WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/994DtmGEsi0VDYK3jJI2BJ72GfgNIpU2/media/1018920?autostart=false&showtabssearch=true&fullscreen=false

Part: 1

1
00:00:04.000 --> 00:00:37.150
Alright. Ready to go. Okay. Good evening, folks. Before we get started oh, well, tonight's our first hybrid meeting in the Board of Appeals history. During COVID we were solely online and now we're before that we were solely in person and now we're both. So I think what we'll probably do, having not really considered it in a lot of detail, is when we ask for input, we'll ask for input from the people who are here in the room, and then we'll ask for input from the people online, and we'll go from there.

2
00:00:38.810 --> 00:01:12.605
So before we get started, we have a public speak portion of the evening where any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda. It will be taken under advisement by the board. There will be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. This section of the agenda is limited to fifteen minutes and any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. Does anybody have anything you'd like to discuss that's not on the agenda? Okay, seeing none we'll get right into it. Well we're going to go a little out of order because if you're here on 21 Prescott Avenue,

3
00:01:13.625 --> 00:01:50.520
which is number two on our list, the applicant has requested a continuance to May 18. So, if we get a motion to continue the May 18. Move to continue the hearing for 21 Prescott to our meeting on May 18. Second? Second. And all those well, let's see. Just for a moment. We have one, Gail, David, and Jason are on them. And I'm definitely on all of them. And then so we'll go just so there's no confusion. I'll tell you what we're gonna do. We'll start. We need two more.

4
00:01:50.600 --> 00:02:28.110
So one two and then the next one will be 121212 like that. Okay. That's the way we'll do it. So we don't okay. So that, so now it's in this case, it's 1234, skipping RE5. Right? So all those in favor continues to May 18. Let's raise our hands. Here in this one. Yes. Okay. So it passes. Five o. Alright. Now we're going back to the agenda. So this one's gone. And there's another one that's gone. Oh, there is.

5
00:02:28.110 --> 00:03:06.225
Okay. Hold on a minute. Mr. Chair, if you would look at, 9 Lotus Path. We received an email today from the applicant. It's agenda item number three. Yes. They have requested to withdraw their application. Okay. So, I guess we'll Just go to withdraw. Note of move to accept the withdrawal without prejudice of, Nine Lotus Path? Without prejudice. Yeah. I guess it's without prejudice. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Second. Same five. Second. Right there. And now 1234, skipping our firm and and Gail. All those in favor of accepting the withdrawal.

6
00:03:06.705 --> 00:03:46.065
Five o. So that's gone. If you're here on 21 Prescott or 9 Lotus, you're welcome to stay. Those cases will not be heard. And now we're back to the agenda. 7 Upland Terrace, the applicant is Lilja Donna Jean and Roni Mendez. This is a request for section six finding for a standing tear down of existing one family dwelling in addition to construction of an addition requiring relief for the front yard setback on a piece of nine forty lot. Hello there. Okay. So let let me just before we, have you start here, we're just gonna go and just send we're gonna be off.

7
00:03:47.530 --> 00:04:35.445
So in your packets on OpenGov, there should be a new, zoning chart. Then there is another documentation that is kind of like an assessor's, and then it's the site plans that you were actually just passing this Okay. Yeah. I'm gonna go back to those. And they're in that also. So the twenty third? I don't have any notes like Yeah. I I have a note. Yeah. Okay. So then I have here it looked like when we walked out of here with the chart received on March 23 that there was gonna be a a variance required

8
00:04:35.445 --> 00:05:33.800
for building coverage. Right? And was that on the the was that on Dave's denial? Said you got, you better go back and talk to Dave about that issue. Is that something you're prepared to address? The building coverage? No, it's the first time I'm hearing about the building coverage piece. Well, I'm just gonna jump to it for a moment because this is essentially why the case was continued for the most part to today and and and here's the reason, if you look is it okay there's a new chart so why don't I address the new chart. We you can yeah, see the building coverage it says,

9
00:05:33.860 --> 00:06:11.760
oh this was a split loss. Yeah, it's a split lot. Yeah. Split lot. I mean, again, I'm just not sure how we're dealing with that. If we look at the RSC 10%, right? You have 6% today and you're going to 12.6% that would be a variance. If you take the 30%, 6%, 12.6%, that's nothing. That's Yep, makes sense. So do we have any sense of what the treatment is here? That which is in the let's see. Is that okay yeah, the dotted line is in the,

10
00:06:12.880 --> 00:06:49.615
the dotted line cuts through the RSC and the C2. It would be better if the building were in the C, but it's not. Yeah, the only the addition is in the part of the addition is in the the C. Right. Right. Right. How how, did what's Dave's position on this? He did not ding him for that. And so again, our our standing MO is is is not to create an issue none exists unless it's sort of open and obvious. But we're without

11
00:06:52.795 --> 00:07:25.705
sufficient knowledge about the treatment of the split lot by the building commissioner. I mean, I suppose because he didn't violate them on it, maybe that's how we back into that issue. Right? I would He knows how to read. Yeah. One would think, though again, he probably maybe knows more here, but I would think that you would take it portion by portion. You know that you would look at what's in the, RSC and is that less than 30%? Well let let let let's do let's do that. It's 24 by 24.

12
00:07:26.080 --> 00:08:06.395
Right? And, Hard to say, right? Right. Because it's gonna the area of the of the c two is difficult to If that 10% is right, I would imagine that the existing dwelling is more than 10% of that plot. But we don't know for sure. So again, if but if the building commissioner hasn't flagged that, then parts 30% of the alignment. Well, it's unquestionably let's assume just for purposes of argument that what exists in the RFC exceeds 10%. Right? Yeah. But but but if they're if they're making an addition with all within the RSC,

13
00:08:06.935 --> 00:08:50.850
all they have to do is get a go ahead. So Well, I was saying I apologize. The chart is still incorrect. Building coverage in the RSC is actually 20%. Yeah. That's right. Okay. With low. So, therefore, regardless of being in the RSC or RS, it would be fine. K. Oh, well, there you go. Okay. Oh, it's turned off. Oh, whoops. Sorry. It's on. In summary, the chart is incorrect on the table. It should not read 10%. It should read 20% in quotes with RSC. So it would be awesome. Alright. Alright. So now now we forget everything we just said.

14
00:08:50.850 --> 00:09:33.735
Let's reset. Let's reset. So twenty, forty, 14. Good. Lot of area is good. The frontage is good. Well, again, it's good in the RSC. It's not good in C level, but it's in the C2, I guess, but it's existing and not changing. So that's fine. The lot depth is the same, not changing. It's perhaps front yard thirty forty. It's not it's not. So that's fine. That's a section six. The side west twelve forty twenty. Okay.

15
00:09:33.735 --> 00:10:27.915
That one we can do. Right? We can do that, I suppose. Let's let's just just take a look at that one more. The Side west the side yards are on the north and the south. Right? So let's match up the numbers. 20.9 bless you. 20.9. Okay. Now that's not a set. That's not a side setback. That's the front setback. Front it says 20 okay. 20.68. I agree with that, which is fine. Then it says side setback west. There's no side. So the side setback to the to the north is 50.150.2.

16
00:10:27.915 --> 00:11:13.250
So this is this is okay. Doesn't matter what the existing is because it's okay no matter what. Right? Then the this is we side set back to north, Side step back to south is 14 six going to 179? Correct. Yeah. Right. And Are you taking the The deck's going changing. Is the deck getting Deck's going away? Yeah. It is. The deck is demolished. Okay, but but the but the okay so that is Conforming and will remain conforming. So that's okay. Yeah, that's okay. The rear is fine. The coverage we just determined is fine.

17
00:11:13.630 --> 00:11:54.615
The height at two stories is there's no number here. What's the what's the number in the in the, the elevations? No. No. In the code for the two heights, I suppose, in the c two and the R S C. So the R S C is, 2.5 stories or 35 feet. 35 feet. And in the c two I don't wanna say it wrong. No stories, but 30 feet. Yep. 30 feet. Okay. Is is there is there an an elevation showing that the height Yeah.

18
00:11:54.615 --> 00:12:37.460
There's elevations in the plans. Yep. Alright. Let's see. Can you can you dig out the height of this building? And then let let us know. I think last time we were here, they told me it was 34.1 feet. And and and the question then is gonna be, is that 34.1 does it does it exceed 30 feet in the c two on the left side of the dotted line? Existing or proposed? Proposed. Yeah. 29.7. 29.7. That's the height of the building, the tallest part of it of the building.

19
00:12:39.040 --> 00:13:23.395
Right? Yeah. Twenty nine seven from well, so it looks like the top of concrete. Now it's gotta be the average grade. Yeah. I'm looking at a zero two. Oh, it's okay. Yeah. Actually, about the grading, I couldn't find it. Can you direct me to which, plot? Which elevation has the grading? You know which elevation has the grading? I see. Yeah. So, David, do you see that on Yeah. Where where are you? A 02, a 03, the drawings. Oh, a 03 shows the grade of the side of the house there.

20
00:13:24.495 --> 00:14:18.855
Yeah. But you're still dimensioning to what looks like top of foundation, not finished grade. So looks like it wants to be too high. You got a 02, a zero three? Yeah. Yeah. Is that what you're looking at here? Yeah. Well, also, but maybe one before. A zero two. Yeah. Now it's at '26. Oh, shit. Is that a new that may be date on that one. 08/08/2025. Date of the plans I'm looking at. I've got or 12/2325. I got one. Oh, okay. I've got 10. No.

21
00:14:18.855 --> 00:15:02.530
Sorry. I'm just looking at them all. Are there ones on the December 5 plans or newer plans? Let me look. We've got quite a few. Yeah. Yeah. I only have December plans. So here we measure from average grade plane. Got it. But I think it's pretty clear though if if you take a look, take take a look, Andy, Andy, if the if the total if the if the height from the the top of the the roof to the backyard is less than 35, when you average it out with the front,

22
00:15:02.830 --> 00:15:42.875
it'll be well less. Yeah. Right. But C 2 is 30 feet. That's, yeah, that's something about C 2 is 30 feet. Yeah. So the addition is mostly in C2. Or actually entirely in C2, right? There is an addition on the back. The twelfth that's where that you're seeing that 34 feet. That's the back of the building. This is the addition. Yeah. That's the back of the what where the existing structure is on the residential What's the height of the 24 by 24 block? So this needs to be less than 30 feet? In At the level of height at the 26. Oh, so it's a ridge.

23
00:15:42.875 --> 00:16:17.705
It's well it's well on Well from the front. Yeah. And it's kind of yeah. So the the block on the left, the 24 with 24 block is 26 feet. Well, the main house essentially is And then the one in the back, it's 34 but that's not measured from average grain. It's measured to the it's the the lowest grade to the top of the roof peak. So it's Hasn't been averaged. Yeah. That's right. So it's gonna get the benefit of the averaging. It's confirmed it's compliant now. It will become more so. Right? Everybody? It'll be under 35.

24
00:16:17.705 --> 00:17:05.325
Yeah. It'll be under thirty thirty five and the block on the left will be under 30 Someone's a winner. Okay No, you still have okay. You you keep going. Yeah. I just I'm confused by the when I'm looking at the elevations, looks like sort of both sides of the house, the new and the existing, all have the same ridgeline. Right? Yes. Yes. Okay. So then when we're are we okay with the fact that then for the addition that's in c two, the height there is 30 feet from average grade. And if we look at elevation we can look at any of them.

25
00:17:05.325 --> 00:17:49.365
But let's say look at A05. That you've got 29 feet seven and a half inches to the top of the oh there it is. These drawings are very, okay. Yeah. This is a view looking from the backyard. Right? So this is the best issue. Well, this is the smaller issue. That's all I can see too. Very hard. Here's the thing. That's a very small Grade. That's a lead here. That's still gonna be I I mean, I I feel I feel like you guys keep coming back and coming back and coming back. And every time there's something else,

26
00:17:49.365 --> 00:18:23.195
we recognize the plans are just incomplete. Here we are, we find ourselves, with due respect, because this time you brought somebody, which is great, but nothing was done. So we are here now parsing this information and trying to pluck out the information from the plans to try to fill out this chart in an accurate way so we can process this application in our usual manner, and we can't. It's the reason we can't is because the height determination is done from the average

27
00:18:23.195 --> 00:19:01.560
grade. You this chart, whoever filled it out, they just did it in an incomplete manner. They put the stories, but if you look at the chart, if you look at the code, the code gives two numbers, gives us stories and it gives height, both of which are required. Two stories, 2.5 stories, 30 feet, 35 feet. And it's measured, if you if you look at the code, the the term height is defined as measuring from the top of the peak to the average grade plane and the average grade plane is spot measurements around the exterior

28
00:19:01.560 --> 00:19:36.545
envelope of the building and then averaged. And I suspect that the numbers are going to come up in your favor, but I don't know because we're just spitballing here. Yeah, if you look at the back of the side structure you get the 26 and the Yeah, again 34. 34. You got to refer me to a plan? Oh, yep. Day zero four. Alright. So if I go to a zero four, you're gonna tell me what? 26 feet would be this is the top level grade of that side addition and then the yard slopes downward. So I'm just averaging that with a 34.

29
00:19:36.545 --> 00:20:13.425
It come out to a a 30. Except except that that the that would be assuming it's 50% at one elevation and 50% the other and it clearly isn't. Right? Because the grade at under the house without that step portion is longer than again, I suspect that it's gonna come up right, but I'm not here to guess. Yep. We're not we're not guessing. You gotta do it correctly. We're we're gonna go through this for you so that when you come back here,

30
00:20:13.425 --> 00:20:49.960
you you I shouldn't have to do this. No. But but I but we're gonna try to do it anyways just because because So that we're clear. So that we're clear. Also can I add in about the grading? We don't have a comparison of the existing grading with your proposed grading, and that's very important too. Someone get a pen or pencil. Fantastic. One, we need a plan showing the existing grades and any changes to those grades. Right? Two, we need someone to create an average grade plane

31
00:20:51.220 --> 00:21:25.280
and then calculate the height of the building in accordance with the terms of our bylaw. Question for the chair. Yes. Do we want them to show the height of the building in each separate zone as if treating those portions of the building separately? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So between the RRC and the Yeah. Right. Yeah. They're different. They are 35 feet on the right side of the lawn as you look at it from the front and 30 feet on the left side of the lot as you look at it from the front. So the 24 by 24 block has to be 30 feet or less as measured

32
00:21:25.280 --> 00:22:00.325
from the average create plane, and the part on the right has to be less than 35 or less from the average grade plane. Okay? And and measuring it just to clear, measuring the grade plane at the zoning line where it Oh, wait. So where it is the zone line. Wait. Are there gonna be two average grades? Exactly. Exactly. Unless you wanna just take the one building. Well, the so the the 24 by 24 addition, that exists solely in the the C. So that we could But do we take the average while we're averaging,

33
00:22:00.325 --> 00:22:38.755
do we take the corners that are in RSC? But Or do we take all the corners of the addition where it crosses the C2 zone? Well so the two there's basically two additions. Right. The rear addition doesn't cross No. No. So just to just to make his points to a road. Addition is I mean, you have this is your lot, and this is your this is zone let's call it zone a and zone b. Right? And you have a building that goes like this. Normally, if this line work here,

34
00:22:38.755 --> 00:23:15.090
we would take spot grades around the exterior of the building, right, on one zone. Yep. And then we'd average it out and you'd have an average grade. Right? But now we have two zones. So does that mean we have two average grade plans? One that goes like this? Right. I would say at minimum, yes, or you take the more stringent of the two. Which is Because I don't think it'd be option three, which would be take the least stringent and apply that to the whole thing. That wouldn't make sense. So I think it's either what you're doing, or it's This would be two average grade planes.

35
00:23:15.090 --> 00:23:47.960
One one these dots Right. And then one these dots, which essentially is it almost literally is gonna get you the same thing. Right? Maybe not though. It's I don't think it will. I think they're too high. Only because I think they're too high in the garage. On the backside. Yeah. On the backside, it slopes off. Yeah. Yeah. But but but the but the difference is And your framing plan doesn't match the elevations. Looking from front to back. Right? Doesn't no. It's pretty It's front to back. Right? The framing plan looks clean. It's sort of like, you know, you got the twos and the dormers. This way. No. But the elevations don't match that.

