Speaker 1: Here we go. We're, we're gonna get started. So before we start the hearings, we have a public speak portion of the meeting where any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda. It will be taken under advisement by the board. There'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. This section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes and any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. So anybody here wish to raise something that's not on the agenda tonight? Okay. Seeing none will go on to the first continued public hearing, which is 14 Mill Street
for John Christopher for a special permit from the Aquifer Protection District bylaw as per section three, A five of the eight zoning bylaws, the applicant proposed to modify an existing ZBA decision, modify, increase a lawful non-conforming, use self storage, and to modify the preexisting non-conforming structure as shown in the plan, submitted the application. Okay, that's fine. Now this was a continued hearing from, the original hearing was when Speaker 2: Peg last month? Speaker 1: That was the opening. No, Speaker 2: No, it's been a couple of months. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I wanna say April. Speaker 1: Do we, do we Speaker 2: That's right. You were here. I think it was May. Was it April or Speaker 1: May? May Speaker 2: Before. May. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: It's been May. Speaker 1: There was one in July. Hold on. Speaker 3: I'm, I'm confirming Speaker 1: There's definitely one. Speaker 2: Yeah, we continued June because of the building, Speaker 1: So, so it was May, July and then this one? Correct. Speaker 2: It's the third hearing. Okay. And last time Speaker 1: Jason, Ari, Speaker 2: Rob sent in for Michael Lynch was originally seated. It was Jason, Andrew, Ari, and Allen
and Michael were the original, I believe. Speaker 1: I think we have Jason, Ari, Allen, Rob and Jeff. Speaker 3: No, that was for April. So May is Jason, Ari, Allen, and Andy. Speaker 2: And then in July Rob sat for Michael Lynch and Michael was not here. He's, Speaker 1: He's off. Speaker 2: Oh, he's gone. Right. So Rob sat in, he had seen Speaker 1: And Rob now Rob's not here. So it's, Speaker 2: Yeah. So the question is right, what cast of characters? Speaker 1: Yeah, so we have, Speaker 2: We have the, have Speaker 1: Left same four from July, which is Jason, Ari,
Allen, and Andy. Okay, so you'll go with four. Speaker 2: Yeah, I think we can do that based on last meeting, at least the proposed motions. And I can give you an update of what we have uploaded since last meeting. Speaker 1: Alright. Did do do, do we have, did you happen to have where we left off? Speaker 4: I think we were looking for revised plans. We had a, we talked about a bunch of possible conditions, but we were asking them for revised plans and no rooftop units for utilities I think. And there was talk about the, how many large overhead doors would be allowed,
I think on the east elevation maybe. Speaker 1: Alright, so why don't you refresh our memory if you would counsel. Speaker 2: Yes, I'd be happy to. Thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the board. George Richards from South Natick Law. The, before I update you, the discussions that I had written down were one condition was a time controlled gate was part of the issue of access to the property. And we would just like, there are two access points and if you will, on the left side, as you look at the property from Mill Street, we're gonna put a gate there.
We'd just like language on the right side to either block it or do a gate. It may be easier to control just one access point with a gate and if the board would be okay with that to give us the option to either put a second gate on the right side of the building or to, to block that so that people had to go through the, the left side gate. We talked about parking behind the building, the south side, but that the cars would've to be moved every 30 days. And then the main issue that we made revisions on
is the building D showed seven drive up or bays for storage. We've eliminated that. You'll see on the plans that were uploaded up, excuse me, uploaded on, I believe last Thursday. There are three different plans. The A two Two, I believe there's Speaker 1: 2 1, 2, 2 and two three. Speaker 2: Those are the two, I think it's the 2.3 Now shows
the east elevation of building D prior there too, where there were seven bays and now there's one one bay and one door. Right, right. Which, which was what we were requested. So we made that change. And then you'll see on the A one and A two, or I'm sorry, a 2.1 and 2.2. The really the only changes there is we added dormers over the office building. The prior plans do not show those dormers. Right. That would be, so there's four dormers over the over building.
