it at all. Okay.
Speaker 5: So, so the garage, you're gonna have a driveway that's how many feet wide? Speaker 4: The garage driveway will be just shy of 24 feet wide. Speaker 5: 24 feet wide? Yes. And, but there won't be any discernible slope toward the street. Speaker 4: There is. We're showing a one foot slope, Speaker 5: One foot Speaker 4: From the garage to the street on the driveway. Okay. And if we're back 30 feet, that will be pretty flat. Speaker 5: One last question. The tree that's in the front yard
that's pretty close to the street, is that in the way of the driveway? Is that coming down? Speaker 4: That is coming down and we already went, we had a conservation meeting because this project was just triggering disturbance within the a hundred foot buffer and we proposed to take down, i, I believe it's either three or four trees in the back and one tree in the front. Yeah. And they didn't have an issue with that. Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 3: Anybody else have any comments, questions, thoughts, concerns? Okay, we'll close the hearing motion Speaker 8: I move? No, you wanna make this one? Speaker 15: I move that we approve the application for 14 jury lane
for the house addition. No, this is a section six finding for raising the existing, seeing as it is not substantially more detrimental than the current existing structure subject to being built in accordance with the plans as submitted and subject to the letters from the town offices. Speaker 3: Second. Second. All those in favor? Okay. All those opposed. Okay. Four to one. You're all set. Speaker 8: Thank you. Good luck. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: And last
but certainly not least is the public hearing for 24 Oak Street for Kevin Griffin for a finding for mass general law. Chapter 48, section six. And then he zoning bylaws section four B the applicant oppose to raise these in single family drawing and construct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting nonconform formula as shown on the plan. Submitted. Hello there. Speaker 8: One correction, you said 24 Oak Street. It's 26. Speaker 3: Oh, I'm sorry, that was my fault. It does say 26. So make that 26 Oak Street for Kevin Griffin. Alright, let me, let me just take a quick peek here. Okay, so the lot's too small. Your frontage is good.
It says depth na, how come it's a corner lot? It's a Speaker 9: Corner one. Speaker 3: Oh don't, we don't have depth on corner lots? Speaker 15: No, you have two frontages. Speaker 8: No depth of the lot. Speaker 9: Oh, Speaker 3: Depth of the lot. Let's just take a look. I think we have depth of a lot. Speaker 8: I think it still applies. Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it does. But let's see. I mean ultimately, which Speaker 8: Would be the depth? Who was my Speaker 3: Question? Eisenhower and Oak, Speaker 15: Probably from Oak back. Speaker 8: So it'd be 120. Speaker 3: Where's the front of the house that faces the corner? How do you like that?
Speaker 8: I mean technically the property address is 26 Oak Street, so I guess that would be the front. It'd be 120 feet. Speaker 3: It's reasonable. It's 120 And the requirement is that doesn't say what's the requirement in RSC just so we make sure we're looking at everything that's So Speaker 9: Are you looking for Speaker 3: Oh, the lot depth in an RSC Speaker 9: 1 25. Speaker 3: 1 25. Okay. 1 25 required 1 25 existing proposed 1 21 20.
No, one 20 is existing. Sorry, it goes 1 25. It's, so it's currently non-conforming. Alright, then we have the front two fronts and two sides. Right. So what's the other front would be the, where's the compass? Oak Street is one of the fronts, right? And the other front is Eisenhower. And what side is that? That's 29 7. So that's, this is the front, the east is the front and then the front is the front. So 30 non-conforming, you're gonna make it conforming
the setback the side is 1227. It's conforming, the front is conforming the, the that's the rear is actually a, the rear is a side. Right. Okay. So that's 12. Okay. This, but the front, the front is 30 29 7, 13 9. So it's nonconforming. So it's six coverage 2020, okay. Height. Okay. The floor area gross, we don't need to worry about.