36
00:23:47.960 --> 00:24:20.390
There's something wonky with those You get the same treatment on both sides. You there's very little That treatment is that that dot is here, that dot is here, and that dot is here. Same thing here. That dot's here. Yeah. That dot's here. The slope is the same. You're correct. Yeah. So you're gonna it's gonna end up being the same. Yeah. As long as the left side is not summed up, which I don't think it is. I think it's like this. It goes like this. Oh, yeah. Ultimately, so you'll you'll create two One one caveat here. This this addition is only half.

37
00:24:20.450 --> 00:24:55.285
Right. Yeah. Part of it. Yeah. So this slope is already lower than this slope. Right. This is this is gonna start lower here because because the slope is going down. This is the north. Alright. And then the slope is going this way. Yeah. The slope is going that way. So so addition Is that an addition? That's the addition. Addition on that one. Alright. I'm waiting for that one. That's where it is. But the point is, is it set the addition is set back further down the slope. Yeah. Because the front of the would be below grade, technically.

38
00:24:56.505 --> 00:25:33.780
The the front of the addition is is gonna be lower than the front of the existing. So you so is that fair is that a fair treatment? I think so. To do two two grade planes? Two calcs at the zone line? Yeah. One one you can't get the middle one. Yep. Right? Because there's a house on it. But you'll measure the drain point on the right side will be spot drains that go around and stop, and then this will be around and stop. And then you'll measure to the high point of the existing roof or existing and

39
00:25:33.780 --> 00:26:08.880
the high point of the proposed addition as proposed. Same thing here. Spot grades around, then you'll have a Yeah. A b the height of the new roof on in that a. Because the set the 2nd Floor is going up. So it's not The height of the existing Yep. And then height of the proposed. Yep. All measured from the same average. Got it. Those those points are gonna be existing as proposed? These these grades don't change. The the the the average grade does not you measuring from the existing no. I'm sorry. You measure from existing grade for for today.

40
00:26:09.100 --> 00:26:45.635
And then if you're gonna raise the grade or lower the grade, you measure from the new grade. Right. Now just so you know, the building commissioner measures from the proposed grade for the proposed structure. But if you significantly elevate the grade, this board can take that into consideration. But even though it's compliant, maybe it's it may be still be it still may be detrimental. So just be cautious. You can't raise the grade four fee and say we're compliant. Right. Yeah. Because it's part of the calculus that the board will take into consideration.

41
00:26:45.695 --> 00:27:20.870
Yeah. Question. So So it has a furnished basement. Facement? What about it? A furnished basement? Yeah. I was talking about questions come up here. So we can get a good one. Because the the question is does it have a furnished basement? Yeah. Majority of the basement is finished. Correct? Yes. And there is a walkout basement to the backyard. There's some windows, looks like, on either side. So what I don't know yet, but we should probably come to consensus on is, is does that count as a story? So that would be three stories. And then that is does not comply right now.

42
00:27:20.870 --> 00:28:09.105
But then you're gonna have to look in the code for for again, we're we're not gonna do it. But Yeah. And, again, the building commissioner only called out on finding. Yeah. Right. So I'd just like to confirm, we don't have any more recent elevations Story. Than December 23? Michael, is that correct? The elevation? It was the last December 23, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Because, because we have, surveyor stamp on the most recent plot plan, but we don't have the engineer stamp stamping on the elevations,

43
00:28:09.565 --> 00:28:58.110
and that is required. Well, it's not on the elevations that we have in the portal unless somebody can tell me which because, you know, I I don't know if you've looked at it, but it is difficult to tell what's, I mean, I've been looking through and trying to make sure I'm looking at the most recent one. Okay. That portion of the building including between the upper surface or top of any tier of beams of the floor and the upper surface or top of the beams of the floor or roof next above. You'll have to figure out what the store how many storage are there. I think that's all we need.

44
00:28:58.110 --> 00:29:39.495
Right? But let's just find out. Is anyone here to talk about this case at 7 Upland that's in the room? No. Okay. And then in terms of virtual, are you just asking if anyone virtually wants to Does anyone virtually have anything to say about 7 Upland Terrace? Raise your hand physically? Virtually. Oh, is there a hand raising function? Use the virtual hand raising function in Zoom? Zoom. See any? Seeing none. Okay. So this is gonna be continued again. I think that's all we need. Is it all we need? This is now our opportunity to let these folks know once and for all.

45
00:29:39.715 --> 00:30:14.970
And I think that prior to them coming back, they do need to meet with the building commissioner because we've now have two building permits. Now we have multiple sets of plans, so it's what are they actually doing? I'm not sure what your role is in the back there or your role here is, but you should all go and see the building commissioner. And see Amanda. Building commissioner. See the building commissioner. Don't see Amanda. Well, it also dated, I don't know if you caught that because we were working at different things that there's no engineer stamp on the elevations. Okay so let's have get the plan stamped.

46
00:30:14.970 --> 00:30:49.680
Yeah. All right and are we good? That's good? I mean ultimately at the end of the day if all these numbers shake out I don't see anything based on my experience and I'm not going to tell you how this board's going to vote, I only get one vote, is that it's going to be approved but in my experience if those numbers shake out and they're all what we hope that they will be, it's more than likely going to get approved. There's no opposition, so but we just figured it willy nilly just approve it just when it's incomplete. Alright. Motion to continue. Same five. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Just notice another thing is that the driveway,

47
00:30:49.820 --> 00:31:22.655
the existing drive way, the proposed driveway needs to be what? There's no driveway? There's no existing driveway. Oh, okay. Well, the proposed one, we need to see the dimensions of that. It looks to me like you're okay, but, we need to confirm Just give me that number. I I can't recall what it is. It's 21. At the One and two family unit dwellings cannot have a driveway any wider than 21 feet. At the At the Oh, at the at the right of way. And at 25 At the flare, I think it's 24 I'll have to look it up.

48
00:31:22.655 --> 00:31:57.455
I brought it with me. Well, what is just make sure you look at that and then dimension it. I think it can be wider once you get inside the property. Oh, yeah. It's 25 feet at the curb line. 25 at the curb line, 21 at the property line? At the right of way. At the right of way. Alright. That's yeah. The addition is 24. So, yeah, we have Alright. Good enough. Okay. So, let's just go ahead and get a motion to continue that. Move to continue the settlement terrace hearing to our May 18 meeting. Second. Second. And all the same five. All those in favor, hands up.

49
00:31:57.455 --> 00:32:48.735
Okay. Yeah. Five o. We'll see you at May 18. I'm just gonna make a note here. Which? For this need I got needs height. Average grade plan is 70%. And and and grade And and and, we have three three three three plan. Three three three plan. Yep. And I'm gonna try that. Mhmm. Okay. That's it. Let's see it. Thanks very much. Okay. The next matter is 150 Woodland Street. The applicant is Silva Development LLC, request for a section six filing for the demolition of an existing one family dwelling and construction of a new one family dwelling on a previously nine apartment lot.

50
00:32:48.735 --> 00:33:44.985
Hello. Hey. How you guys doing? Oh, good. Let me just take a look here for a minute. Was this okay. This one was scheduled, but never we never opened it, right? No. We had a discussion last week. Oh, submitted, some new plans for the government to Hold on one second. Let me see my notes. Oh, this is one. Fifteen minutes. In the packet, there is is new documentation for this one. About the wrong one. Sorry. I was on the wrong one. Yeah. Here we go. Yeah. Okay. New information. I just wanna see what I will. Okay. So new zoning chart, new site plan, new CDs.

51
00:33:46.645 --> 00:34:41.535
Okay. My notes said driveway with dimensions and architectural stamp on off building plans. Okay. Alright. That was the last. So I have to change it. Okay. So Jason's notes reflect My notes from last meeting were that we wanted to have the driveway with shown on the plans and architectural stamp on the on the building plans, especially with regard to the height. Was that for ours? 150. 150. Okay. 150 Woodland? Yep. Okay. So let me just run through real quick. The lot area is good.

52
00:34:41.535 --> 00:35:19.870
The front is just good. Depth is good. Oh, oh, the depth is not good, but okay because it's existing, not changing. Front, it's on the corner. Yep. If it helps, I can point out the changes in the two charts between our original and the the updated. Yeah. Let me just check. It'd be on the, the front setback. We moved it in a bit. I'm just kidding. And then on the two side setbacks, we pulled it in. And so if you look at the coverage, the lot coverage has been reduced down to 16 and a half or 16.1. So 19.1. Yes.

53
00:35:20.650 --> 00:35:55.160
Okay. And either way, it's compliant there. The height, it looks like it's shrunk too, right? Heights come down some? $32.48 is what you had. $34.08 is what you what the other chart said. Correct. We were able to Two and a half feet. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And then Between a combination of lowering the top of concrete a little and lowering the bridge. And then on the I I can't open up these plans, but for some reason that's my bad. But, so and then how did you reduce the the coverage?

54
00:35:55.460 --> 00:36:38.005
Just a smaller coverage? Yeah. We pulled it in on the sides and and from the front. Okay. So it's essentially the same same design, same mask, but just small? Yes. Similar to the back. Yeah. Two fronts, two sides. No rear. Is this is this one because I've been looking at a lot of plans. Is this the one where it's gone from a three car garage to two? Or am I mixed? No. I believe it's still a three car garage. No. This is a whole two car garage. Yeah. Two cars. Sorry. Okay. So it has gone from a three. Yeah. I I apologize. I was thinking of it. So it's 26 wide instead of three.

55
00:36:38.005 --> 00:38:02.935
Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Alright. Oh, okay. The side okay. I get it from both sides comparison. One showing three, the other showing two. Got it. Okay. Okay. Alright. Does the board have any questions? Oh, sorry. I'm not seeing the, engineer stamp. On the The engineer stamp's not on this plan. The engineer has a separate set. The plot plan is stamped by your surveyor. Yeah. Right? Correct. Surveyors can measure height, right? Yep. But I mean the that all the all the elevations are unstand. Which we also locate as well regularly.

56
00:38:04.275 --> 00:38:38.460
So wait a minute. We take the proposed from the civil engineer and we we're the ones who calculate the average grade point and certify it pre and post based on the proposed elevations based on the soil testing by the engineer. Does the department have that? Because I didn't see it in the portal. What's he saying? What he's saying is the site plan stamped by the engineer takes into consideration the proposed heights by the architect. So it's essentially stamped site plan with that height is is a stamp plan.

57
00:38:39.080 --> 00:39:26.825
This you know the civil engineer hasn't submitted a plan to till he goes for the stormwater permit. And that's where these I mean, the proposed grading from as a matter of course has always gone on the surveyors plan as well. And by this, surveyor stamping it, their it's their liability to verify that he is correct. So even though they're not the architect or the engineer, we don't we don't even know who those people are when we look at these elevations. Anything that goes in the plan that they put their stamp on, they are liable. Okay. We have the professional responsibility for.

58
00:39:26.825 --> 00:40:00.070
Okay. Thank you. I had just a question. I'm looking at the zoning chart. It says the proposed height is 32.48, but the plans I'm looking for say that it's 27 feet 10 inches and five eighths to the top of concrete to ridge. Okay. So if you notice on the section on our plan, if you take that 27 and you add that to the delta between the top of concrete and the existing per average grade plan, which is on the cross section. Okay. That's where we come up with. That's where we come up with. That's where we come up with. That's where we come up with. In this case, existing because the existing was the worst case scenario.

59
00:40:00.070 --> 00:40:43.515
Okay. Because we had to raise the top the proposed grade because of the ground water. Ground water is so high. Okay. And because native wires two foot separation to the basin floor. How much did you add? I'm just curious. Sorry. Pepper. 2.3 feet. Yeah. It is about three feet. It is 4.6 feet from top of concrete to the existing grade. Now the proposed grade plain, just to give you a sense, is only two and a half feet higher than the existing grade plain. Okay. Because we are leaving exposure on the foundation,

60
00:40:43.515 --> 00:41:21.400
so to speak. Because we know that to then just bring up the grade to that top of concrete would end up would have this gigantic plinth, which we already have somewhat of a a slope, but the slope is still modest here. We're about an 8% pitch as opposed to something that would be, you know, grossly, inappropriate for the butters. I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out is is the that truly did you lower the actual ridge, or have you brought up the grays since you've been that last.

61
00:41:22.500 --> 00:41:58.680
So two things yeah one we've lowered the ridge from top of concrete so the wood on this house got short. Yeah we did on top of that. It wouldn't matter. Where we sat that just like it wouldn't matter where you move your belt. You're still your height because our bottom was just in grade. So the peak to the existing grade plane is this 32.48 which is two feet shorter than it was last time. Okay. So as long as that you're saying that's to existing?

62
00:41:58.820 --> 00:42:41.595
To the existing. It's not to some theoretical proposed which neither you and I can see right now. We can both go to this site and look at this ground and that's what we're measuring from. Okay. So when you add two and a half feet to the existing grade, we're not robbing you guys on our height allowance and taking advantage of that. So if you measure from the proposed, it's gonna be the same. It's gonna be two and a half feet shorter. Oh, okay. Fine. So it's even gonna be shorter measured from the proposed grade.

63
00:42:42.855 --> 00:43:18.639
I hate to interrupt this conversation, but this is a corner lot. Uh-huh. The average existing grade is measured by the center line of the two intersecting streets Yeah. Not the average grade playing around the building. That's right. That's right. Oh, We went down a rabbit hole there. Yeah. Yeah. Believe it or not, it's a very odd thing. But I thought that was only in certain circumstances that that was the case when it's on a corner lot. But I thought there was an additional circumstance that triggered that. Not just the corner lot. Maybe you know the zoning lot better than we do. I don't know.

64
00:43:18.639 --> 00:44:01.545
I mean I made this possible. Possible. Do you know any idea what what that was you were thinking of? Off the top of my head? No. But I definitely Yeah. Okay. Height building, vertical distance from the grade to the highest point of the roof. When a building faces more than one street faces more than one street? As it has two front doors? That's funny, Because it could say on a corner loft. It says when a building faces more than one street, the height should should be measured from the average of the grade at the center line of each street. Or if it does not abide on a street from above the mean finished grade

65
00:44:01.545 --> 00:44:45.400
of the ground adjoining the external walls thereof. An external wall extending above the roof should be considered as part of the height of the building. When a building faces more than one street Any idea? I I know it faces one street. It can only Yeah. But only every building has one has one front door. Right? But we we're on these corner lots, though. We give them two front side front setbacks and two Yeah. Side setbacks. Right? Where's the road compared? So I can give you I mean, I don't have that with the with the 200.

66
00:44:45.620 --> 00:45:21.615
A bunch of little segments that I would like in this. Yeah. Yeah. But we're looking at the average grade through this road is about flat at about two hundred point two two hundred point four somewhere between there so we're about two more feet still legal. In the sense compliance yeah. Being measured to an elevation that is well below the site- the center line of the road. But so would still put us at about a 34 and a half foot tall

67
00:45:21.615 --> 00:46:02.345
house. But again that 34 foot tall house when the house is done and the building inspector is inspecting it is gonna be 29 feet tall or 30 feet tall. You know what I mean? So it's not it's an illusory 34 and a half. Sorry. I have a question. Is the right side for the other straight eighty two one? I'm sorry. The right side of the building. Yep. The garage size is that That's the right side of the building, right? That would be the way I would describe it. Okay. So the garage is right next to it.