I think it's building F, but I'm just making sure. Yeah, building F on the right side is the new proposed office with four dormers above. Those were, and that's also shown on 8 2 1 as the overall plan. Speaker 1: Isn't that, is that building E? Speaker 5: Yes, building Speaker 1: EE Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Yeah. My, Speaker 1: If you look at eight 2.2 in the middle east elevation at building E, there's the four dormers, correct. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 2: So that's really updated to, to reflect that. And then the elevation for building D to remove those, those
bays that were shown, right? Seven of them shown previously. Sorry. Speaker 1: So here I have the notes here from no drive up units check, no light. Okay, no light spillage off property. Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 1: Check, no rooftop units check. Then we're saying gated at both gates or gate or you have a choice of gated at one gate and no entry or exit from the other Speaker 2: In, in closing the other entrance with a gate or a permanent fence or, Speaker 1: And then did we have an hour restriction? This is,
Speaker 3: Yeah, the hour restriction that was suggested is 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM Speaker 1: Okay. So and and thoughts about that? Speaker 2: Yeah, we're fine with that. We're actually fine with all the conditions. Then Speaker 1: The thing about the parking, we said parking, but cars can't remain in excess of 30 days, correct? Correct. Speaker 2: And no permanent parking on the east side was the neighbor's concern on the east side of the, of the entrance area where there were previously cars being permanently stored. They will not be, those will be for the office
and for use of the res, the tenants of the storage facility. Speaker 1: One more time. The location is the east side of Speaker 2: The east side or the left side. As you look at the site, there's a, a row, I don't know, 15 parking spaces on that left side. Yep. And there was permanently, previously boat trucks, et cetera there. And we have removed all those and agreed that there'll be no permit parking. That's for just parking of the users of the storage facility and the office. Speaker 1: Transient parking. Correct. And employees? Correct.
Transient parking and employees only. Okay. Does the board have questions? Anybody? Okay. Does anybody wish to be heard about this in light of what we've just heard? Yeah, come on up. I would just get your name and address for the record. Speaker 6: Thank you. John Whitney, two Victoria Circle. Thank you for taking care of the doors. That it looks much better. I still have an issue with the onsite storage and there was no site plan uploaded, so I can't see where the fence and the gate's going to go. And I'm just concerned if it's not a motorized gate or something that has card access or some way to control when people can get in there,
the gate will just be left open and people will just be coming and going like they were doing. So I'd like to see where the, let's Speaker 1: Just let just go one issue at a time. So, so Speaker 2: We, we last time said we were more than happy to have a card controlled or number controlled gate that only be accessible for those hours. Yeah. Speaker 1: And then, but the condition will be that when, when it's, it's open, its default is closed. Speaker 2: Correct? Speaker 1: Yeah. Right. So only when someone needs to get in or get out like a drawbridge for sailboats.
Speaker 2: Correct? Correct. Speaker 1: But so you card in the gate opens, you go in, it Speaker 2: Closes, Speaker 1: Closes, you card yourself out. Yep. Okay. So the default on the gate is closed. Speaker 6: That's great. But again, I, with no site plan, I don't know where we talked about just the south side of the building in a sunken down area that's not really visible to the neighbors. But I don't know how. Speaker 1: But just to, let me, I just wanna make sure I understand the question. Is this as to the gate or just to the or Speaker 6: To the parking Outside Storage. Speaker 1: Parking the cars. Correct. Okay.
So I'm looking at the site plan here. I don't think anything's changed on this site plan. So do you want to come and show, show us so we make sure we understand exactly. And, and you Speaker 2: Can, and I can also just articulate that we agreed to no outdoor storage cars, parking there pursuant to leases is okay, but we're not storing boats. Trucks. We're not storing or willing to agree that there'll be no storage, outdoor storage of, you know,
other than parked cars Speaker 1: On here if you would. Speaker 6: He was building D Yes. And the cars were all par. The storage was all up through here. We agreed. This is a sunken down here. It's very low. Yep. That we were, that that could be outside storage, but I don't know where the, the gate would be. Is it here or is it here? Is it here? Speaker 1: I think the gates are over Speaker 2: Here. The gate would be right on Mill Street. Yeah, Speaker 5: On Mill Mill Street. See in line with the building D on the backside. Speaker 1: What, what? Say it again. Speaker 5: So there's building D, the backside of building D.