Okay, so, so you need, you need lot area lot depth side, the front setback and the side. Oh, no, no, no, I'm sorry. Speaker 8: We don't need anything for the front or Speaker 3: Side. What's the other side? What, what's the side that's not indicated? Let's see, Speaker 8: The two sides. Speaker 3: The, we, it's, it's the opposite of the, Speaker 8: One of the sides is 23.3, the other side is 13.9. So the east side is 13.9 and the west side is 23.3. Speaker 3: Alright, one second. So the, the two fronts are there
and the two sides are here. And you have 20, 27, 6, right Speaker 8: To the screen Speaker 3: Porch to Derek Schein. Yep. And that's the, I don't see a compass on here, but what direction is that? Speaker 8: I just use the northern arrows that were put on the plan by the surveyor. Speaker 3: I don't see 'em. Where are they? Speaker 8: Just like when you have like a southerly 11 degree east. Speaker 3: Yep. Yep, yep, yep. Okay. So that's the south side then 26, 27, 6 is the south side and that's the side
2020 existing 27? No, no. Existing is 27 6 and it will be Speaker 9: 23 3 23 23 3 Speaker 3: What? Okay, 23 3. And then the other side is the one to William Reed. Right. Which is the, is that's the, I don't know, it's the, is it the west? I don't know what it is, but Okay. It's, I guess it's the, it's the other side which is 44 today.
Right. And it's gonna be 13 nine. Speaker 9: Correct. Speaker 3: Okay. Alright. And then the coverage is this? Yep. Height? Yep. And okay. Alright, so we got that. All right. Is, are you folks here to talk about this one? Yes. Okay. Okay. Still awake. And who do you want to come, come up and, and, and just give us your name and address for the record. Yes, Mr. General. Speaker 32: Yeah. Richard Marsh, eight Eisenhower Avenue.
Speaker 3: Hello. What can you tell us? Speaker 32: Well, our could this and, and I have spent quite a bit of time looking at square footages and footprints of houses in the neighborhood. This is a giant house for the, what we call the general's neighborhood. I, I think the square footage is like 5,800 square feet if I remember the number right. And I think the largest house in the entire general's neighborhood is something like 4,000 square feet. The, and I, you know, I,
I'm speaking for myself, but I've also spoken to the elderly neighbor buts the house. This, you know, the house will be 12 or 13 feet from his property and he lives in a single, basically a single story cape with. So it's gonna basically dominate that house and, and the whole look as you go into our neighborhood, there's gonna be this behemoth on the corner and I think that's the, that's our major concern. Speaker 3: Okay. Alright. Thanks very much. And I, I, yep.
Speaker 5: I'm Judith Heimer. I also live at eight Eisenhower. So similar to what we've heard from other residents in other neighborhoods, I think we do have concern about the precedent this sets with and I in looking at other houses on the web or driving around house that has the square, I get a little confused with your, what's livable floor space and FFAR and what counts? This is well beyond
what we've seen in pretty much anywhere else in Natick. And so I worry about the precedent for the neighborhood and what that means for other properties and the appearance of the neighborhood. I understand that the neighborhood doesn't look the way it did when it was built in the late 1940s and that 30 or 40 years from now, it's not going to look the way it does now. But I worry about, you know, these really giant houses on very small lots. There's going to be very little usable space.
Maybe that's what people want now, so they don't have to keep it up outdoors. I worry if, you know, from the zoning board's perspective, I don't know what this means. If all of the houses in this neighborhood were to be replaced with similar size houses who would come and say, well that house is Speaker 3: This big. Yeah. Speaker 5: So let, lemme what does that mean for, for, for sewer, for drainage? Like, yeah, Speaker 3: Lemme stop you just, just for a second and just explain to you that there's no precedential effect. You can't come in and say that guy got it. So I wanted too, and we're not bound to do it.
Each project is taken on its own merit. Right, okay. Individually, the facts of that, that project, in other words, a project that looks identical to this may be built across town because nobody comes in and says that, that it's too big or that it's substantially more detrimental to be exact. Speaker 5: So, you know, I think, I think the, the plans are actually quite attractive and I think the neighborhood is actually very pleased that a developer wants to come in
and do something with, with this house that's been in disrepair. But we're not sure that this is the right size house for the right house for the area for the lot. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Okay. Board thoughts, comments, concerns, questions about the height? Oh, the voting is Gail, Andy, David, Rob, Jason. Speaker 8: Can I add one thing? Speaker 3: Yes, Speaker 8: Of course. So there was a letter that you received from Derek Schein and his wife. Yeah, we do, I did actually talk to Derek.