68
00:46:02.345 --> 00:46:43.895
Yes, sir. Alright. Well, let let let's, let's see if there's anybody here that wants to talk about this project. We're at 150 Woodland. Is anybody here? Yes. Come on up, sir. Sir. I'll be just talking to that microphone and give us your name and address for the record. It's, Phil Miller. I live at 148 Woodland, right next door to the pro Yeah. Project. Yeah. And, I do have some concerns about raising the blade because of the water table and what the effect might be on the two properties because we get some, heavy rains. We'll get some flooding, but it would pass through now because of the blind pool there for a lot

69
00:46:43.895 --> 00:47:27.730
of sand and gravel around it. You're gonna be putting a much larger foundation. It's gonna be a solid, whether you I like to know what's gonna happen with the water flow around it. And then one of the other things as far as the height, I think we moved it back from the road, but much closer to the house behind it. So 27 feet, so it's a 10 foot, reduction in that side yard and a 10 foot additional height to a house that's gonna be next to that property. So I think what you're doing is you're gonna put, you know, your house can be looking right down in the backyard and right on top of

70
00:47:27.730 --> 00:48:09.265
them basically because you're so close. So if we went from four to three feet to 27, they're they're not too happy about that. Are they here? He's on vacation. The other thing is I've noticed you've tagged every single tree on that lot. We've taken down. That's nine oaks and, Japanese maple and the two maples. So, little concerned with that. It's a scenic road. It's there. It's woodland. It's supposed to have trees or so I've been told. And so basically, pre cutting that whole lot with them seem right, especially when, especially when,

71
00:48:10.045 --> 00:48:48.815
I think it was six of the trees are on the property line of the side yard that's only 27 feet. So you're taking away some of the nice shade that would provide those neighbors that they've been enjoying for all these years. So, and then the other thing is, yeah, I appreciate that you reduce the size of the house, but the rest of the houses surrounded it. If I add up the square footage of those houses, they don't even equal the 4,000 square feet that you're planning on building. So, again, it's much larger than than what would currently be in the neighborhood.

72
00:48:54.280 --> 00:49:29.325
There's been a couple houses that have been built, but they're on much larger plots of land, three acres plus, and they're back off the road. But, but the house is adjacent to this and across the street, and I'm not counting the Bayberry development, which is totally separate. It just doesn't fit with the houses that we're currently on building. And I do not. It just seems like every house that would be a you know, that was there. That was a three bedroom, two bath house. It's getting torn down and and building something much bigger than the lot can really

73
00:49:29.485 --> 00:50:16.520
sustain. So, so I'd like to my biggest question, I'm really worried about the water flow as it comes down. It is a, model lock underneath. Let's just do let's do that one first since that's your biggest concern. There's a couple of good answers to most of every one of the questions that the gentleman raised. So, first, this does trigger a stormwater, permit and therefore, all of the runoff will be captured and infiltrated on-site. In accordance with the town's minor and major stormwater, by law. Secondly, the survey the survey What what does that mean?

74
00:50:17.220 --> 00:50:50.880
Okay. This is it's for the water. I'm sorry. I understand, but how does it work? Where does it go? Is it between my property and the street and your and the house is gonna build? And then how does it work? Okay. So what happens is the the the rainwater is captured through a combination of roof and other capture points. Then it is channeled directly into the ground. There it is piped to infiltration systems. Those infiltration systems would be of a variety of chambers made up of either concrete, plastic well, not plastic, HDPE,

75
00:50:52.060 --> 00:51:33.325
and stone, and creating a void that this the water can go into. It holds it for a certain time as it slowly infiltrates into the groundwater. Therefore, making it so that when a house gets constructed or anything gets done that triggers one of these events, these regulations, abutters are not, adversely affected. Insofar as it's not even just that they're required to keep it as it is, we're required to improve the situation. So the the the runoff two and a butter both volume and rate at which

76
00:51:33.325 --> 00:52:08.040
the water comes off the property has to be reduced by a certain percentage. From from the roof. Correct? From the property. So they So so even the just for my notification too. So get it get it that the roof the roof drainage is tied into those retention bases, but also just as far as these fairly steep, yards, are there area drains as well that go to that same spot? It doesn't look like Well, that'll be determined based on so what happens in a situation like this, the site is reviewed by the civil engineer.

77
00:52:08.920 --> 00:52:43.740
Say for example, if you're building the existing home with a big pool and a big patio, that would have to be dealt with independent of the roof. In this situation, we have to deal with the slope of the grade and the patio and the driveway. Those all have to be, accounted for. And at the end of the day, the amount of water that goes to the neighbor to the rear, to the street, or to the neighbor to the left, all have to be less than they are now and less in rate, not just in volume. Okay. As a matter of I'm not sure if it's a requirement,

78
00:52:43.960 --> 00:53:18.435
but but there are typically maybe I'm just not looking at the right plan, but site plans that do have, you know, they do locate the infiltration system. There are civil drawings. Do we have that submitted? I don't believe they have them yet. Again, it's determinative on what gets approved as to what gets Yeah. Because if you guys like, if you'd approved that prior the engineer days report. We wanna do it second to make sure Yeah. We can have eight different variants or eight variations depending on how many Yeah. So we don't, as it turns out. I mean, some do some do show show it.

79
00:53:18.595 --> 00:53:51.467
Yep. But since it's a Board of Health requirement, they're they're gonna enforce the requirement. We we don't we don't need to see it on the plan. I just will say, like, an 8% slope. Is that what you mentioned? Yep. I mean, that is that is fairly it that's not not that the the renderings are supposed to match exactly what exactly what you have, but just for sort of the neighbors here that it's rendered such that it's on a flat side. Yeah. The architectural is rendered based on their plans, and then I have to make it work with the ground water Sure.

80
00:53:51.595 --> 00:54:30.515
That they have. Sure. So I understood. But just wanna let you know that. I think you may work around the ledge because there's a fair amount there. They'll they'll they'll Whatever comes to the go away. Does that I'm gonna be gonna blast? No. Not on a single family home. Uh-huh. Okay. We got a question here. Yes. Question about the trees. As a matter of course, our crew when we go out and locate to the topography, we tag every tree. And we identify every tree. That way, we can give appropriate accounting to Claire at the Conservation Commission because every tree has

81
00:54:30.515 --> 00:55:07.760
to be accounted for in it. We're not taking down every tree that's tagged. We tag every tree that's there. There are certain trees that are gonna be taken down, none of which are the ones that are along the boundary. So What about the ones in the front? They're about eight feet in from the street. The two on the left hand side? Yep. Well, as you're facing the building, they're in the front yard. There's a couple in the front yard that are quite There's two maples right there in the front and In the little corner of that front, this is Japanese maple. My notes from the site visit is that there are two maples in the front

82
00:55:07.760 --> 00:55:44.805
that are approximately 30 feet tall. And I couldn't tell for sure about a Japanese maple that was on the property line, and, you know, we have to be concerned about disruption to the root system, if that is staying because of its location. And then there's five tall maples in the backyard that look like they have to come down. So given their location because of the excavation. I I mean, I've my understanding is that the only trees that have to come down are in the front. But So those are the ones that are next to the road. I believe They're about eight feet in from the the road surface.

83
00:55:44.805 --> 00:56:22.335
Eight feet in. Yeah. They're they're probably it looks like based on locations on this plan, they just show us little dots. They're about, about 12 feet from the edge of pavement, about four feet into the property. Because Can you tell me where those dots are? I'm not seeing it. If you look to the left of the two zero one. Yes. And then I see them. So they're a little bit small on this because this isn't this isn't that will for the purpose. So we'll do a tree plan for Claire and then we'll between her and the contractor, they'll walk the site with the operator.

84
00:56:22.635 --> 00:57:04.240
Well, it's helpful for the the residents who look at these plans if it's something that they can decipher and we're not just, you know, making it clear as much as I love her. Yeah. I mean, as a matter of the regulation, any six inch tree or larger that we cut down has to be in place as a matter of the bylaw. But Okay. If you could circle back to the height. Go ahead. Yep. Circle where Because it's It's related. Well, if you can say Yes. Related to The grades going up. Yeah. Two and a half feet. So looking at the checklist right now, and I think I'm looking at the right one.

85
00:57:04.380 --> 00:57:38.175
But you so you have it at thirty two point four eight? Correct. Okay. So that's that though, you're saying, hey. If we did measure to this to the street, which you should you need to, you would add a couple of feet to that. So let's just say two feet for now. So you're at 34.48. You're just you're just under 35. So I mean, I'm sure with I'm sure you could make it just under, but I just want to make sure neighbors, etcetera, know that it's it's just under. So before, you were two you were two feet over before.

86
00:57:38.635 --> 00:58:13.640
So so now so that that's not correct. It should be 3034 something. Well, the I mean Which which track do you have in it's let's see if it's the right one. Yeah. 3248. That's the that's the that's what's on there. So that's but that's not measured to the street. That that's right. But that's the chart that you're looking Yeah. So I mean that that because chart should be correct. It's measured to the To be 34 something, whatever it should. That's the old It's not. And then also just make sure the neighbors are aware of that. That's really pushing the highlands. This is which gives me pause.

87
00:58:13.700 --> 00:58:53.505
Yeah. We're not static. Higher than Cuba. When you come up to the woods, I have probably about four feet. And you can get to the bow. And the corner up just, and then out there. Not in this. I mean I'm triple checking. I'm looking for I'm just I'm struggling because my instinct is to answer the gentleman, and I know that I'm not supposed to, so I try not that's okay I I just I I'm helping you if you know I'm trying to change your measurement. At least you know now. What I mean that I can guarantee is that there is no change in elevation across the front of this property-

88
00:58:56.385 --> 00:59:32.355
That these the dimensions and numbers that are shown on the in the contours are. Dead not dead on they're not like yeah it's all matches except for this what the what it says in the chart right now because because you need to measure because on a corner lot, you can measure to the the the two streets. So I still think you're under just wanna make sure that we're gonna have them update the chart, or are we gonna fill it in for them? We'll probably fill that number in now by adding two feet to it. Yep. So we're still sub 35. Yep. But, okay. So can we get someone else to come up?

89
00:59:32.355 --> 01:00:12.690
Thank you very much. Your name, same address? Yes, sir. Okay. Can you just give it to you for the record? Shirley Miller. Hi, miss Miller. For 148 Woodland. Thank you. And I just wanted to reiterate what, my husband was talking about. Have you been on Woodland Street? It's a beautiful city. Sure. We have your home is beautiful that you're designing. I think that's the seventh one. It's, Ward Madden. It's a pretty house. And I'm looking at the overall, area. 148 was in thirteen fifty square feet. 154, just on the other side, fourteen eighty square feet.

90
01:00:12.690 --> 01:00:46.290
Right across the street is 912 square feet. When I added everything together, it goes less than 4,000 square feet. But what I'm saying is, as you come down Woodland Street, you just it's gonna be a big house. It's like one of those neighborhoods that's changing. As you drive down your street, you'll see a big house here. You'll see some other homes there and other apps there. And we just had a concern about the trees and just the overall size of the house. Mhmm. And this was a concern of, many of the neighbors as to how they Can you describe for for the board what the detriment is of that,

91
01:00:46.830 --> 01:01:29.240
of the increase in the size? Of the overall as your Yeah. Yeah. I I know I I if I accept everything you said as fact, right? Mhmm. I assume what you're saying is is accurate. The the next step for the board is for you to detriment. Well, in the last meeting, I talked about the size of it impeding people as you're coming up. Woodland Street has become a a raceway. We had Davis Brook, which is a newer development, but twenty five, twenty six years ago, it's a cut group. And people have found that if you travel from one end of Woodland Street to

92
01:01:29.240 --> 01:02:06.220
the other end, it's a fast, people coming down the hill. If you're coming from the Cottage Street side, just before you hit Rockwood, there's that area there where there aren't a lot of houses and people come speeding down there. And one of the concerns that we had raised before was the height of the house. Will it impede if you're coming around Scarsdale? There's always been a concern. People come around to Rock Wood because of the sight lines, because there are trees there. So I get concerned to or our neighbors are concerned, the height of the house will that impede safety.

93
01:02:06.440 --> 01:02:39.390
For because you'll have traffic coming from Davisburg. They're coming from either end of Woodland Street. There are no traffic signs there. You slow down. There are no blinking yellow lights. The speed when we first moved here years ago, there were no speed signs at either end of Woodland Street. One of our neighbors, was able to get a police to convene. We met, and we put speed signs at the end of the street. So now I get concerned about the height of the house as well. I'm just gonna just put this on a a chart here for a second just so we can all see if we can.

94
01:02:39.390 --> 01:03:31.230
Alright? Woodland. This is the this is the house. Right? Here's Davis. Here's Rockwood. Here's Woodland. And here's Scarstell. Right? I don't think Now Yes. What you're suggesting is the height of this house is gonna affect this car, this car So and these cars, and the car Traffic coming in from so if you're coming from the Cottage Street side, from I think it's about Juniper to Red Barber Woods, where, Rockwood is. Yeah. A lot of cars have come flying down the street there.

95
01:03:31.230 --> 01:04:05.075
This way. No. The other way. Yeah. This way. Right. The police has been, flood in the town at that end of the street. We have concerns about the speed. We have concerns I'm talking about but just tell me a parallel with it from the height of this structure. There's this The car traffic So the people in Carsville have to come around on the property. They ride around to the Rockford site to come on on 20th Street because they still have a good view of the traffic coming from either side. Okay. So knowing they're concerned about that, and with the traffic,

96
01:04:05.075 --> 01:04:57.115
we have seen three accidents in front of our home. We are just on the other side of you, but, this house here. And we've had three car accidents in front of our home. Okay. Thanks So there's a foundation plan. So so clearly, is there there's a there's a full basement except under the garage? Hard to tell. Correct. Okay. Because there's no yeah. Why not go slab on grade and not raise the grade? Because it's snowing wood. I'm sorry? Because it's snowing wood. And I mean I mean, in North Carolina that flies. And what why why not I I mean.

97
01:04:57.175 --> 01:05:38.910
It's a design it's a design choice but it's also when people buy houses in doing. Yep they expect it. They want to have a basement because basements provide a variety of choices. Right. And that's Storage and mechanicals slash you know the many things that happen in basements. The reason I bring it up is it's obviously directly related to the height. I get you. Okay. Why is it not dimensioned? Can I, the the what you're calling the foundation plan? That's actually the basement. Correct? Well, this it's not what do you mean it's not dimension?

98
01:05:38.910 --> 01:06:19.030
I have Wait. How high are the ceilings? It's I have a section on right on my I believe there's a plan Yes. They have it on their elevation. So suffice you to say that the basement is to be occupied. Well, it's an eight foot it's an eight foot foundation. Just Amanda, for the record, now we're going starting at Andy and going this way to the end. Sorry. You're voting. Okay. Alright, sorry. I, the basement's going to be occupied. That's clear. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So the height of the ceiling we're not concerned about. Okay. Anybody else here have any comments, questions, thoughts? Okay.

99
01:06:19.030 --> 01:07:02.430
We're going to move to the folks on Zoom. Can anyone on Zoom who wishes to participate in this hearing at 150 Woodland Street virtually raise your hand? Seeing nothing. Okay. Do we, is there anything else you want to add? I, normally at this point I take what would be described loosely as a straw poll to give you some sense of where the board's going, and then give you an opportunity to consider what you hear. So Andy, if you want to say anything please do. Okay thanks very much. They mentioned anything about height?

100
01:07:02.430 --> 01:07:35.330
You're not voting on this one. No. I'm not on this, but I would like to I would like to express my concern. Sure. The largeness. Okay. I I would just say with respect to what they said, they sort of alluded to the that there are several homes like this on the street. They might not be right next to it at 160 Woodland and 158 Woodland are both similar scaled homes. I believe they had three car garages on at least one, and those are not direct, but a few doors down. And if you go across the way like they mentioned, there are a number of large houses in those subdivisions. I understand it's a cut through.

101
01:07:35.330 --> 01:08:08.160
I live on Winter Street. Same concerns. We live on one that comes over a hill and back, and the house is on right on Winter. Whether they're big or small, it's a concern. And unfortunately, some of the roads in any town just are a little more dangerous than others. Yeah. And when you when you remove the front trees, that's also gonna make a greater presentation of the house. Yeah. Just for This was to me large. I would think that would cut the other way as far as safety one. I I don't know. Like, we pulled the house back. So we got 41 feet of of front yard plus eight feet to the pavement.