That would be in line. The gate would be in line with that. Speaker 6: So he's saying it would be like this. Speaker 1: Can you, can you come here and show me that on here? There's two, there's two. You can stay if you want to. There's two entrances, right? Show, show me, show us the entrances off of Mill. This is Mill Street, right? Is that right? Speaker 5: This is, let me write myself. This one might show. Speaker 1: Sure, take a look over here. Speaker 6: There's an entrance here. Speaker 5: So where is it? Main street. Main street here. So building four. So there's this entrance here. Yeah. Speaker 1: So gate, Speaker 5: The gate will be, the gate will be in line
with this, this over here, this way. Speaker 1: Okay, so, so show me that on here. Speaker 5: So here, let's say D is here. So the line, this one right Speaker 1: Here? Speaker 5: Yes. So, Speaker 1: So now you can't get back here Speaker 5: Only people with the code connect. Right, Speaker 1: Right, right, right. To get back here. Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 1: And then where's the other Speaker 5: Entrance? So other entrance, actually this one goes all around. Yep. This building. And then comes out from here. Goes out around
Speaker 1: To where? Here Speaker 5: Where? To the street. Back Speaker 2: Onto Mill Street. Back on Mill, Speaker 5: Back onto Mill Street. So there's Speaker 1: Three one in and out on Mill Speaker 5: Street? No, two. One next to the church. One here and one is on this side building Speaker 1: Three gates total. Speaker 6: Kind of see it here. That's Speaker 1: Entrance. Speaker 5: Yeah, there's Speaker 1: One there, right? Two on Mill Street and one at the back of the building. It's Speaker 5: Here. There'll be no gate on the Mill Street itself. Both the gates would be on the property. Oh, Speaker 1: I was confused then. Yeah, same here. Yeah. So, Speaker 2: So, so I think the idea is to prevent people from going behind the building, Speaker 1: But what, what Speaker 2: Needing access by the gate versus
Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 2: Office per, I mean he's obviously willing to gate there. Listen to what you guys want, but what Speaker 1: Gate, where would you block? What would you block off that one? Speaker 5: Right? No, no. You can't block off because the office is here in Speaker 1: The corner. Okay. So then how does, how do you keep someone from going back there? If you could just pull going this way. Speaker 5: So right now, this is the primary entrance. Okay. And this is the secondary entrance. Right? Speaker 1: Here's my question to you. If you're trying to stop. The idea of this gate is to prevent you people from coming back here without access.
What would stop them from going like this? Speaker 5: So what, either we will go and we are going to block over here when we said block it. Okay. Or I, I, I was thinking of blocking from here. Not from here. 'cause it's too narrow a road to block it. So here, yeah. Some of the, or somewhere over there. But that's why wanted an option whether we want block it or put another gate here with the court. Speaker 1: Yeah. The fire department might not like you blocking it. They like to go all the way around the Speaker 5: Building, depending on, Speaker 1: It doesn't matter to me. Okay. Yeah. That's a, that's a good point. That's a good,
Speaker 2: That is a good point. We'll there, we'll work with the fire department and do, if they want a gate, we'll do gate so that they have full access. If, if they're okay blocking it, then we'll Speaker 1: Let me just find out here. Yeah. Does that solve the problem? It does. Okay. Yes. Gate and gate, yes. Okay. That solves the problem. Now let's go back to the clarification on this because obviously these words matter. We said no permanent parking, right? No, but but then you said there there won't be, there won't be storage.