I spent some time on Friday actually talking to him at length about his concerns. Probably similar concerns to them and tried to alleviate some of it. He, him and his wife I guess were going away to Martha's Vineyard or something like that. So they, they couldn't be here. We did talk about planting some arborvitaes along the side of their property to help the, their main, at least what I took from it was his wife was concerned about the size of the house and then they were also concerned that if people were out on the deck, that they may be able to like kind of look into their backyard type of thing.
And we told them that we would have no problem planting like a row of arbor bides or something like that to help do some sort of screening. They didn't indicate one way or the other if that was, you know, acceptable or not to alleviate their concerns. But we did, we did talk. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I'll just put it on the record. June 30th, joy and Derek Shine, 24 oh Oak Street. This is the direct abut as indicated on the plans, unfortunately our schedule to now allow us to attend the zoning board meeting scheduled for July 28th. However, we are writing this letter
because we want our concerns to be clearly heard and included in the official record regarding the proposed construction at 26 Oak Street. As immediate neighbors, we are deeply concerned about the impact this project would have on our property and the character of our neighborhood. We understand that the proposal requires a variance from existing zoning regulations concerning lot size frontage and building height regulations that exist to maintain the integrity, privacy, and consistency of the area. A third story addition along with a structure built in such close proximity to our home would significantly affect our privacy, reduce natural light
and appear out of place in a neighborhood of primarily two story homes. In our view, this would not only diminish the visual harmony of the street, but also negatively impact our property value and overall quality of life. We respectfully urge the zoning board to deny the variance requests and uphold the current zoning standards that protect the character and long-term value of our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration and for including this letter in the documentation for the July 28th, 2025 meeting. Sincerely joined Derek Schein. So it's not a variance, it's a section six finding, but, but the import is the same. I'll go on record. It's too big. Speaker 8: Yeah, Speaker 3: It's too big.
I mean it, I I'm just, I think that based on what we've seen today, the, just the the the overall massing of these homes, these small lots is just too much on too little. I, I understand it. You know, I suppose if you're a developer, you come in here and you blow out the box and then, and then cross your fingers that nobody comes in and says I don't like it and maybe it gets approved. And if it doesn't get approved, it's typical that the board allows you to go back, have a conversation with the folks who have expressed some concern
and then pare it down. But I think what we've seen today more than I think I can ever recall is some attempt to come back here and think that we have no memory about, about what's occurred in the past. And to come back in here and say, we've made significant changes in the plans by taking 250 square feet off. It does not, it, it, it does not impress, I'm not suggesting even for one second that that's something that you would do, but I think it's a cautionary tale and so if this were to go to a vote today, I would vote
to deny it and I I and I'll let the board have their their say as well and then we'll see what happens next. Speaker 15: I think it's too big, I think, but even more importantly, I think your height calculations might be incorrect, which you want to correct when you come back. When I'm looking at the, I think it's one of the side elevations, the right side elevation, the numbers add up to more than 32 point some odd. And I get it, it's the average grade, but you're not going to the peak of the how structure.