102
01:08:08.160 --> 01:08:43.370
So now there's almost 50 feet. So I'm driving down the road. It's 50 feet to the right of my passenger mirror is this house Yeah. With no trees blocking along the front. I'm I'm I'm saying I'm I'm saying more for the scale and and detriment to the I'm probably for the city. There are a number. Okay. Fair enough. Alright. So Andy? I was gonna say, yeah. Yep. Those lots that you're talking about, those bigger houses, are much bigger lots. Yeah. Okay. The hearings close. They they the hearings close. Is it is it miss,

103
01:08:44.015 --> 01:09:23.745
Mulhaney who's on vacation? Well, Mr. Mulhaney, he was here at the last one, I believe. Okay. So he's on vacation now, but okay. And he's online. Oh, he's online right now? Oh, is he online? He hasn't raised his hand. He hasn't raised his hand to speak. Okay. I mean, I would think that's the property that's the most impacted by the height, you know, by pulling it off. So that's my focus. I think it's an elegant design. Sort of from the just taking away the the height issue and burning up the site. But I I am really on the fence that, you know, the I think there's would be certain ways to look at the roof line again

104
01:09:24.045 --> 01:10:12.435
to drop that main ridge, some. And the fact that it's, you know, for the basement. I mean, there are slabs. There are slabs around. Yeah. I'm on the fence. Jason. I don't see anything that would stop me from approving the project. I think, I'm not aware of a bylaw that protects trees, so I don't have an issue with someone cutting trees on the property. That's not zoning wise. Not zoning. Zoning law. The I I look at the zoning chart, and it looks like the proposed building is pulled back further from both streets than the existing structure is. So I think that can only help sight lines.

105
01:10:13.135 --> 01:10:49.480
I look in the neighborhood, and I see houses that are similar size just a few doors down and across the street. So I don't think size is, going to be causing a substantially more detrimental situation. And the answers to the drainage and the infiltration system, I'm fairly confident that it will be an improved drainage situation compared to what's there now based on the engineering. I'm not seeing a substantial detriment. I up with Jason's comments entirely verbatim for the record. I'm leaning towards Andy's, comments about the height to add a basement.

106
01:10:49.480 --> 01:11:29.415
I think it's a great looking house. I think a lot of it is quite good. I just think that to add the amount of grade that you need to put in a basement when it could really I think the height issue could be solved by simply simply going slab on a grade, leans me to sort of be voting against it. That's how I'm leaning. Yeah. Yeah. I have a concern about raising the grade three feet on a lot that size, proportion proportion to the the lot area. And, just overall, I think it's it's huge. And

107
01:11:30.435 --> 01:12:06.425
as, as as David has often pointed out, we don't make decisions about individual houses based on previous decisions. So the fact that there are some large houses that may have been built by right or they came through here and were approved previously has no bearing on our decision as to whether we think it is appropriate in that So Let me just add something to that. I'm not going to stop you from to show comments you want to make. I think that the comments that were made over here by Jason are it's more

108
01:12:06.725 --> 01:12:42.990
contextual, not precedential. I. E. They got the relief, so I'm entitled to relief. That's not what's being said. It's more like comments are indicating that this house is out of scale for the neighborhood and those comments indicate that it's actually not out of scale because of these other houses. Houses' relief notwithstanding. So I think it's in opposite. In any case, do you have anything else? Yeah. Just generally, the the actual facts that we can look at as opposed to some of the more ephemeral considerations for whether something's appropriate for the neighborhood,

109
01:12:43.530 --> 01:13:18.140
it is a large increase in comparison to the properties which are close close by in terms of the total square footage. I I don't see anything in the building, floor area a gross floor area on the checklist, but, it looks like it's at least is it 5,000 square feet, or is it close to 5,000 square feet? Let me check the architecture. Okay. Well, we're not gonna go back over it. Okay. But just to give you again, it's like we you know, it's a real number.

110
01:13:18.140 --> 01:13:49.980
It's not, you know, an aesthetic dump. So here we are. You heard which way the wind is blowing. Could we request to continue? You may. Yes. That's correct. And and and and you I don't know what's gonna happen if you you when you come back. Absolutely. But what I would do is is I would absolutely dimension the height from the from the street lines. Because then we're going to get a real number, you know? I'm not sitting Yeah, no. I just I don't think ultimately We've gotten conflicting direction on that, so I just wanted Well, I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what.

111
01:13:49.980 --> 01:14:24.425
This is our our read of it right now. Okay. If you go to the building commissioner and the building commissioner says the word facing in this case means x. Means x. That's he's the one who makes the rules. We just follow. So So ultimately if he says facing means it has to have a door on that street, that's the way it's gonna be. If he says facing means it has faces on those streets, that's also the way it's gonna be. We have historically treated corner lots as having been measured by the street lines.

112
01:14:25.445 --> 01:14:59.345
I was surprised to see the word corner doesn't appear in that text, of a height, but in any case We would 100% make sure we do that. I just wanted to make sure we're chasing Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. A single target. Ultimately, it's his call. It's it is his call. Period. Okay. So continue to May 18. See if I can get a motion. Move to continue the hearing for one fifty would lend to our meeting on May 18. And second. Second. Is Hari over here and all those in favor? I see. So we have five votes in favor of the continuance to May 18.

113
01:14:59.565 --> 01:15:43.210
Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you. Just Thank you. 518. Let's see. Two. Three of those. So this is a continuance as well. I'm just making a note here for about five. Yeah. I've got a note in my notebook, and I'll send you an email to mister this meeting Okay. Great. About the two projects that needs to be done. Yeah. That's great. Okay. Alright. So the next matter up is 53 Beacon Street. Is anyone okay. Great. So that matter is Lauren and Robert Picotte. It's a request for a variance dimensionally front yard setback for the construction of a

114
01:15:43.210 --> 01:16:18.835
pergola on the northeast side of the existing one family dwelling on a creek. It's not in forming a lot. Okay. So my notes reflect that you were not here in the last hearing. Is that right? Yeah. I I, I didn't real realize I didn't have enough information to to know that we could be here, in person and such. So Is this have we opened this or is this we did open it. We did open it. Yep. Okay. The neighbors are here. Yeah. Mister Wicks or missus Wicks, like, appeared no closer to to the east, no farther to the south. Is he still is he here tonight?

115
01:16:19.375 --> 01:17:25.260
He's actually here tonight. Okay. Alright. So let's take He's nice. He's racing and saying, okay. Hi. Okay. Let's see. Here we go. Okay. So the lot, no change, no change, no change. The front setback is there it is right there. Okay. So it's 31.1 feet going down to 11.4, and the front yard setback requirement is 30 feet. So oh, corn is the corn a lot again? Seeds. Variance or a spine? Variance. Yeah. Variance. Yep. Got it. Yeah. So you're on a corner?

116
01:17:25.560 --> 01:18:18.180
Yes. Bacon, Public, and Beacon. Oh, Beacon and Bacon. Okay. And Right here. Yeah. Google's had a lot of difficulty with the beacon and bacon in the last few years. Yeah. Is it Yeah. So so weird. Bad. I'm gonna So you were if okay. So let let let me just before you say anything, let me say this. In order to get the relief you're seeking, you need a variance. You know what that is? It's not what you've seen here tonight. It's something different. It's something owing that, I'm summarizing,

117
01:18:18.720 --> 01:18:58.345
owing to something specific on your lot, unique to your lot, but not the zoning, not the neighborhood as a whole. That uniqueness has to derive from the shape of your lots, the topography of your lots, or the soil conditions of your lots that creates hardship for you has to be derived from one of those three things that I just described. And that the only way for you to make essentially useful use of your land is to get a variance to vary the code, in this case from 30 feet to 11.4

118
01:18:58.345 --> 01:19:32.925
feet, to allow you to build this pergola. So that's what we need to hear. Not nobody is opposed or this is a very small thing and Mhmm. It's gotta be you have to fill in those blanks. Right? Right. You think you're prepared to do that? Mhmm. I think so. Alright. We'll let you go. Okay. Great. Do you wanna start or are you gonna start? Yeah. We can start. Yeah. So like you said, you know, we we apply for the variance because it's two front setbacks that we we come across, and we wanna put the pergola. It's a 14 by 14 pergola,

119
01:19:32.925 --> 01:20:07.270
and then we did have an issue with the stormwater system, which you probably saw in your on your information there. And that's our next step is to determine where this water system is. So we're obviously trying to gonna dig it up and locate it and get a site plan as built, site plans. We know exactly where it is before we do any work. So if I was gonna just sort of reframe the argument that you just made, it's something like the shape of our loss being on two fronts Right. Has created a situation where

120
01:20:09.330 --> 01:20:43.280
this pergola could otherwise go on the lot on on a lot that wasn't shaped like this with the two streets and that it's the minimum required to to for use of that area of the lot. Essentially, it's unbilledable. Right. That's what the build inspector told us at this point. There's nowhere we can put the pergola. There's just nowhere in the lot where we'd be able to put it. Okay. So before we see what everyone thinks about that, let's find out if anybody cares about that. Starting with Mr. Wicks. Oh, nope.

121
01:20:43.280 --> 01:21:27.785
That's not a hand. Does anyone in this room have anything to say about this one at 53 Beacon? Okay. Mister Wicks has been a fortune. Let's let him speak, on Zoom. So he just needs to, Unmute yourself if you would, mister Wicks. I have. Can you hear me? Yes. We can. Hi. Or mister Wicks. I put an s on. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. So, I have a question. Before you go, mister Wicks, you are now the first inhabitant in history of NATIC to speak virtually in a hybrid zoning board meeting.

122
01:21:28.645 --> 01:22:15.215
Someday they will speak of this day. It is one small step. Okay, Mr. Wake, you're on. Interesting. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, I guess a couple of comments on the property and the proposed, pergola. I mean, I can direct you to the, site plan or the, architectural plan that was provided by the homeowner. Mhmm. And again, this may be outside of the zoning board of appeals consideration factor. But, if there's gonna be some more digging, consideration factor. But, if there's gonna be some more digging going on to sort of find out where this, storm, drain, I guess, holding, you know, unit is, maybe this will be time for the property lines to be,

123
01:22:15.775 --> 01:22:50.610
established as to where they actually are. The fence that's, currently exist is approximately, I don't know, maybe 700 to a thousand square feet of public land is enclosed by it, creating a public nuisance. So, again, this is kind of outside of the pergola piece, but the fence that borders Beacon Street oh, sorry. On Bacon Street is a, causing issues both whenever we pull out of our driveway as well as when, anyone pretty much in the town, I guess, comes up and makes a left turn out of Beacon Street. It, obstructs the view of the

124
01:22:51.970 --> 01:23:30.830
Austin. Traffic coming down. So, again, the fence, in it says as proposed by or as shown by the, homeowner, it's well over the line. So So I'm just Let me let me stop you there just one sec so so I'm clear. That's an existing condition. Right? That is an existing condition. Correct. So, yeah, I don't know if it is or it isn't proper where it's located. I don't know the height of it, but and I don't know if a building permit was required for them to put it in, but you're talking to the wrong board. Yeah. Yeah. So I agree. But I'm just, sort of making that statement if there is going to be some digging up and

125
01:23:30.830 --> 01:24:08.705
so forth forth on that. This might be a time to look at that for the homeowners. Oh, fair enough. Okay. That is not we we're not to the extent that this board is good well, when this board considers this project, your comment regarding the fence is of no relevance. Right. I'm not saying it's unimportant to you or to this homeowner, but it's not it's irrelevant to the board. Right. And so then just on the fence piece, obviously, we were there last meeting. We, sort of spoke about that we do want it to be at the minimum,

126
01:24:08.705 --> 01:24:44.700
you know, the 12 feet off our property line. It looks like it's, you know, it's probably not it didn't appear to be far enough off the house either for, for the, which would, I think, require a variance as well. I think it has to be 10 feet off the other, building. I think it's slightly shorter that as well. They they have it at 116. Is that off the property line or off the building? 114 off the property line, 116 off the building. Okay. I'm not sure that's the most recent, drawing you're looking at there. It's not on the architectural diagram. It's on a different diagram. It would be on the on the proposed on the survey.

127
01:24:44.760 --> 01:25:19.100
Right? The plot plan? It no. It's not on the survey. It's on the one that shows the storm water drain on it. I'm I'm looking at the the the plan stamped by a a professional engineer survey. Temperature is Right. Is too close. I I think that plan has been superseded by a new plan that shows avoiding the stormwater drain. Is that I'll let the I'll let the homeowner speak to that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let 11/06. Is that accurate? '11 I think it was November. Oh, November. Right? Last year. I don't I don't I don't remember the date offhand. This one here is dated This one's 11/04.

128
01:25:19.260 --> 01:25:52.545
09/30/2025. Is there a different one? Can you can you see, who the surveyor was on that one? The surveyor was Todd Chasen. So there so you are aware there's two plans in there. There's one that actually has a survey stamp, and then there's one that's, like, partially cut off. Yeah. Yeah. Both have different sizing, but the one that was partially cut off does not include a stamp or the entire site plan. So therefore we weren't really reviewing it. Yeah. Is that a new one? In any case, it's over 10 feet, but Yeah. That one does show Not not not in the case of that one though.

129
01:25:52.545 --> 01:26:32.690
Oh, 99 I'm sorry. 997. Okay. Right. 97. That one that one, we're not gonna consider this one because it's like a part of a plan on stand. If you're moving forward, you'll be moving forward on this one. Right. I I think the issue with that one, again, I won't speak for the homeowner, but that one doesn't reflect the stormwater, storage. Yeah. So we don't we don't need to see that on our plan. That's governed by a different board, the board of health, to be specific. So and sometimes it's shown. If we see it, we make it part of our decision or that that the board of health is

130
01:26:32.690 --> 01:27:07.940
requiring it, but we don't we it's subgrade. We we we typically don't get involved in the siting, etcetera, of that. Let me just double check. Yeah. I think it's conceivable that they you could put a pergola on the ground without a deep foundation Mhmm. On top of a infiltration system. I don't think that's impossible. Let's just see what the board of health the citizen is in place over an existing stormwater hold oh there's an existing stormwater holding tank. Yeah. Right. The department has concerns that placing any weight bearing structure over the holding tank will

131
01:27:07.940 --> 01:27:43.015
compromise its functionality and ability to effectively address stormwater drainage and or infiltration on the the site. Again So essentially the the the partial plan shows a different location. We have to basically that shows a location that Oh, off of it. Yeah. They moved it. They tucked it closer. They they've tucked it out of the way. But Yeah. Do we have what the does the, does the code say specifically minimum tens be off the building envelope? Yeah. That is state building code. Any structure has to have a template separation between structures.

132
01:27:43.395 --> 01:28:15.925
Yeah. So so okay. I mean, you're running into a bit of a problem. You're solving one problem and creating another. Also, you do not have a clean letter from conservation Yeah. Because of the construction mechanism. There are concerns with the posts going down into the area and them not knowing where the actual storm water Oh, yes. So yes. I I can I can speak to that? So we were, we brought in a locator and and, to to be able to determine exactly where it is because of liability. The way that we learned it works with locators is they have to they have to say everything is approximate.

133
01:28:15.925 --> 01:28:50.240
They cannot tell you that it is exactly. So, what we have determined is that the, the depth of the the storm the the stormwater system is quite shallow. So the plan is to pull the this was just a few days ago that we learned this. The plan is now to pull, to lift the patio up and just dig those those two feet, to be able to, 100% determine exactly the location of the stormwater system. So, that is that is our next step that we wanted to to bring to you guys today. Of course, we wanted to avoid, you know, doing a massive dig in the backyard.