So first of all, we know that the, that this area right here all along the, I guess this east side. The east, is that the east side? Yeah. The, it's kind of like the south, Speaker 5: They it the east side, Speaker 1: South, whatever. Yeah. This area right here. See this, that park that's, that's parking only for people while they're using their storage facility and or employees. Okay. So far so good. Speaker 2: On the east side. Yes. Speaker 1: On the east we call it the east side. It's this, this area here. Now you know that this area in the back here is only
for people with code card key access. Yes. But what can occur back there according to you, when we leave here, what, what can occur? It's reduced. The number of people who can get back there has been reduced. The activity so far that can be conducted there has not been limited by anything that's happened here. You, so you with me? I am And you're okay? I'm okay with it. I know it's gonna wind up being landscapers. That's what was there before with their trailers. But if they can't get there till seven o'clock,
it's better than it was. Ah-ha. Okay. They were out there five. Okay. Five 30. Fine. Fine. Okay. Good enough. Good enough. Alright. Anything else while you're here? No. Okay. Do you want that plan? You can keep it. Can we? Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Okay, counsel. I just want, Speaker 2: Thank you Mr. Whitney. Mr. Whitney, Speaker 1: You come here and take a look at this. There's no confusion. We're see this right here? This, these are lined up the same way. Yep. There's Mill Street. Yep, there's Mill Street. Okay. This is the, this is the so-called east side parking. Correct. And then I can't, I can't see
to place it exactly on here, but there's, there's gate access one and gate access to right Speaker 5: There. Speaker 2: Or blockage. Speaker 1: Yeah. Or or blockage. Gate. Gate here. Gate and or blockage here. Now if it turns out the fire department says we're not gonna allow you to have these gates here, you're gonna have to come back. Correct. Okay. Speaker 7: Correct. Speaker 1: Okay. That's it. Speaker 7: And we'll work with that. And if we have to come back, we have to come Speaker 1: Back. Okay. Good enough. Speaker 7: But that will limit, I think it addresses witness concerns, both not having, you know, any other than just transient parking here.
Yep. And having this area Speaker 1: Key. Yeah. Gate and time. Speaker 8: If I could may, Mr. Chairman, you may. So just, just for my clarification, maybe for others as well. So the, the location of these gates that we've been scribbling on the page on, have that been updated and submitted in a revised site plan? Speaker 2: They have not. Well, that's one of the issues that I think last time there was confusion on whether they were gonna be on the street or whether it would be okay to locate them as proposed. Speaker 8: Okay. So we You didn't do either. So I, I would, I would say strong, I would strongly
suggest that this committee either, either continue this thing again, we need to see a side plan that is updated. So I'm gonna, if we go to a vote, I'm gonna vote no. Okay. Just from the fact that like, you gotta come with your stuff. Speaker 2: Yeah. That was one of the issues that we talked about, but wasn't really clear after the last meeting. And yes, we could have proposed both, but it's diff Speaker 1: It was difficult for us to understand, you know, the location of the gates. But now we, now we do know. But I, I think that that point is well taken. Speaker 2: Yeah. The last request was just that they be gated.
So we were willing to agree to that. We didn't decide in an actual location. Speaker 1: Did you want to say something Alan? No, that's pass, pass, pass. Okay. Alright. Well, or would Speaker 2: The, would the board consider approving it subject to us submitting those? 'cause it's fairly benign as to the, if if you I Speaker 8: Won't, but I won't. Speaker 2: Okay. Well there's Speaker 1: Two, there's two of the votes you're gonna need. That's fine. Speaker 2: So I, I get it. Is Speaker 1: There any, but just, just in fairness to the applicant
for a moment, the, we're basically down to the location of the gates shown on a site plan and the rest of the conditions everybody knows. Right. And one more time if you would, Speaker 8: Oh, you've got the list. Speaker 1: Fair. Alright, I'll start and you can supplement. All right. We've gotten rid of the drive up units and there there will not be. Yeah. Okay. So we've, we've gotten rid of the drive up units, no lights, spillage off the property, no rooftop units hours seven to nine for the gated area for the gated area. Hour seven and nine for the gated area.
Is there, what are the hours for the rest of the facility? Speaker 5: So it's the same hours, Speaker 1: Same the entire facility. Seven and nine. Okay. You got that entire facility, seven and nine gated at the locations indicated you're gonna show us those plans and then you know, you're gonna have to get that approved by the fire department that the east side parking will be transient only for users of the storage facility while at the storage facility and, and or
employees only. And what else did I miss? Anything? Speaker 4: Gate default is closed. It only opens to allow people in and out. Yep. There's no outdoor storage of boats, trucks, equipment or other, other than cars. Is that on the entire site or just on the east? No, these parkings already restricted. So on the entire site, no outdoor storage. I think we discussed, he was talking about boats and trucks and other equipment. Speaker 1: So what, let's, let's just, Speaker 2: Yeah, so we might have landscapers who are pay monthly and parked there, but no storage of boats, trucks, you know
what was called permanent before. But now we've kind of defined that with a 30 day, at least in my notes, where the 30 day the cars had to be moved every, at least every 30 days so that it doesn't have to be Speaker 9: Registered insured. Speaker 2: Registered insured. Speaker 1: No, let's get Speaker 2: That. No, no work. No work on the vehicles allowed on site. Right. Was another one. I Speaker 1: Think that's, is that, that's already in the decision. Speaker 2: Probably is, but belt and suspenders. And Speaker 1: So then, and then of course it's also subjected to all the restrictions except that which has been amended hereby that are contained in the original decision.