It looks like you're going to the ceiling of the attic for your height. Speaker 8: Which drawing are you looking at? Speaker 15: I'm looking at the right side elevation. Speaker 8: A 2.1. Speaker 15: Yep. A 2.1 page five. Yeah. So it's not going, you're you're stopping at the ceiling. Speaker 3: Yeah, I think think you're gonna want tell your architect to just look at what the definition of height is in our code and it's measured from an average grade claim to the top of the gable end. Speaker 8: Yeah, I was just looking at the top on section A of front elevation where he actually calls
it to that head peak. And I do see what you're saying. It Speaker 3: May, it may be right, but, Speaker 8: But I do see what you're saying. Where on the, on the bottom, you know, part B it shows it basically to that ceiling height. So I I I get what you're Speaker 15: Saying. Yeah, just make sure that the, 'cause you don't want to, if you come back and you've, you know, ized, Speaker 8: I made sure we got it. That's Speaker 15: Even a word. Speaker 8: Make sure we got the grade from the middle of the street though. Yeah, that's right. I did Speaker 3: Make sure you're on a corner because you're on It was a trap. It's a Speaker 8: Trap. I called him up, I said you're positive, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm Speaker 3: Sure. Yeah, that that's right. That's that's right. Yeah. Speaker 15: So just make sure that that's correct so
that if you do come back, you made the house more modest and it's, you don't wanna get hung up on Yeah, yeah. Technicality. Speaker 8: Understood. Speaker 3: Does anybody else have any, any advice? Speaker 13: Two, I guess just one quick, so are you making any changes to the grade whatsoever? Speaker 8: We are. So we're gonna basically try to utilize, there's a heavy grade on the, the whole grade basically slopes to the back on the current driveway side. So the Eisenhower side, we're going to use the house to help actually kinda like hold that grade up if you will, to try to make this driveway level coming in. 'cause now it's a garage under house, which is brutal in the winter
they got people were parking like on the sidewalk during the heavy snow terms. So we were kind of using the house to kind of like push that grade up and then we were gonna grade down to it and let it go back down to natural grade. And then we were gonna implement a retaining wall on the Derrick Shine side, if that's what you wanna call it. Is Speaker 3: That, is that retaining wall shown in these plans? Speaker 8: It's shown on the, the survey plan that, so Speaker 3: What's the, what's the height of that wall when you come back? Just make sure you give us the Speaker 8: Height. Yeah, okay, understood.
Speaker 15: I'm not seeing it. Oh, I'm seeing Speaker 8: It. It's like an l it's like an L-shaped wall. Yeah. Off the Zs shape wall. The deck. Yeah. Speaker 15: Coming off the deck. I got it. Speaker 10: So I also think it's a little bit too large, but I'm not voting on it. So I'm asking are you looking for a Cano continuance tonight? Speaker 8: Yeah, you know, after we got like two people in, I, I just, I already texted the architect and said we gotta make this house smaller. I mean it is what it is. I mean when you, when we were looking at 'em, the roof line was already there so I said just include square footage up there. I mean we're immediately gonna get rid of that.
Probably try to mask the house down a little bit. So at minimum it's gonna immediately be 724 square feet small minus whatever else we can do to pinch it in. Speaker 13: Okay. I have one more, more question Curious because the neighbors on Eisenhower Reeds expressed I guess privacy concerns. Is there a reason that house is pretty very far back? You reminded? Oh yeah, Speaker 11: Of course there is. Alright, and so I guess you had mentioned that some of the Eisenhower, the neighbor on Eisenhower, Mr. Reed, Reed expressed privacy concerns about the deck and whatnot being pushed up to the back of the lot. Is there, I guess my question is
Speaker 8: Shine. I talked to Mr. Shine when I talked to Mr. Reed. Speaker 11: Oh that's right. The shine is, that's the deck. Okay. My other question is, is there a reason why the house was pushed so far back on the lot? We Speaker 8: Pushed it that far back a to get it away from Oak Street for noise and B, because of that heavy grade change on that side of the property. Okay. I mean there's a, there's a really heavy grade change. I mean you're talking probably eight feet and 30 feet, something like that. Oh, okay. So we're using the house as almost like a retaining wall on that side. And then we're gonna grade 'cause Mr. Reed's property actually is up, so it bowls up
to his property down to ours and then it's pretty steep down. So we're trying to use it to kind of pull it up flat in that front without putting any water on his property and then without creating like a funky driveway trying to get into ours. 'cause what we didn't wanna do is back pitch the driveway to the house and then you have to put like a drain at the front of the garage and these people are gonna struggle forever with a drain in front of the garage. So we're trying to account for everything we could. Okay, thank you. If could, that's good. Minus a very large house. Speaker 5: Oh, I do have one concern.