134
01:28:50.780 --> 01:29:26.810
That won't be necessary due to how shallow, how small the storage tank is and, and where it's placed and how shallow it is. And so the the footings, the one footing of based on the placement of the pergola, there will be no conflict, and we just wanna be able to prove that with, I think your requirement was a a stamped survey. And so because we can't work off of approximate, numbers, basically, like the way that the GP the, the what is it called? The GPR. The GPR works is that it you know, it's it's just reflecting off. And so, so we we have a really good idea. So we're able to to dig very minimally to to,

135
01:29:27.370 --> 01:30:04.805
to confirm exactly the location of that and the size and so forth. So let's say, let's say, what we would do here, let's say we were to approve this, right? Yep. Then you go out and you do whatever you're gonna do to satisfy the Board of Health and Conservation Commission and they tell you, you gotta move it. It's gotta move here, there, the other direction, whatever. You gotta come back here. So do you wanna put that domino first before we consider it? Or do you wanna run you want do you wanna just keep going here?

136
01:30:04.805 --> 01:30:42.100
My my understanding was that the variance was for both. So due to the shape, so because of the two setbacks, that, that would that would require because the What we're gonna do here let let's say we were gonna approve it. I I don't know if we are or not, but let's say we are. The first thing we'd say in our decision is that you're gonna build it consistent with the plans you submitted, right? Yes. So that the building commissioner is going to require that pergola to be eleven six off the corner, eleven four off the sideline. If you leave here and go to either Board of Health or the Conservation and

137
01:30:42.100 --> 01:31:15.050
you find out through your GPR or whatever that it can't be sited here, it's going to be moved a foot to the rear, a foot to the left, a foot to the right, a foot forward, you've got to come back here because you're now not building it in accordance with the plan. You're building in the in acquire in accordance with the requirements of some other board. You follow? Okay. Yeah. So I I think we're pretty confident about the location and that's That's why I asked. Yeah. That's why we're we're comfortable moving ahead.

138
01:31:15.050 --> 01:31:51.970
Sure. Sure. Okay. Yeah. We just figured if we were to get the variance, then we can move on to the next step to find this water system. Sure. No variance. You don't do the date. Right. Yeah. Exactly. A fair point. Alright. So now the last one started with Andy, and now it's back to the Alan coming this way. Quest And ending it. Question before Skip in there. Yeah. Go ahead. Yep. Say it again. Never. Sorry. So I'm not on this one. You you are on this one. Sorry. I'm on this one. Yeah. I'm sorry. He hasn't filed for Mullen, and there was testimony taken at the last time because I don't think Allen's eligible

139
01:31:51.970 --> 01:32:28.585
to get Okay. To be the other five. Alright. For the record starting over here. God. It's Andy, Jason, David, Ari, and Gail. Okay. Okay? I know none of the neighbors seem to have asked or miss mister Wick did not ask, but but height of the pergola? Yeah. It's it's all within nine feet. Yeah. Yeah. It's all within Nine feet. Whatever the city requires. So it's not that That's at all. It's nine feet. To nine feet. Nine feet. And the fence is six. Yep. So it's gonna go up. Yeah. Okay. 200. Yep. Alright. And I'm sorry I missed the very beginning. I was looking at But so this is, this is about this is you use this property,

140
01:32:28.585 --> 01:33:00.965
but it's not part of your property within this fence. It's it's town property? I'm sorry. I missed the beginning of it. No. The the, the fence was was all, you know, done done within, you know, code, and we gave we we, we made sure to have, like, additional buffer from the lot line. So I'm not worried about the placement of of, of the fence itself. But we have because of the setbacks, we have lots of lots of space in the the side yard kinda sort of where, you know, where that intersection is. Yep. But we're, we're really not able to to to take advantage of of a lot of it

141
01:33:00.965 --> 01:33:32.785
because of how it's set up. So when we purchased this house, the, which we know now that a stormwater take is actually a wonderful thing, right, especially in the town of Native where you have this high water table in certain places. So we know it's it's actually a great thing, and we were fortunate to to learn that the, you know, the tank itself is actually quite small. But, but we this was not disclosed to us when we purchased the house, so we did not know that there would be sort of a hardship in being in, like, what we're able to do with our backyard. So that's a pretty big deal as it being, you know, my husband and I's first home. And, you know,

142
01:33:32.785 --> 01:34:06.185
we put roots here and plan to be here for a long time and have already made, you know, some some pretty big investments in the in the home and the yard. But in in addition to that, you know, exactly, we just don't really have a lot of room. We also have no no real meaningful shade, and spending out, you know, time outside is a a really important thing for me, and the yard was a a really important part of, selecting this home. And, and so, you know, what we've we've already tried to use two different types of, you know, semi permanent, not sort of permanent structures that are gonna go in the ground, you know, some of which were metal,

143
01:34:06.185 --> 01:34:41.660
and both of them have bent over time. When we are gone for a few days in the weekend, bent, and then we have to break them all down and completely get rid of them. So we've already tried a number of of, of similar, you know, less cumbersome sort of, you know, semipermanent options, and it's it's really been, you know, kind of a disaster over and over again. So we're looking to invest in something that's going to, you know, be a wonderful thing for the property, but that also, you know, will stick around and allow us to have that that shade that we're through to enjoy the back yard. Thank you. So it looks like, because of that subgrade,

144
01:34:44.520 --> 01:35:21.270
retention basin, that's possibly a soil condition. Or Oh, I don't think you wanna do that. It might be. I don't know. They're all over town. It's a good stretch. It might be. Okay. Alright. I think we've heard enough. Anybody else raising their hand virtually? Okay. We'll close it there. And, so again, you heard the last one. Make sure we go around and and allow the board to sort of tip its hand because ultimately we're we're trying to work with people and not trying to thwart reasonable efforts. That said, the board has its responsibility.

145
01:35:22.370 --> 01:35:58.555
I'll start. I think we I think I've I I think there's enough there to support the grant, and I would be in favor of it. Andy. Yeah. Typically, we go through that variance of checklist of things that that would apply to this. I wouldn't be would not be opposed to quickly going through that. Just picking one before you tip the cards? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm tipping in favor of approving. Oh, okay. But, You wanna hear it anyways? We have to do it for the motion. Yes. Okay. So if we're doing it then, then fine. Okay. Yep. So it has to be Tipping my hat towards the Approving.

146
01:35:58.615 --> 01:36:45.645
Jeez. Yep. No. No. Okay. We got a no here. Are you I can get there. Gail. I'm torn on this because it's so I mean, it's completely outside of the setback. It's not even, you know, partly. So that that concerns me. Which step are you referring to? Can I Oh, I'm sorry? I'm looking at the drawing that is the one that's actually stamped. That might that might be outdated. That's my only concern. You're outside it. Yep. Yeah. Because there's, there was some work done on Bacon Street that affected our property,

147
01:36:45.645 --> 01:37:17.495
like, for the better quite a bit. So it's so was it the surveyor actually said to us that our our setbacks are actually 15 feet closer due to the widening of Bacon Street that was done. That's why I was asking, if you mind me interrupting. But so I'm looking at that same plan, the multicolored one. At least that's what you see on the screen with the the green fence and scattered. So you show your property line, the, you know, continuous black line is, you know, is quite a bit inboard. Like, is this truly where your property is? Yeah. May I take a may I take a closer look at this?

148
01:37:17.495 --> 01:37:51.575
Yeah. Yeah. Just a little confused. That's why I was asking about this. It's So where here's the fence. And, again, to scale, I don't know, another fourteen, fifteen feet out, where does your true property line is this correct that it's here? Because what Gail is saying is that, you know, you're fully outside of that or you're within setback. Yeah. But is your property line really should you be measuring from the fence or where it says old street line or granite curb? No. No. Because our fence is definitely inside of the property, like, our property line. So It's shown substantially outside your property line.

149
01:37:51.575 --> 01:38:24.295
Yeah. So this is So nobody's Yeah. So right here, this is we're reading this. This is what we would read as your property line because that's what it says. Everything's measured to that property line. Yeah. The 30 so when Dale says, hey, you're you're within here, which, again, that's why you're here because this pergola is within this no go zone here. But if you're measuring from the curve or this dash line or the fence line, maybe you're only partially in it. Do you see what I'm saying? So that's what that just so you know,

150
01:38:24.435 --> 01:39:05.580
looking at that for a moment, that was mister Witt's comment. Yeah. The first one out of the box was your fence is way outside your property line. We're not considering that. That's not part of our calculus. Yeah. But that's a different issue you may have to face at some point in the future. In any case, you're a no. Yeah. But it doesn't matter. Yes. It does. Yeah. Yes. It does. Yes. It does. It does. I'm I'm saying the numbers. No. So, again, you don't have to say anymore. It's, you know, when it's you're not required to turn them over, but this is, you know, if you wanna give them the benefit of your decision making,

151
01:39:05.580 --> 01:39:49.395
then that's fine. You're either a yes or a no. I'm sorry. Did you want to say anything? You said I didn't have to. I know. Yeah. No. I hear a yes or no. The fact that it's completely That's enough. Inside the setback That's enough. That that has to make for me, that happens. So unlike the last one you saw, which was three out of five, this one requires four out of five. So, if it went to a vote right now, you would it would not pass, and then you would be prohibited from coming back for two years. So I'm not sure how to reform that.

152
01:39:50.095 --> 01:40:26.200
That's for you to consider, but in thinking and hearing, I don't do you wanna put some color on yours? I can. Go. I remember approving the tear down before this new house was built. That was in 2021. It's a nonconforming lot. It's undersized, and we gave them the relief of, section six finding. And now just a few years later to come in with a variance, it seems like you you knew what you bought. You bought a brand new house that was approved under a a finding,

153
01:40:27.300 --> 01:41:02.035
and it didn't have a pergola at the time. And I think if it had a pergola at the time that encroached like this does entirely into the setbacks, I'm not sure it would have been approved under a section six finding. And then you probably wouldn't have been entitled to a variance, in my opinion, to tear down a house and to add this pergola at the time in 2021 that gets so close to the abutters, I don't think that would have been approved in 2021 along with the tear down. So it seems like you're almost separating the two and saying, oh, we got their house.

154
01:41:02.035 --> 01:41:38.485
Now let's go back and get the pergola. And I know it wasn't you that Yeah. We no. We weren't the builder. We we had nothing to do with that. But it really just seems like you're you're you are going to the nuisance. You are you are, you know, it's it's not not there, but you you want it there. You know, it's you're kind of a real any we don't have anywhere to put it. We're very limited on where we can put it because of the setbacks. Right. Because of the where the house was built in 2021. That ultimately becomes more of a size issue than a shape issue. I'll be honest. The board is kind of stretching the bounds of the variance definition

155
01:41:39.740 --> 01:42:15.730
because it, at least from my perspective, it supports it in an honest way, but it's by no means a slam dunk. Right? So you have his you have the reason I went to him to ask him to give some color to you, and the reason I asked Gale to describe for you her thoughts were because you can now take that back and somehow mash it all up and think, Okay, to satisfy this guy I might have to do this, to satisfy her I might have to do that, and see if there's a way, another way to,

156
01:42:15.730 --> 01:43:04.520
you know, to slice the cake if you will. I don't know what the answer to that is. You might want to work professionally with the surveyor or an attorney, on how to get something on that lot. But all these comments you're hearing are not invalid Or two, you could continue it for thirty days. I don't know what you do in thirty days, maybe sixty days, or withdraw it without prejudice. You could bring it back anytime you want. I don't I don't really know how how much we you know, more we could possibly do. I mean, I have I have done every single thing.

157
01:43:04.520 --> 01:43:40.395
I'm gonna stop it only because of this. We're not we're not gonna debate it, and we're not gonna we can't reformulate it for you. I'm just telling you these are your options. David, if I if I could, just Please. So, I think the only thing that I would do in your case, would be just to triple check. I mean, it's a 1% chance. This is, likelihood, but triple check that this site plan is correct and your property line is correct as drawn here. Because if it is much further towards Bacon Street, then maybe you're almost out of the setback.

158
01:43:40.475 --> 01:44:15.765
And maybe that changes certain things here in the board. I don't know. But that would be the first thing to check because it it's a it's a really interesting site plan, you know, of why that why your property line is so far off the fence line and so far off of vacant. What is that strip of land? I can give a little bit more color based on that as well. Sorry. One sec. I just wanna make a little note on what he said so I I can, I can fully remember? Remember. Yeah. So really just say, you know, the the property along the pair the property line that parallels Beacon Street, just verify that,

159
01:44:16.225 --> 01:44:56.170
its location relative to where it is now versus fence line. Yeah. I don't think I don't think that that's the most updated. Yeah. Does not sound like it's the current a current our group plan. Get a survey. Right? I mean Mike did. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But then even have, like, a plot plan that you did for your mortgage too that kinda look at that and say, what did we buy? Literally. Right? We we uploaded that one, and the building inspector said it wasn't valid because it was a mortgage plot plan. Yeah. Yeah. I remember it through some cases. But but you, yeah. I think I don't think that because you guys aren't looking at the, I don't know the date of when Mike did the survey because Yeah.

160
01:44:56.330 --> 01:45:30.965
That's definitely we, you know, we had a survey of the file and do all the things so that you know, but that's this one sounds old. Okay. So I think we should make sure that you made dated September 30. Just Of '25? Yeah. Yeah. It's new. It just it just again, it doesn't make sense to to meet it me. There's probably more information that you guys should know as homeowners. So that, you know, so that they, hey. Yeah. Yeah. It is. This is correct. But it is off, you know, 10 feet off the fence line. And if you're if you're not sure of that, I would, as a homeowner, just get sure of that. Yeah. Yeah. For sure. Yep. Okay. With that I was gonna add color to that.

161
01:45:31.425 --> 01:46:07.540
If I learned that when you bought it, it was the old street line was your property line, and then between 2020 or between the time you bought it, or even between the time we approved the section six twenty twenty one, that the lot line changed and this is new in the last five years, that would change my opinion. I mean, that sounds really what Mike said, didn't he? He's like, he's like, If that lot line changed after we approved the teardown Mhmm. That would change. So that that's my understanding. Okay. So the question is, did the lot line change since 2021?

162
01:46:07.620 --> 01:46:42.290
2021. Yeah. You you said earlier though that you believe that the lot line improved to your to to the better. He he's thinking he's saying the opposite. Did it did it get sucked into the house? So I see an old lot old street line Yeah. And then I see your your property. Mhmm. And it's it's about 15 feet smaller, your property is. It looks like they widened the road. Yep. And so I if I knew that that happened in between 2021 and today, that would make me feel a lot more sympathy for your situation. Yeah. Is that what Mike was saying?

163
01:46:42.290 --> 01:47:17.520
Or I think that's what he was saying. We'll call in a day. Yeah. It's probably should've brought maybe we'll let you hear next. So it sounds like to me you want to continue it or withdraw it. I'd like to I'd like to continue it. Thirty, sixty. One month. Oh, I would say thirty. Thirty. May 18. Alright. I move that we continue the year end. Oh, it's not really thirty days. Sorry. Can I just quickly state that before we do that? I I am really sorry to hear that you guys weren't informed about this limitation on your property.

164
01:47:17.660 --> 01:47:51.825
And that's something I've been concerned about for quite a while now. The fact that we are allowing so many Caltech infiltration devices to be put into properties all over town and when it's on a small lot, like you're not. It's not allowing. It's mandating. Right. Right. If somebody it's mandated if someone wants to build a house that size. Right? As opposed to the existing house that used to be there. So I just want to point out that I don't think this should be happening to people like this and it's because we have,

165
01:47:51.825 --> 01:48:23.015
you know, we have said yes to this as a way to compensate for putting large houses on small lots. But then you have the use of your lawn, and your yard is compromised significantly on a small lot. 60%. So I just wanna express that. And we and and our property was it was before the city it was done before the city required as built, so that was also another way of us us having no idea that this existed. So it wasn't something we should take into consideration. That's true.

166
01:48:23.015 --> 01:49:02.135
That's so true. I I'm absolutely certain that if you go into I have no recollection of this, but Jason said we gave this property section six findings so it could get built. That got built with a set of plans that looks a lot like every other set of plans that is here, which would include surveys, as, not as built, surveys, proposed plans, and that survey is going to show that subgrade, if it's not here, it's absolutely positively, without reservation, it's shown on the Board of Health Plan. Unless they can't approve it. So that's where that plan exists.