Speaker 2: That's correct. Speaker 4: The 2018 and Speaker 9: 1997 Speaker 4: And 19 97 97 Speaker 2: Is what we're amending. But 2018 was the provisions that expired. Speaker 1: So any restrictions in those decisions will remain in place except as amended. Right. Speaker 2: Which is really the gate. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: Okay. And rooftop, ACS and light trespass. Speaker 1: That is any more? Nope. Good, good, good. Okay. So you wanna do a motion to continue Speaker 4: As long as I don't have to repeat all that? Yeah, we're gonna move to continue this to September 29th.
Anticipating some revised site plans. Yeah. Speaker 1: Second Andy. Okay. All those in favor? Okay. We'll see you in September. Thanks. Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. You very Speaker 1: Much. Did you want this? Speaker 2: That would be helpful. Let me just take a picture of it or I can, Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. The next matter up is, thank you. Thanks. You want the next matter is the continued public hearing for 26 Oak Street for Kevin Griffin for refining for mass general law. Chapter 48, section six. And then it is zoning bylaws, sections four B. The applicant proposes to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the
preexisting Nonconform law as shown on the plan submitted the applicant. Okay. That's it. 26 Oak. Yes. Hi there. Speaker 10: Paul Griffin. I'm here as a substitute for my son. Okay. Who was told that if he didn't, he promised his daughters months ago that he'd take 'em to a concert. Okay. And that if he didn't do it, he wouldn't be able to come home. Alright. Fair enough. That's what he's doing, so I'm gonna do my best. Alright. Speaker 1: Let's see. Speaker 3: And you do have new, a new site plan that was submitted today and also new architectural plans
that was submitted last week. And you all have a printout of the new Speaker 1: Oh I'm sure Speaker 4: 26 Oak. Speaker 1: 26 Oak. Yeah. I just want to go back and, oh, by the way it was, it's gonna be myself, Gail, and Jason. And then we'll go here. Alright. And Andy, you guys were both here last time. Yep. So we'll have you stay on on this one. Okay. And, alright, go ahead. Speaker 4: I had some notes to say we had some comments from the abutters that it was too big,
although they liked the attracted plans of the house. There was talk about the size of the building and trees and privacy and then I think the height calculation in the rear was wrong. It's a corner lot. Yep. So we had to measure from the center line of the tool, budding or intersecting streets. That's all I had. Speaker 1: Alright. And so with that, did they prepare you to come back and address those issues? Speaker 10: Yes. I guess when we started here the last time the building was at 5,423 square feet, it's been reduced down
to 3,481 square feet. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 10: And the height, the height was reduced by three feet. Speaker 1: Okay. It just shown here. Let's just take a look Andy, you see that I, I'm having technical difficulty. Oh, okay. It's just in here. Let's just take a look from last time. Okay. Right. Yeah, right here. Yeah. It says 28, 10 and a quarter top of concrete to ridge. Okay. Speaker 8: So we go from grade, but
Speaker 1: Where's the top concrete versus the grade Speaker 8: Right here? It's always a couple of Speaker 1: The, so that's 40 40, you call that a foot? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, okay, so 20, let's call it, you know, twenty, twenty nine ish. Okay. But reduced. Speaker 8: Yeah. Alright. Speaker 1: And is the calculation Speaker 8: There, that's what I'm looking for. Speaker 9: The, Speaker 8: This look at the chart elevation Speaker 1: 29 6. Speaker 8: Do you guys see on the elevation, is it, does it tie it off to grade at all or does it, I don't have the
Speaker 1: You don't see it, but looking for an elevation Oh 3 1 4. Yeah, elevation oh 5 0 5. They Speaker 8: Tie the height off to the grade. Right now they're tied off to top of concrete oh Speaker 1: Two. It's 2 3, 2 3, 4, 5. I got Speaker 8: This email. Three three today. Okay. We do actually have that, but yeah, it's typically an elevation. A elevation view like a side side All front elevation. Yeah. To like ridge to to grade. You have this one. Yeah. Speaker 4: That is to top of concrete. Right, right,
Speaker 1: Right, right. So they see this look 1 0 2, 1 0 3, 1 0 4, 1 0 5. 1 0 5. So it's, it's, it's relatively flat. So the average grade there is, let's see, 2, 5, 9, 14, 19, 24. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. It's 1 0 4. And is, do you see, is there a, is there an elevation on the site plan showing top of concrete relative to grade, even though that's not numbers 1 0 4 is the average grade plane using the street. That's
Speaker 8: What I didn't see here, but Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't, and I don't see it here. Speaker 4: Oh, top of foundation 1 0 5, Speaker 1: Ah, Speaker 4: In the plot plan. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 4: 1 0 5 0 Speaker 8: Now grade then what have we got here? Speaker 4: The, I think they're at about 1 0 4. They, they say existing or proposed average grade 1 0 4 0.1. Speaker 1: Where do you see that? Speaker 8: On Speaker 9: The Speaker 4: There Speaker 1: Oh, Speaker 9: There, there Speaker 1: Existing proposed average grade 1 0 4 0.1. Yeah, that, that's, that's what I come up with. Two. Speaker 4: And then top of foundation.