I mean, you won't be able to change this. When I went by the site, I was kinda shocked to see how it's already prepared for demolition excavation as if you'd already gotten permission. It's all the trees except for one on this on the south side, I've already been destroyed. All the erosion control materials, all the textiles and everything are already up. Looks like something was already demolished down at the base of the driveway, there's a whole bunch of rubble and concrete forms sitting down there. Why, why would you have done
that when you didn't have permission to do the chop? Speaker 8: That's relevant. So, fair question. The tree out front of the house was completely rotten, decayed. The two trees we took out on the side of the house with Mr. Reed, we had his permission to take 'em down 'cause they were like 80 or a hundred foot tall pine trees that were a detriment to both his house and ours. And there was a tree in the back that would've, that was just a problem for us in general, to be honest with you, I've owned this property for 10 years. Speaker 5: Okay. So the state of Speaker 8: The, I owned it with a a I owned it with somebody else. I owned it with my brother in recently.
I bought him out of it so that way we could do something with it. Speaker 5: So the, the fact that the gutters are gone, the window trim is gone. This is within the last 10 years. Hold Speaker 8: On one second. No, no, no, Speaker 3: That's fine. Hold on. Hold on one second. Just I want to just make sure we stay on point. What's the relevance of that for today? Speaker 5: Oh, I'm, I I am concerned about a property being made into an eyesore before you even get permission to do the job because it does affect, it's a detriment to the neighborhood. That's Speaker 3: Report, if someone's acting in contravention
of the building code, then they, that's, that's an enforcement issue with the building department, not the zoning board. Speaker 14: So sometimes you can get a demo permit early. Speaker 8: So, so I don't know if Speaker 14: That's Speaker 8: Part of the case. In order to get a demo permit or get any permit in the town, you have to do what's called like an asbestos abatement. So you have to go in, you have to check the house for asbestos. Like the windows had asbestos, the caulking on the house had asbestos. We had removed all the asbestos from the house. There's also a gentleman in town who we let come and take all the scrap metal off of any property before we do any work to it.
It's like he doesn't, we do it because we're trying to be nice, to be honest with you. Like he takes it for free. You don't get anything out of it one way or the other. Whether we were demoing this house or we are redoing it, like the items that are off of the house, we're gonna come off of the house. The asbestos was gonna go outta the house. Whether we fixed the house up and sold it or we did anything do it. Erosion control, same thing. We're just, we were being preemptive trying to get ahead of some things. We were gonna take the trees out regardless of the finding that we had here and that
that wasn't meaning we were expecting to get an approval. It was just that the trees that came out were a detriment to whatever the house was at the end of the day. Whether we raised the roof and made it into, you know, like a, like a different type of cape or anything. The, the trees that came out were in agreement with Mr. Reed and I and then there were trees that were dying. We, I mean if you look at any of the projects that we build in Natick or anywhere, we never clear cut all the trees. We did take out more trees than our typical, the one out front.
I would've liked to have left it, but I mean it was completely, it. It had a hole in it that was about this big. So if you watch the way we took the trees out, we actually left it and then we came back a week later and took it out 'cause it just was never gonna live. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 3: Okay. How about a motion? Speaker 8: Do they want to continue? Yes. Wanna continue? Move to continue. 26th Oak to August 25th. Speaker 3: Second. Second. All those in favor? Okay. We'll see you on the 22nd. Thanks Speaker 10: Mr. Chairman. I am, I moved to,
I move to approve the amended minutes of June 23rd and kindly ask for a second. Second, Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Speaker 5: Oh, I'm sorry. The minutes. There's an error. Speaker 10: Yes. I've already, as, as I mentioned, I moved to approve the amends, the minutes as amended. Speaker 5: I'm sorry, I didn't hear how they were amended. Speaker 10: You said that there was an error. Yeah, I got that error. Speaker 5: The one that Mike voted Speaker 10: Yes, correct. Okay. Speaker 5: That's what I see. I didn't know what the inundation was. Thank you. Speaker 3: Okay, wait a minute. So that, that's been seconded. All those in favor? Yes. Aye. Okay. Aye.
Speaker 10: Moved. Do adjourn. I.