167
01:49:02.135 --> 01:49:34.670
So there was two. When we applied for the for the the building department had one plan that showed a water system that was basically what twelve twelve and a half feet wide. Double the size. Double the size. And then I think it was Claire. She's like, I have this plan. Maybe it's helpful. And it was so original plan was submitted like a proposed plan in 2020 I think and then end of some point in 2021 they sent in a final plan and the system was like five feet nine inches in width same length but it was like half the size. So that's what kind of opened up this whole thing where but it wasn't an

168
01:49:34.670 --> 01:50:07.520
as built. So the so building inspector was saying, so an as built, we don't know if that's the actual And the as built were not required. So that's why we don't have it. We don't have the the confirmed location, the exact dimensions. And so now it's been you know, the burden has been put on us to do all those things, which we have been, because this is really important to us. That's why we've gone to this, you know, this total extreme to be able to do this because, you know, enjoying my yard is is one of the most important things in why Here and and not being able to do that is is very frustrating. It's it's very frustrating. We can't just,

169
01:50:07.520 --> 01:50:41.445
you know, it's not easy to just buy a new house and move and move on. And, so, yeah, gone to quite lengths to try to get this approved, and we will continue another month. Okay. May it's actually May 18 is not quite a month. But in any case, is that enough time? May 18? Okay. Go ahead. Move to continue the hearing, 53 Beacon Street, July meeting. Second. Andy. Second. So all those in favor of the continuance, four, you're on this. I'm on this. Yeah. Okay. So five out of five. Jason set up, right? Yes. Okay. You're all set. We'll see you on May tonight.

170
01:50:41.825 --> 01:51:16.815
Thank you. Next matter is 5 Glenwood Road. The applicant is Marcian Real Estate. Request for section six finding the demolition of existing one filling dwelling and the construction of a new one filling dwelling on a preexisting non conforming lot. Alright, counsel. So you were on the last no. No. We're we're just and you're on these because I'm just it's a little easier for me to just go back and forth here. Okay. So Alan, you're back on and it's now 123 1234 to get.

171
01:51:16.815 --> 01:52:04.130
Okay? Alright. Hold on one second. Okay. So lots undersized. The frontage is undersized. The depth is good. The front is good and improving. Side is good and improving. The other side is good and reducing but good. The rear is good and good. Coverage is good, and the height is is good. So it's a lot. Right? Yeah. It's a lot in the frontage. In this case, as you can see, the, the lock coverage itself is only increasing, pretty small from 9% to 10%.

172
01:52:04.130 --> 01:52:48.550
Yep. The material change, I guess, would be the height, to get if it's gonna be a taller house. Taller house. Yep. Yep. Yep. So they're putting a floor on top, and it's getting a little bigger to the right. Yes. Okay. But still well I mean, well within all the setbacks. Yeah. Especially on that other side. Yeah. Yeah. Gail's gonna ask you what the the width of that driveway is. Because it's, right now, it's approximately 19 feet wide from the site visit, and, that's a three car garage. Correct? So it's 36 feet wide at the house,

173
01:52:48.550 --> 01:53:23.350
but I'm assuming it's narrower where where it hits the public right away, but I don't see it. I can I can confirm the dimension on that? It looks it certainly is tighter as it gets to the to the street and then opens up as comes back in. I'm not sure. Needs to be 21 feet or less. Yeah. What? At at the street? At at the right of way. As opposed to the right of way 25 at the curve. At the curve line. Yeah. I I can confirm those dimensions. I don't think they I don't know that they have them on the plan. They're not on the plan. Not on the plan. Okay. That's good.

174
01:53:23.350 --> 01:53:58.945
Alright. We get it. Is that is that isn't that the curb cut permit as opposed to zoning? No. We we never saw it. Gail picked it up in the in the, in the building in the in the zoning code. Okay. Alright. I but I think what I mean is is is almost like the, filtration system where after approved, in order to get it, you have to No. I'm to make a new curb cut. It's not us. That's engineering. Okay. But it's the the the dimensional width of it is is us. Okay. So and if Gail can give you a statutory reference. I thought that was part of cutting in.

175
01:53:58.945 --> 01:55:12.220
Yeah, no. Okay, so we get it. I see it. Let's find out if anybody has anything to say about it. Start with the folks in the Room 5 Glenwood Street. Anybody here on that matter? We got a couple hands. Come on up. One at a time. We just had we did have a couple we had an email of support also that would have been in the portal. It was a short one, but there there were a couple that and Yeah. There I saw two in the portal. Yeah. No worries. Just wanted to note it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Dirk Sturgeon.

176
01:55:13.320 --> 01:55:48.995
I am a resident of Natick for thirty one years. I've lived on Glenwood Street for twenty eight of those years. I'm a director of editor to the new house that's been proposed at 500. I am not against new construction. However, I am opposed to this house for the following reasons. The existing lot is completely under undersized. Lots in this zone require 40,000 square feet. And 5 Glenwood is 24,000 change, and that's about a 60% of what is required to build in zone RSP.

177
01:55:50.255 --> 01:56:24.205
The plans for the house state that the gross living area is 3,900 square feet. There's only one house on our street that even comes close to 3,900, which is Number 21 left with. Every other house is significantly smaller. It's also worth mentioning the largest house on the street is the one that probably be be used as a comp. However, this house sits adjacent to 15 acres of pasture. That's Number 21 Glenwood,

178
01:56:24.205 --> 01:56:59.100
and that's the closest one that will come to this house in terms of gross living area. I'd ask the board to turn your attention to, the spreadsheet, specifically those highlighted in yellow. I did not use the architect's 3,900 square feet in total living area to calculate the impact this house will have on the existing lot because I believe total living area is misleading. Instead, I use 6,272 square feet, which is the total habitable conditioned living space, including the basement.

179
01:56:59.880 --> 01:57:36.435
While it's not considered part of the gross living area by the banks or appraiser, the basement is a walkout and is a visible part of the three story structure from the rear and side elevations. Also worth noting, the three car garage is rightfully so not being counted as part of its own living area. However, that doesn't mean the garages garage is don't exist. The 3,900 square feet being used for the total living area paints a picture that the house would be close to fitting in with the neighborhood when in fact, there is not another house on the street that has a three car garage,

180
01:57:36.815 --> 01:58:12.055
let alone an interior space of 6,272 square feet. Furthermore, approving this house will set a precedent on all Glenwood four all Glenwood Street homes in the future to be demolished and replaced with oversized out of scale homes. On a purely personal note, this house towers over my backyard. We have a pool in the backyard, which we enjoy in the summertime. And even with a six foot high privacy fence, I'm gonna have people looking down on us all the time.

181
01:58:13.315 --> 01:58:52.570
Finally, on, my final note is, if best house is approved, it forever closes the door on ninety nine percent of all future home buyers to purchase 500. Natick has been struggling for years to remain affordable. As I said, I've been here for thirty one years. I've been on the street for twenty eight years. And every time we knock down one of these smaller homes, we just get to a point where Maytag is taking on, a very different, feel and look. And, I'd like it to have some ability to have working class people still be able to afford a a

182
01:58:52.570 --> 01:59:31.250
home here. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. So, I'm just gonna respond to one thing you said. The basement is part of the calculation of gross floor area. Hold, please. GLA is habitable upgrade, and the 3,900 square feet is for 1st Floor and 2nd Floor. Oh, I see. Basement is not included. Gross floor area, our code. The sum of the areas of all storage of the building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the center line of the wall separating two buildings including any floor area below grade when usable for residential,

183
01:59:31.470 --> 02:00:04.215
office, business, storage, industrial, or other purposes but excluding any area used exclusively for heating, air conditioning, other mechanical equipment which services the building, and excluding floor area and tender design for off street parking, which I presume would be the garage. The point of it is is that I think we would we we we would consider the basement to be part of the total mass. Oh, Ben. That that's great. Is that the 1st Floor and 2nd Floor are 3,900 square feet. I think they did have that. They didn't have the basement.

184
02:00:04.275 --> 02:00:42.145
It should have included the And that should have been. So I sort of backtracked out and said and then, again, depending on on, you know, realtors and whatever, sometimes people will say, oh, it's 3,900. We have a def we have a definition we go on. Great. No. That's that's even better. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that that's, we would consider. I'm sorry. You all set? I'm all set. Thanks very much. Thank you. And your name and address for the record if you would. My name is Steven Blum. I'm at 18 Glenwood. And, there's just to clarify, there's some little quirks about the addresses of Glenwood.

185
02:00:42.205 --> 02:01:24.090
So I'm at 18. My next door neighbor is 6. So, technically, I diagonally across the street from the subject property. So, I just wanna talk a little bit about the the character of Benwood Street, and I brought some pictures. I don't know if you people a few folks are familiar with the house on Benwood Street. Right? We'll take them. Yep. Okay. Thank you. You you can see that, generally, smaller ranch houses, a lot of them were originally farm houses. A lot of this this street actually used to be houses for working farmers.

186
02:01:24.150 --> 02:01:59.135
In fact, the house that I've lived in was built in 1912, and there were some as I look at that house. I mean, a lot of the houses have had renovations, but they haven't torn the house down and built massive new houses. Like, again, I do. I have no problem with new construction, but this is so out of character. So out of character. And I think it's just gonna have a permanent detriment to that. One thing that my wife and I joke about when we talk to other people, we live on a street that doesn't have a line at the minute. I mean,

187
02:01:59.195 --> 02:02:38.280
this is a rural country street. A beautiful rural country street. And I'm we're we're really concerned that the build to construct a building of this scope is gonna totally detriment is gonna have a permanent detriment to to all houses on that street. I'm at a loss to determine what the hardship is here. You don't need them. Not for this one. Alright. Oh, yes. No. You give us hardship. They don't have to. You know, I I I also I don't know how how significant this is,

188
02:02:38.340 --> 02:03:16.835
but I I don't understand how the developer here is going to be able to build this house and sell it at a profit. Again, not for us. Not not for us. Alright. So my main concern is that this is gonna permanently be a detriment to the character of that street. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody raising their virtual hand? I'm gonna raise my real hand. No. I'm sorry. I apologize. Come on up. Real hands first. John Drew. I live in one stepping stone lane. I lived in the rear of that, the house. Question.

189
02:03:17.855 --> 02:03:55.625
I I have more of a a question regarding, approvals done with the ZBA, relative to the con con, which is supposed to come before, you know, the No particular order. Most people do it kind of simultaneously. Right. And it, it seems in this case though that the con con decision needs to be made prior to because there's a body stream behind the house, that is, I don't know, intermittent, possibly not intermittent. And I think that that would, impact the size of the house. It might.

190
02:03:56.265 --> 02:04:31.640
Let's put it this way. You come before us, if this board approves it This way. And then Concom doesn't. They would have to come back. Got it. I understand. Yeah. So that that was yeah. That was more of a question I had than if sir, I do live in the back. You know, as far as high limits and that sort of thing, I guess they can watch me cock in my underwear. That's for them. That's how that sounds. Appreciate the appreciate the warning. Yeah. That that that's it. I just got that question. Thanks very much. Anybody else in the room have any questions? Okay. Anybody online? I'm not seeing any. No one's raising their hand. Okay.

191
02:04:32.100 --> 02:05:09.495
Too big. That's my comment. Gail. Definitely too big, and I'm concerned about the effect on, the I mean, you can see the stream from the street. It's very close to where the foundation is gonna land. It's Well, we're gonna we're just gonna that's that's a comment. It's just not within our jurisdiction. And and there's I did have a question. That hedge of hemlock trees that have clearly been taken care of and carefully pruned for many years to create a big privacy screen on the right side as you're

192
02:05:09.495 --> 02:05:46.615
facing the house. Does that belong to this property or to the neighbor's property? I don't see it on the plan denoted. No. It's it's not on the plan, but it's there. Well, it would be whoever owns it. I'm not So it may be the neighbors. And so I'm just going to point out that their root system is extending under, and that is, going to be a detriment for that neighbor if that hedge is, you know, injured or killed. Not really our jurisdiction. Not necessarily I guess on clarification,

193
02:05:47.315 --> 02:06:24.720
as far as the size, the the the lock coverage I don't care if the size is what they described or what you described. This house is I'm not getting my vote as currently configured. It's just too big for the lot. Ari? I just echo at you. To its Jason? I I would have been on the fence. It is a big house, but with hearing from a few of the neighbors, I'm leaning against. I mean, those those neighbors No. I understand. I just if it's square footage Al, are you on this one? Mhmm. Oh, Andy. You are too. Mhmm. It it it's I'm sorry who's not on this one?

194
02:06:24.940 --> 02:07:02.000
Ari. I'm not. Ari's not on this one. Okay thanks very much. Alan you go next. Oh no no Andy you go next. Alan go ahead. Okay yeah Alan you go next. Yeah. I think it's the neighbors for me. I think it's it's on a it's on a fairly large lot, actually. But I think the neighbors have presented a certainly the first neighbor, very thorough case. It's really hard to We did have a few in in support. And I I guess I just when you guys I didn't which is the notes that I'm taking notes. But, the square footage of the house relative to the size of the house,

195
02:07:02.140 --> 02:07:45.100
I I know that I mean, I've been in on a few where the lot coverage is pretty high. You're about half you're just over half. And the but the existing is only nine, so the existing is only about half. It's just We're going up. Yeah. Well So I guess in the as far as the square footage goes again, this is not to, you know, bring up a debate. But to say that the character is hurt when houses with more square footage are purchased, I would I don't think that that should be It's not a size. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No speaks this speaks volumes just in terms of of massing.

196
02:07:47.640 --> 02:08:33.620
Even if it's not 62, even if it's five, it's still it's still significant any case. We we We just gotta go back to the drawing board. We wrestle yeah. We wrestle with it because there is no FAR. You know, we wrestle with sort of something like the gray area. That's why so many of these things come in front of us. So I know you've suggested this in the past. I mean, I would think that architects and neighbors meeting together to before you come back. I I understand. I'm I You think you've been there before.

197
02:08:34.000 --> 02:09:13.300
Yeah. I just, it is one of ones where it is, you know, more perhaps more living square footage in the interior. But as far as the character of the neighborhood, I don't again, just as If neighbors weren't here I know. But we did have a few in support It wouldn't be as well. Yeah. But but I know. I know. I we love it. But the the To that point. The neigh the neighbors who come here and and and eloquently, I will say, eloquently describe their concerns, have got to be given, some, credence. And I give them credence. And then they present this sort of objective document,

198
02:09:14.480 --> 02:09:50.755
which which again, I think just illustrates their point. So take that back and and digest it and then have a discussion. They do not seem unreasonable. They both opened with, we're not against development. And it didn't sound like to me there was a host of horribles. It's just there's got something there can be a redesign here that's, that that they can live with. That's what it sounded like. I'm not putting words in their mouth. That's what it sounded like to me, and that that the board can ultimately wrap their their heads around. Al, he gave the thumbs up for the record.

199
02:09:50.755 --> 02:10:58.120
Okay? Okay. So that's it. You you same choices as usual. Hi. I'm happy to come back and see you guys. Well, I would appreciate your happiness. I know it's continuing. So okay. Motion to continue from, that was Alan. Go ahead. It it will continue to our May. May 18. Okay. Second. All those in favor. So it's, February, and there's five in favor. Yep. We'll see you on May 18. You're gonna make that. Let me see. Concern. Alright. What's the segment? Alright. Hold on one second. Alright. The next matter up is 5 Halsey Way, the applicant is High End Homes LLC,

200
02:10:58.820 --> 02:11:43.935
it's a request for section six finding for the demolition of existing one family dwelling and then construction of a new one family dwelling on a pre existing non formula lot. Hello there. How we doing? Alright, you? Doing well. Excellent. So, I'm just gonna put it on the record. I am not within the notice area of this project. I do live in the Generals. Oh. The Generals. So I live on MacArthur and, it's quite a ways from Halsey. And, again, I didn't get notice, so I'm not gonna recuse myself. Alright. Here we go. We have before you go, let me go to work. So the last small,

201
02:11:43.935 --> 02:12:50.680
the front is just small, the depth is just a hair small. The front is you're moving it back. Potential plan. Does north is gonna increase the side the other side's gonna increase. Mhmm. The rear is gonna shrink because as you move back, the coverage is gonna increase and the height is gonna increase marginally. Alright. So let's see. Okay. Alright. And we got a beautiful height sketch there and everything. God knows what's up. Try it. Okay. Alright. Alright.