Speaker 1: So one foot? Yep, it's one foot. Okay. Speaker 8: So Speaker 1: If I tell you it's 1 0 5. Speaker 8: Yep. Speaker 1: And then, and which, which is, it's really 1 0 4. It's 1 0 4. So add a foot to their, Speaker 8: Add a foot to, Speaker 1: To add a foot to what they got. 28, 10 is 29, 10 and a quarter. Speaker 8: So we know it's less. Speaker 1: Yeah. So, but that's, that's accurate now 'cause we have the average grade. Okay. Alright. Well, does it, does the board have any questions? Yes. On what we're looking at? Go ahead. Speaker 11: Yes. Given that these significant changes weren't submitted
until mid-afternoon today, thank you. Sorry. Speaker 12: Given that the changes weren't submitted until mid-afternoon today, I would prefer to be voting on this in September. I think it's reasonable because of course not only board members have been not unable to analyze the changes, but also more importantly, the public. I see. And I'm willing to make a motion to that effect. Speaker 10: Before you make the motion, I'd just like to know, are there any other issues you'd like to have him come back with? Speaker 8: Actually, oh, go ahead. Go
Speaker 12: Ahead. Oh yeah, I saw revised ones the, at two o'clock this afternoon. I could see that the first floor and the second floor were reduced in square footage, but I did not see revised plans for the attic level and the basement level. And since that's all considered to be part of the gross floor area, potentially livable space, that's, that's, I don't know if it's the same as the previous application, but we need some clarification on that. Speaker 10: On my notes here, he said that he's limited the finished basement,
Speaker 12: But, but it's still, it's the same structure, correct? Speaker 10: I would guess so, yeah. Right. Speaker 12: So has potential. Speaker 8: Yeah. The, the one, so the changes is that the roof has come down a few feet. Speaker 10: Yeah. And he, any several of the bump outs that he has on the plans have been eliminated to bring so that the building would have a better setback than it did before. Speaker 8: Guess we have to compares substantial meaning like bays, like bay bays have been eliminated. Speaker 10: When you see the dining room, you see like there was a two foot bump out there that's been eliminated according to the plans I have.
Speaker 8: Let's do bad. Those are nice features that sort of doesn't really, you know, affect the, Speaker 10: A nice feature I'm just pointing out, you know what I changed. Speaker 8: Okay, great. Great. So when the applicant walked left and committee refreshed my memory, but he, he said he was, he knew it was clear he needed to make significant changes. Just lowering the, the roof by two feet in, in my mind is not a significant change. So I'm confused as to Speaker 1: No, but what you said that the total square footage has been reduced
by close to 2000. Yeah, Speaker 8: But because he's basically saying that he was including a finished basement before and he's saying, well, we're not gonna have a finished basement. Oh. So the actual structure, the only change has been that the roof ridge has dropped about two feet. Oh, Speaker 10: I see. Well the basement was originally only 1100 square feet. So if he's reducing it down by 2000, you could see somewhere he's brought the building in by a thousand. Speaker 1: I think we better find out about that. Okay. Well let's find out, let's find out what the folks here have to say about it.