202
02:12:50.680 --> 02:13:27.140
I would get it. I see what's happening there. Let's find out. You gentlemen are here on this. Yeah. Come on up. Your name and address for the record, if you would. Chris Kelly. I live in Halsey Way. So I live at the end of Halsey Way. I'm three houses down on the right hand side of where, you know, the existing property. And I guess my biggest concern is it seems like, you know, it's a lot of house that is going in here. You know, it looks like it's as far as I can tell, it's about 20 feet larger in the back.

203
02:13:27.440 --> 02:14:00.035
And if you turn that corner coming down Halsey Way, it's gonna look out of place. I'm very concerned that this is gonna negatively affect the character of the neighborhood. I'm not against building. I'm not against, change. The the the General's neighborhood, we moved in in 2012. I fell in love with a, a section of Natick that was built right after World War two for people to live in smaller houses that were affordable at the time. And I'm just concerned that, you know,

204
02:14:00.035 --> 02:14:35.155
this this property, this tear down, this approved, it's gonna change the character in your pipe. And what's the next thing, you know, the next time there's a a house for sale, the same thing is gonna happen. And turn that it it's just gonna look out of place. David, you said you live in MacArthur, and, I I think you'll you'll understand that in our neighborhood, you know, there's been a couple other houses. When I walk around the block right now, I think it kinda looks a little silly. You know, some of the large houses next to smaller houses, and I'm concerned that that same thing's gonna happen to my street.

205
02:14:36.015 --> 02:15:10.840
Off to the right hand side of, 5 Pulte Way, is a smaller key. And I think if you could see by the site plans that I I looked at a few minutes ago, this house would be 13.6% higher in height than the existing structure. That's pretty significant, in terms of percentage. So I'm just a little concerned that this thing is gonna look like a monster. You turn the corner and you look up and you see this heck of a house looking down at this, you know, a couple of smaller houses right near the eye.

206
02:15:10.840 --> 02:15:58.255
So those are my concerns. And, and I also I I just wanted to maybe understand a discrepancy that was, identified that I'm in the plan. I saw the the square footage, and it said that the proposed coverage was 2,048 on the plan. Although I see the, you know, the the a couple of the other site plans that were uploaded, and I see total finished 3,000 level about 4,000 square feet. My house is 1,474 square feet. I think this is a pretty massive difference versus some of the existing houses on

207
02:15:58.255 --> 02:16:44.050
the street. So those are the concerns I just wanted to raise up today for, for your, I guess, review and consideration. Thanks very much. Appreciate it. Yes, sir. Yeah. My name is William Miller, and I live right next door, 7 Halsey Way. And I'm, I have some of the same concerns that Chris mentioned. The size. It's you know, the what what Derek from 5 Glenwood Road spoke a little bit earlier brings true to what I'm feeling and seeing. First of all, I'm really ignorant about all of this.

208
02:16:44.050 --> 02:17:23.365
I I've never gone to his own meeting. I don't know a grade from the flare in the driveway. You know? And and and I'm coming here, and this is important, to the six of you, five of you, saying, because I don't know anything, I'm trusting you. I'm I'm really putting my trust as a guy who's lived in native for fifty three years, thirty eight years, my wife and I was Parkinson's deceased, lived next door. I'm worried about the construction, about the noise, what time they arrive. I'm worried about how close they're gonna build to our house and the size the McMansion. And they're throwing off the whole care until the neighborhood is in its building and

209
02:17:23.365 --> 02:18:00.710
and what's gonna happen. I really feel ignorant. I feel, I I trust You you just you you just pay taxes as well as anyone who works. 82 years old. And I'm just saying, I think you get what we're saying because it's what every neighbor has spoken for every house. So I'm putting I feel like I'm putting my trust in you because I anybody could have argued me on anything when you get into feet and all these languages. I don't know anything. You do. As a as a Oh, hold on. Social studies in public schools for for for thirty six years.

210
02:18:00.710 --> 02:18:33.940
I'm just Let me just ask you my town employed. You know, my town As as in a butter so we we don't need to talk any lingo here, right? Yeah. You you heard of your neighbor? He was great. It's just it's just about, you know, how this is gonna impact you. How this is gonna create a detriment for you. This is not you know, you don't need to use any fancy terms, architectural bidding, whatnot. Right. It's just like, I've I live next door. I live across the street. I live in the back end. Yeah. And this is my concern because Yeah. And so you you said that.

211
02:18:34.000 --> 02:19:05.115
So and we we heard you. Yes. And I think And it's really the size. Sure. It's really the size. Is it gonna overwhelm the neighborhood? And and also the property in the future when people do try to sell. You know? We're not so much worried about that. We're worried just gotta be worried about this. Well, the the neighborhood thing and the size. Yeah. That's it. I mean, that's at the heart for me. And I I I can tell you get what I'm saying. Saying. I entirely. You know? And I sat here for I just called my wife. This has gone on for hours.

212
02:19:05.115 --> 02:19:39.205
I'm still gonna sit. And I'm speaking for Frank Gorman across the street. I am another person who had an appointment who would be here. Another guy on the other side of the street, and they said, please just let them know we're worried about what's happening in we're think it might be happening in other parts of the day. Okay? We're really Look. We're gonna stick stick just to this lot this house. That's all we could do on this deal. Exactly. And that's all I want you to look at. Thank you very much. So I appreciate it ahead of time. I appreciate it. Thanks for the input. Do we have anybody on the line? Anybody online who's raising their virtual hand?

213
02:19:39.205 --> 02:20:13.730
There is one person, but they don't have their hand up. Okay. Alright. Well, we rock it up. I hope they know how. I'm not gonna beg them, but I hope they know how to Okay. Well, you can raise your virtual hand or your physical hand. So it's Oh, that's true. It's pretty, straightforward because there's a microphone, a video, participants, raise hand. And it has a hand. So you should be able to yeah. Alright. Alright. Well, I think we've heard it. And, what's what's the board, again, let me just let's reassign folks. The last one started it out.

214
02:20:14.350 --> 02:20:54.655
Okay. So this one's gonna start at the end. Andy, Jason, David, Ari Gale. Okay. And, okay. So is it who would like to jump in if anyone? I I I will. I'm I'm torn. You know, so so somehow when I look at these plans, you know, and I look at the numbers, you know, they say one thing and then I'm hearing another. So when I look at the numbers on on the chart, I see the house being pulled away from the neighbors. I see the house being moved away from the street toward the rear and in

215
02:20:54.655 --> 02:21:31.145
the rear there's the Jehovah's Witness assembly hall and there's nobody here from there saying anything about that. I think the the the the the bolt from the front is it's it's been managed very effectively, because the house, it just doesn't look big from the front. But it it it's much it's deep and from the rear as well, but it's it's deep. So you're getting a fairly substantial facade on the left elevation. You know, and I guess from the right elevation too.

216
02:21:32.600 --> 02:22:09.750
And so I I think if anything, that's what I guess I probably what I'm hearing from the neighbors. So, let's let's see what what other people think. So Oh. Do you wanna say one more thing? No. Real quick thing. We were told when we bought the house in '88, there's a pipeline that runs through the back, and that we couldn't build anything there. And I don't know if that's being dealt with that you see. It's it's there. It's there. It's showing as a 33 foot wide shell oil easement. Yep. And there's nothing on it. So there yeah. It looks like that's been dealt with.

217
02:22:09.750 --> 02:22:51.745
Yeah. It has been dealt. In other words, they're not building on top. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Andy. I'm torn as well because short of your comments, looking at the the front elevation, the front facade, looking at the height in the sense that they they're stopping well short of what they could could do. And they're coming up if I read it right. I think the survey is really informative. I appreciate whoever did it, that they show the roof apex existing and then roof apex, proposed I don't know if they always do that but it is so it's clearly

218
02:22:51.805 --> 02:23:33.400
you're clearly able to come up with your 13% that it's coming up four feet I do agree that the depth wise, those side elevations may feel a bit extreme. But from the front, frankly, a lot of the stuff that comes up here, just again, you know, notwithstanding your comments, it felt like in some ways one of the more reasonable ones that we've seen come in front of the board. Where do you see that's that comparison? Of the roof apex? Yeah. Yeah. It's on the site. It's on the site plan. The the survey. There's I I never picked it up before on on certain surveys.

219
02:23:33.400 --> 02:24:20.925
Oh, yeah. Yeah. But it's nice to have. Two thirteen. Yeah. Two thirteen versus, what page is that ending tonight? It's the It's on the survey. It's on the survey. I'll do the survey over here. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not trying to convince you guys. Just saying, like, I really take I'm really hearing your words about trusting us. I'm an architect. I've also been a builder. I've been in the architecture and construction, profession for twenty five, thirty years now. Again, if I hadn't heard your comments, I would have approved this without thinking much of it. So but I but I am on the fence because of your comments.

220
02:24:20.925 --> 02:24:59.030
For sure. I'm thinking about it quite a bit. May I say something? Today, at about 05:30, I met with the, Butters to the right. I met with Stacy Chapman and I spoke with George on the phone earlier today. I had mailed out about 15 to 20 letters throughout the neighbor, you know, direct neighbors. And, they're both all good with it. I walked a lot with, Stacy Chapman today and she had, you know, just questions for me and, This is maybe a little unorthodox, but I'm just gonna say it. You know, a lot of times when, a three d, you know, rendering, a digital model is used to help,

221
02:24:59.170 --> 02:25:39.115
you know, if it's a client or neighbors to see, hey. This is really what it's going to feel like in the neighborhood. It might be a way, if if it comes down to it, that a way of communicating what the house is gonna feel like because I think it's gonna feel it's gonna feel okay. So Stacy Chapman is on, and she has her hand raised. Okay. Let's hear it. Miss Chapman. She just needs to unmute herself. Unmute yourself if you would. Hi. Hi, everyone. I'm Stacy Chapman. I'm here with my husband, George Chapman. Yeah. We did meet with Justin earlier today.

222
02:25:39.895 --> 02:26:21.030
You know, I'm actually also an architect, and I have been analyzing the plans as well. I will admit, I'm sorry. I don't know your name that you were just speaking with with the glasses on the right. Andy. Andy. I, I must admit I had the same kind of reaction as you is that, you know, in terms of builds like this, this seems to be one of the less intrusive ones. It's still quite large. We are to the the right of the, of the property. So we're at 3 Halsey Way. So the depth of the house is is a concern for us.

223
02:26:21.970 --> 02:27:08.005
However, the, the distance from our property, to where the new, where the new, boundary of footprint will be for the for the new construction is actually a lot less than what it is now. I also appreciate the the height. Like you, like, I think you said, David, this is a lot less than it could be. So, I, and George, George has a couple of things to say here as well. Yeah. I, thank you. And, and Justin, it was nice to talk to you today, and we appreciate you being responsive. We, I, I just, I don't, I wouldn't go so far as to say we're,

224
02:27:08.005 --> 02:27:45.740
like, good with it or we're supportive of it. That, I don't think that's, that's not accurate. We are resigned to the fact that there will be a large new construction next to us. The proposed one is not as bad as it could be. And we appreciate that Justin has been responsive when we reached out. It I do think Chris's point about coming around the corner and looking at it, you know, it's gonna be big. We're a little, you know, I just I would say we're certainly not like gung ho here. We are like the one remaining actual cape on this street for the most part.

225
02:27:45.880 --> 02:28:24.835
This house is gonna be a lot bigger than our house, like a lot bigger than our house. And so, it will stand out in this neighborhood. We are resigned to a new home standing out in this neighborhood. But it is we didn't go tonight because we were not feeling so strongly one way or the other that we need to speak out on it, but, I just You're here and speaking out. Well, you know, it just we were watching and and we just didn't wanna be rep like, you know, we appreciated talking to Justin. I just don't, I don't want the board to hear like,

226
02:28:24.835 --> 02:29:06.610
oh, the neighbors are great with it. We're we're we don't love it. Smaller would be preferred, but I think that's always the case. I don't think there are any neighbors who were like, please build a big house next to us. So that's really where we are. And anyways, that's just we wanted to make sure that we were clear about kinda how we were actually feeling about it. Appreciate it. Thanks. Just wanna clarify one thing if I could, and then I'll let you talk some more. Stacy, if I can call you Stacy for a moment. Sure. I just wanna just make sure that we're looking at the same thing. 334 is the existing and 377 is the proposed from the lot line which separates

227
02:29:06.610 --> 02:29:45.930
your house. Yeah. It's moving it's moving away from you. Correct. Yes. Okay. So right now there's an existing shed Yeah. Coming down. On our side of 5 Halsey, and so that shed will be, basically that part of the footprint will be deleted. Yeah, but I but I see The depth would add enough though. Like, the depth is considerable into sort of the view from our yard. Yeah, I think that the depth is about double what it is now, which is admittedly concerning. Yeah. Yeah,

228
02:29:46.150 --> 02:30:25.925
24 and change to 43. I if I if I could, and if I call you Stacy as well, I think what how I react to this house and to many others that are built in Natick that that sort of have an appealing and sort of, front elevation, the street view, that, that tends to fit in the neighborhood and whatnot. And it is these side views, and I'm looking at the left elevation. I'm sure the right elevation is the same. These these sort of blank two dimensional sidewalls that that are pretty tough to take from,

229
02:30:26.165 --> 02:31:01.230
from a neighbor's standpoint, and I know we're not designing the interior of the building, etcetera, but from a massing standpoint, there are definitely ways to break up those two side elevations, in a way that I think would be less impactful to to both side neighbors. So I just throw that out there that because hearing the two gentlemen here and, again, the, like, we're trusting you, honestly, that that may be something that I vote against this because of that. I think there's some very simple moves that could be done,

230
02:31:02.090 --> 02:31:37.200
that if you could be staring at this thing for the next fifty years, you know, from again, not from a design standpoint, from massing. I wanna be very clear on that. It's not we're not we we can't talk about design. We can talk about massing, talk you know, and how to break up, that. And is it a detriment to not have it be broken up and have these you can see in the plan that the side walls, you know, are are fairly unarticulated. Besides, actually, there is the small fireplace, I guess, that pops out towards you guys. But, Right. Right. So just to the applicant, to the neighbors,

231
02:31:37.200 --> 02:32:19.565
to you guys, that's that's just what I'm weighing right now. And it relates to the depth. I I I I do I do I do agree, and I appreciate that, especially since that is the view from our our living room. Yeah. Yeah. And and the view that, to your point, Chris, you would see from as you may as you make the the turn onto Halsey Way. So I think it's a good comment. Alan. Jason. I think I like everything that Andy has said. I'm I'm really on the fence as well. I would have approved this pretty quickly without hearing from the abutters, but I appreciate their concerns,

232
02:32:19.625 --> 02:32:56.370
and they're taking their time to provide us their perspective. I think this it's got a nice view. And I don't usually get into the aesthetics of what it looks like, but I think it looks nice from the front. It's the side views that concern me, especially how they impact the abutters. And I think that could be resolved to the relative satisfaction with some minor changes, like Andy said, in the massing, to just make it a little more attractive and maybe a little less intrusive to those two abutters at least. And and I I could support it. Gil?

233
02:32:57.710 --> 02:33:35.600
I actually have some technical concerns. I I'm looking, and I couldn't find any engineer stamps anywhere in the drawings. When I looked this afternoon, I didn't spot any, and I was just checking again, and I'm not seeing an actual stamp. For what specific? Just the plans in general? Yeah, like I don't see anything on the plot plan or the elevations that, you know. Did the surveyor stamp the plot plan? No. No. There's a commercial developer company in Minnesota. So these are There's no stamp. You know, these are these are just like they're stock ones.

234
02:33:35.900 --> 02:34:09.895
These ones. Yeah, that's what I figured. Yeah. So and really no one's the survey. It's the stamp on the serve on the survey. It's unstamped. Yeah. It's it's done by Applewood and Poliston, but they just haven't stamped it. Right? Yeah. So it was done by Applewood. Yeah. So we would want to get that stamped. But, okay, it sounds Okay. Keep going. Oh, yeah. And there's some, some elevations that are missing dimensions too. Let's see. I didn't write down which one when when I was doing it this afternoon, but there's some some of those are missing. And I'm looking at the plot planning.

235
02:34:09.895 --> 02:34:47.670
Wait. Can you wait. If that's an issue for you, can you be more specific? Because was it debasement? Seems like that's usually the offender, but well, okay. I can just tell you right now I don't see the dimensions for the proposed for the existing driveways. So it's a two car garage that takes up sort of half of the facade that faces the street, which I know it's because you got a narrow lot, but that's different in character from other houses on that street, I believe, to have, you know, almost half of the facade,

236
02:34:48.370 --> 02:35:20.610
the the two car garage. Yeah. We we just did that for the aesthetic, if you're looking at the house. But the the lot actually itself is pretty wide. I think it's 90, maybe 98 feet of frontage, so it's a pretty wide lot. We just did that because we believe that having a more narrow house and making it deeper looked better, in the neighborhood looking from the street. Okay. Well, the the driveway It it will be you said the match is 21, I believe? Yeah. The maximum is 21. It it will be 21. What we that's what we normally do. Yeah. 21.

237
02:35:20.910 --> 02:35:56.170
But, yeah, I I can see how if you live on that street, that's that's one of those things that I think a lot of times when people are just thinking, you know, Americans just want car storage and we even have zoning laws requiring a certain amount of car storage, but it is a departure from, you know, a lot of that neighborhood to have the the garages be so, dominating. I just want you to be very careful about it's it sounds to me like it's like

238
02:35:57.675 --> 02:36:30.315
so we haven't heard anything from any of the neighbors. They we don't the the character of this house with the garage in front is impacting the livability of the neighborhood. You're saying is other houses in the neighborhood don't have garages like that. I'm not sure that's Well, including the driveway because of how, again, you know, even if even if it's only 21 feet wide, it's eliminating street parking. I'm trying to understand the detriment associated with a garage. You may or may not like it. It. Right? I may or may not enjoy it aesthetically.

239
02:36:30.775 --> 02:37:14.880
I don't know. Why not commenting on it? I'm trying to understand your comment to the applicant regarding the garage in the front from this board's jurisdictional perspective. It it is a detriment to the neighborhood when or it's it also it it it's other aspects of what affects our decision, even if it's not, what you would consider. I'm just trying to understand your comment. I'm just trying part of my job as the chair is just to create, you know, constraints, jurisdictional constraints so we're focusing on the right stuff.

240
02:37:15.260 --> 02:37:50.340
And that we are sending clear messages to applicants and abutters about what it is this board is considering and what they can do to make remedies or remedy the condition, for the next time they come back on this particular project. So when you say the garage this is I I maybe not verbatim. Conceptually, you're saying the garage in the front is not like other houses in the neighborhood and thus, thereby, there's a detriment. That that's effectively what you're saying,

241
02:37:50.400 --> 02:38:29.045
and I I'm not understanding that. Okay. We can leave it for now. Okay. Yeah. I think I think it's a, maybe a difference. The amount of asphalt that is in front of the house, percentage wise of the frontage, I think is a detriment because it is introducing a design that would make more sense in a different neighborhood that where a lot of the houses share that design of everybody's got a wide driveway going up to a double wide garage or or three wide,

242
02:38:29.745 --> 02:39:04.140
three garages. And this neighborhood is not like that, and therefore, it's introducing this design value that, causes a loss of public parking. It privatizes the parking in front of it. I mean, I've been to the site, and the existing driveway is only about I I understand. Nine feet wide. I understand. Okay. Good enough. So I think with everything we've heard here I'm not gonna tell I'm not gonna put words in your mouth, but it sounds like there's gonna be further discussion here.

243
02:39:04.280 --> 02:39:36.790
Unless you tell me, I don't care, we're gonna roll the dice. Yeah, no, I mean, I know I believe if I I've been sitting here since the first meeting, so I apologize. My brain's a little foggy. I know did a did a couple people say they were on the fence? I don't know if they, I'm not I think not not. I think everybody said that they share an almost identical concern except for the one on the end with regard to the garage. No, no, no, the comment on the end with regard to the garage of the driveway. I don't share that concern, but I think that in summary,

244
02:39:37.730 --> 02:40:10.960
everybody appreciates the front view. Everyone appreciates the dimensional character of it and could even get on with the total square footage of interior living space if you could do something aesthetically with those sides. And when you say, sorry to cut you up, aesthetically, I know that's a tough thing. So I'm gonna throw that to Andrew. Sure. Sure. Because I was just so exact the way he thought. So to get more precise feedback this is again not obviously directive, but feedback is that, you know,

245
02:40:10.960 --> 02:40:50.905
looking like, literally looking around at a lot of, you know, homes in the early part of the nineteenth century, you know, the bay window is your friend. You know, sort of how how different, build how different, houses over time have articulated all all edges of the building. Like, means, like, the the the front is very, you know, massing wise, has seems to be pleasing, etcetera. Not a detriment. But I would argue that this sort of, like, flanking kind of cheeks of a lot of houses that are designed like this these days, they tend to ignore they ignore they ignore the abutters.

246
02:40:50.905 --> 02:41:28.920
And so in this particular case, hearing the neighbors, here and online that are abutters, and paying attention to those views and looking at those views and how those feel for the next several decades. How do you articulate those sides? And so that's why I bring up, like, are there bay windows? Are there certain parts of the building that pop, you know, pop out? There are a lot of different, massing techniques that you could do to break up those those blank facades. Does that make sense? Yeah. So, I mean, we we purposely, you know, look at all the window packages. And I know I think the last one I came here was was in West

247
02:41:28.920 --> 02:42:02.150
Nantic. You guys actually had me put in a window because the whole side was pretty much just gonna be siding. Similar. I think this is a little bit of a thousand. Looking at these but more three-dimensional. Again, I don't wanna I got I don't wanna step on, like, into the designer role, but I think it's more than just window placement. The port is your friend. Oh, no. I don't wanna do that, actually. Okay. Fair enough. There are just great examples all around town of, you know, of just looking at the side elevations of either it's one or two stories that,

248
02:42:02.150 --> 02:42:33.780
you know, that that pop out and they add character. And you said, like, a bay window or something that just makes it a little bit different on the outside? I mean, we're we're, if that's a thing that we need to do, then I'm not I'm gonna speak for Andy here for it. I'm gonna speak for Andy here for it. Well, and and I can I'm I'm not I'm no architect. And I'm certainly not opposed to doing I just want I'm trying to figure out if that helps to get the boat around. As he draws as he draws, I'll I'll continue to describe. Yeah. See this this this let me just do this thing. That's a house. Yeah.

249
02:42:33.780 --> 02:43:11.585
The side of a house, it has one, two Yeah. Three, four windows. Okay? The side of that house from, when you look at it from the front looks like that. The same the same building now has four windows. Let's say this, let's say this, let's say this. I'm just making it up. Sure. But this one looks like this. Let's say Yes. Right? So there's your articulation. Right? Not verbal articulation. Exterior wall articulation. Sometimes it's a good touch. When you look at it, it it has it's broken up like Garrison Colonial.

250
02:43:11.645 --> 02:43:45.675
Right? There's there's some articulation right there. Well, and actually No. No. No. I think one of the a bit. Yep. Oh, I was just gonna say, I think one of the simplest ways to to see what we're talking about is if you just look at the first page of your plans and you're looking at the front elevation on the same page with a side. There's a lot of texture on the front. So even though I'm not crazy about the garage being so prominent, you've got, you know, the the window proportions, the number, the placement, you know, and, oh, and also having,

251
02:43:45.675 --> 02:44:16.935
you know, I'm not suggesting you do something as wild as you need to do. Is this A1A? The little Or, a one one over the window. Are you looking at eight a 1.1? I'm looking at oh, wait a minute. CL21. That's the name of the set. A 11. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. So it's like just you just look at that, and you can see right there what a difference there is in terms of texture, visual interest. Yeah. I mean, we're absolutely willing to do some of those things if it's a condition by the board to It would it would we wouldn't condition it on that.

252
02:44:16.935 --> 02:44:52.360
We we would say, just go back and just reformulate these things because we're not gonna design it. You're gonna design it, but you've got some sort of feedback. You might wanna sit with these guys. You know, I I know that you folks go out and do talk to neighbors, and I can't tell you how much we appreciate that. And I I I think ultimately it benefits all parties involved. I think it's worth sitting down. These guys are very reasonable. The Stacy and George, same thing. Maybe one of them will host a tea party. And, and and you can and you can have that discussion.

253
02:44:52.420 --> 02:45:29.360
But come back on the eighteenth, and we'll see what happens. And and maybe you get there, maybe you don't. I mean, I I'd say you're you're you're right on Brandon, right there. I Yeah. I just wanna make sure I have all the all the info because I I know we're pretty much wrapping this up. I don't want every every everybody up. Oh, so you got all the time you need. But, you know, the reason we like this plan is because it seemed really, you know, less invasive than what I've been seeing in the town recently of what's being built. And so, you know I I don't disagree with you at all except except you traded in what we saw in the last plan,

254
02:45:30.060 --> 02:46:05.280
which was narrow in-depth and really quite spectacular in width for narrow in width and quite something in-depth. So it it from the front, it is very, palatable. And from the side, you can look at the neighbors less so. So we just wanna just tweak that to get and the tweaks seem, you know, it's not what I haven't heard here tonight and you've heard it you haven't heard on your project,

255
02:46:05.280 --> 02:46:37.350
you heard another ones was you have to redesign the house. Meaning, you have to if that house is not being approved, this, you have to kinda and I don't know what it means for you if you can call up the Royal Oaks and say, or whoever these guys are and say, hey. Throw a couple of other throw some of this on there. How that happens, I don't know. But I think that's what it's gonna take, and then I think I think you're you're a long way toward getting approved. And I think these guys will sit with you.

256
02:46:37.350 --> 02:47:27.270
Right? You'll talk to them? I'd like it. Yeah. Great. Okay. So May 18? Good enough. Okay. So let's do that. Go ahead to a motion. Move to continue the hearings five Halsey Way to our meeting of eighty eighteenth. And second is Alan and, all those in favor starting with Alan, and that's fine. Okay. So we'll see you on the eighteenth. Thanks very much. Thank you. Let's see. Now let's see. Tweak. Tweak. He has to modify it. Add articulation. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Thanks, guys. Thank Thank you. See you, guys. Monolithic. It felt like two different houses.

257
02:47:27.270 --> 02:47:59.230
It was like the one that I'm looking at the paper, and I'm the one that the neighbors are describing. And I'm like, I looked at this mess, and it's gonna take five minutes. I know. But I think the promise is exactly what you said. It's like, you have three d three d representations that might make the neighbors feel better about this. Because I'm like, this one, this isn't that big. You're not gonna see it. It's not that big. I mean, like, if it yeah. If they weren't here, they probably would've but it but if you actually created this, we're still on. We're still on. So we're still on. You need to if you're ready to approve the minutes of March 23, they were sent back on April 3. Alright. Let's go ahead and do that.

258
02:47:59.230 --> 02:48:36.755
But before we do, Piel, any changes? I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I forgot to read them. It happens very soon. I didn't say this specifically. I did not either. You responded. Thank you. Oh. Oh, but you all good? Okay. We can they they can wait. It's fine. Alright. Gail, you wanna take a crack at them? You mean You're the best. For the next one? Yes. Yes. I would. You're the best in the business. Good girl. You're the best in the best. I thought she reviewed them because she responded. Put that off. Put it up. See you later. So what's this what are these next two? I don't even remember the next two. So the next two really don't need any action of the board.

259
02:48:37.215 --> 02:49:09.790
What it is is, as you may be aware, the the state has approved or requiring or allowing for accessory dwelling units to be allowed as of right as long as it's one. Anything more than one requires special permit in the town of Natick. What about if there's dimensional violations So then they get sent to you for either section six or a variance. Yeah. Unless it's lot area and lot frontage because we're not looking at those two items, because every lot is pretty much defunct in those two areas. But they do have to meet setbacks,

260
02:49:10.250 --> 02:49:48.160
lot coverage, all of that fun stuff. So these are two, actually, that were approved by the ZBA. At 6 River Street, it was a carriage house. By the ZBA? We we did work on 6 River Street? Yes. Okay. It was a carriage house. It was raised. They restored it, and you actually have a decision for it. The decision outlines that they it can't be habitable. But yet someone went in between your decision and the build and put in the legal kitchen in and then they sold the property saying that it was an ADU.

261
02:49:48.380 --> 02:50:28.415
And so therefore, the owner luckily is coming to make it right to make sure it's all up to code and everything like that. So since there is an existing ZBA decision, we're just basically just bringing it to you to acknowledge, yes, it's there. It's an ADU. It's as of right. It's done. The second one is 16 Chester. It was approved as a family suite. Similar thing. It was constructed. They are going through the ADU process, because the problem with that one is because it's within the actual building, they have to create two separate means of egress because you can't enter the primary

262
02:50:28.475 --> 02:51:05.940
to get into the ADU. So they are doing all that. They've come to the review team, and they just need building permits. So Caris or sorry. The, town council has said just to put it on the agendas, bring it to you to say that What's what's Dave's position on, I I sort of understood I've read the statute many times, And and my my reading was that you can do an ADU in any district where single family is otherwise permitted. Yes. I had heard that there was an interpretation here that it was only in a

263
02:51:05.940 --> 02:51:42.190
single family dwelling. I think single family zone, which I think is my understanding was that was a misread. So it was there was, the state's law said one thing, then the regulations came out and said a completely different thing because it said allowed in a single family district. And, therefore, it was interpreted that way. So, no, it's anywhere that a single family home can be constructed Yeah. An ADU can be created. Yeah. So So if you can just That's fine. Yes. Because you can build a single family and a two family zone.

264
02:51:42.190 --> 02:52:17.655
But if you can only build a two family, can't build a single family, then you can't do the ADU. But technically, the ADU is a second unit, so it's not. You might as well just do the two fam. But are you saying that in a in a two family zone, if you put up a two family, you're not no ADU? Actually, there is. So what happens is, say, you had a triple decker. What they do is they look at the triple decker as the entire area to determine if it is 900 square feet or 50% of the total principal. Whatever. And then that's what you base off the ADU. So then you'd get four units, even though your unit may be bigger than a unit in the triple decker.

265
02:52:20.275 --> 02:52:58.600
Well, that's that's what they're trying to get housing out of it. I mean, people people with existing rental properties, right, that they don't live in. They have a house that they use as a rental property or two families as rental property. That can now be a three or a four. Rent all four of them automatically. Three or no more or only only three? Can you add one more? Well, I ordered to what I insured, it was up to four. Oh. No. It can be as many. It's just only one ADU. So if you had three existing units,

266
02:52:58.740 --> 02:53:33.520
you could add one more as of right. But if you have five units, you can get one. The big thing is is if you all owned a townhouse in one building, that lot only gets one ADU. So it's basically whoever gets to the building department first Yeah. Never get it. Because ADU. No. Because the condo has to erase it. They have to vote. Yeah. They're never gonna vote to allow an additional unit for one for one owner in the common area. It's it's true. But that's the way that the state law is interpreted,

267
02:53:33.520 --> 02:54:08.260
though. Imagine if you Can anybody here to send you out, but there's single family houses in there. Now now you have 20. Yep. Oh my god. Do is there a guide, a resource for coming up to speed on on the 88,000 TV offer. Yeah. Yes. Okay. I I really like We actually need it because, like, you know We move to adjourn. Above it. Can we I I move you move. I move that we adjourn the hearing. Second? Second. Ari, all those in favor? Okay. It's just Yeah. That's fine. Clean sweep. Man, I thought But can we do These notes were super helpful. Can we talk about