If anything, anyone want, wanna be heard about 26 Oak Street. Come on up. Thanks. Speaker 13: My name's Dave Oman. I'm the other half of the kitty corner set up here. Yep. At 28 Oak Street. Yep. I've been looking at this property for 40 years, so I'm pretty excited for some change. It's been in disrepair pretty much the whole time. I'm just a little bit worried that we're going from, you know, the, the capes, which I know are all getting bigger, but to go from one extreme to the other just seems, and as soon as I heard the 2000 foot reduction, I was all thrilled. I figured well I, my piece is all said, but it doesn't seem like it
'cause the, the footprint's still the same unfinished basin doesn't mean anything to me. I'm still looking at the same wall of house. Huh. Yeah. Speaker 1: So Speaker 13: Just trying to keep it down to, it seems like anything over four thousands, like way too big for that area. It seems pretty reasonable to be two and a half to three times the size of everything else. It doesn't have to be four or five. Speaker 1: Good enough. Okay. Thanks very much. Okay. Appreciate it. Anybody else wish to be heard? Come on up. Speaker 14: Hi, I'm Joy Shine. I'm at 24 Oak Street, so the backside of the house is abutting our house directly. So that was my concern too is just that it appears as though the footprint really hasn't changed
in that the square footage. So maybe the decreased square footage is in the third floor where we don't see that new updated plan. So we know potentially like basement and then the third floor is really where the decrease is coming from. So no real change in the footprint unfortunately. Speaker 1: Good enough. Alright. They sent you to slaughter. No, Speaker 10: It's Speaker 1: Well Speaker 10: Factual information. It's not a, I mean, you know Speaker 1: No, no, no. I know, but I mean, I I I don't disagree with the comments you've heard from the board tonight,
which are a, it's hard to figure out what has changed. Got it. I think the, I think the assignment would be show us exactly what's been done, right where the reductions are. I, I think you are hearing from the neighbors about overall bulk, right. The roof line's a good start, but I think they're looking and probably the board is looking for something more significant in terms of, you know, how you achieve that and by just calling the basement unfinished is really,
it's a puric if you will. So the other thing is, as long as you're coming back, have the architect actually dimension the height to the grade in the, I know we kind of got there. We got there. So what we wanted to show us is, Speaker 10: No, it should be on here. They didn't do it. Speaker 1: And just write this down as a note. Average grade plane in the street. Okay. Along both Oak and Eisenhower, which I believe is 1 0 4.
So we want from there to top of ridge right. On the plan with the stamp and well, anything else that we can, in terms of direction, Speaker 8: I would say that if there's a way to just, you know, on the new plans or even the old plans a way that there's, you know, a, a red shaded region are very clear about how the footprint will change. Okay. So it's very clear to this pops right out. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I think that's right. It's just, it's just, it's hard to parse. Yeah.
Speaker 10: Just to go back et the, you said you want to see a plan showing the average grade on the both streets. Yeah. So to the ridge line Speaker 1: Exactly right. If you, if you show, if you look at corner lot Yep. Or I think if you look at corner lot and you look at height in the definition section of the, of the zoning code, you'll, you'll see that for corner lots, that instead of measuring the average grade plane at the, at the, at the foundation, the average great grade plane is measured from the center line of the street.
Okay. Okay. So that would be helpful. Anybody else here have any other instructions, directions? Anybody else wish to be heard? Okay. Hearing none. So can we have a motion to continue to 9 29? Speaker 4: Yep. Move to continue the hearing till September 29th. The 26. Oh Speaker 1: Second by Ari. All those in favor? We'll see you on the 29th. Thanks very much. Speaker 10: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thanks. Speaker 10: Have a good night. Thanks Speaker 1: John to Speaker 9: Make it. Speaker 1: Okay, the next matter is five lag Grange Street
for Ruth Fox for a special permit the applicant proposes to renew ZBA decision ZB 2320. No changes to the ZBAA decision are being requested. Was it, was it about to expire? Speaker 15: I came in June before it expired, but I missed the deadline to get on the June. I didn't know I had to go to the board. Ah-huh. And I thought I was just renewing it. So I was within the date, but I messed up. Okay. So we had to start from square one. So you have all the plans. Speaker 1: Oh, that my architect Speaker 15: Are starting from scratch. Mike Collins was here two years ago. I haven't been in front of you before.
And I have the letter that the board approved two years ago and nothing has changed. Speaker 1: Okay. Well let, let, let's take a quick peek and we wrote a decision. Speaker 15: You did Speaker 1: And there it is. I have it. I see it there. Yeah. Let's just rip through real quick proceeding. David. It was only four people. Andrew, Ari Speaker 9: Have old decision there, do you? Yes. Yes. Alright. Speaker 1: Same exact project, correct? Yep. Okay. Range. So I'll just very quickly for everyone here,
you're on an undersized loss. You, you lack the proper frontage. You, you have the depth, your front yard is nonconforming, it won't change your side yard setback is nonconforming and will actually increase your, the other side yard is conforming and will remain. So your rear yard is not is, hold on a second. Sorry to read it. Let me just take a look. Are you on, you're not on the corner are you? Speaker 15: No, Speaker 1: I'm not on the corner. Hmm. Can anyone see on the site plan
what the rear yard setback is? Proposed, existing and proposed. The Speaker 9: 18, Speaker 1: What do you 18 feet. 18 what existing? Speaker 11: It says 18 existing. Speaker 1: 18 existing. Okay. And it looks Speaker 11: Like the proposed line comes up to the same depth from the rear. Speaker 1: It says 13.70. Speaker 9: Where are we? The zoning chart? Speaker 8: This lag Speaker 1: After I see it, but I don't see a, I don't see a, I don't see a site plan in here unless I'm missing it.
And there she is. Okay. Yeah. 13, seven. This Speaker 8: Is a second going on it. Speaker 1: It's here. Speaker 8: Over here. Right here. So they've drawn the box. Where's the new house? In the box? Speaker 1: Existing house. Oh, this is a setback. Yeah. I see. Yeah, yeah, Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah. New footprint on it. Yeah, Speaker 1: Here it is here. Addition and Speaker 8: Deck. Oh, oh, that's just, that's, that's the extent of it. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's it. But there's, and there's the number right there. 13. I don't know what these other numbers are on
here, confused by them. But in terms of the chart, 36 9. I'm taking off 3, 2, 6. I'm taking off. Coverage is below 30 will increase, but it is below one story edition. Okay. Alright. I now, I now understand what we're talking about here. And so does anybody here wish to be heard about this before we go to the board? Five LaGrange. Okay. Okay. Seeing nobody, anybody here on the board have any questions, thoughts, comments, concerns? The board?
Speaker 8: So the existing house is 18 feet in the rear. And then the addition, Speaker 1: Which is non-conforming. Non-conforming. Speaker 8: So the addition is, rear setback is still nonconforming, but more so Speaker 1: At 13 seven. Speaker 8: Okay. Yep. We can approve Speaker 1: This. Oh yeah, yeah. Speaker 8: Oh Speaker 1: Yeah. If we do this one we, this one we can do. Speaker 8: So we can do it. We can Speaker 1: Do it. Okay. Does anybody have any, any comments about this? I mean we, we wrote a decision and we can look at that if, if anybody has, and I think if the board were otherwise inclined, we would probably just include,
you know, basically update this decision with plans, dates, et cetera. And then we'd make a motion. But the findings were, I'm sorry, the conditions were Speaker 8: Comply Speaker 1: With to the letters decision require standard, it's a standard condition. So not nothing in particular. Anybody else have any thoughts before we, oh, and this has gotta be, it's gotta be Gale, Jason, David, Allen, and Andy. I voted on the original one. Oh, I there was an original one. Oh, on the original range.
Oh, on the original. Original, yes. You know what for, we're gonna keep, we're gonna put you on there then. Okay. Alright. So one, two, skip. 3, 4, 5. Okay. Mo motion Speaker 4: Move to approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantial more detrimental to the neighborhood than the previous nonconforming use and structure provided to build and substantial co performance of the plan submitted. And any recommendations, requirements from the town departments to submit letters to the board either in this hearing tonight or at the hearing where we first
approved this project. And it will be, the decision will be subject to all of the same conditions as in the earlier approval. Speaker 1: Second. Second, Ari, all those in favor? Okay. You're all set. You Ari, take care. The next matter is public hearing for nine Stonebridge circle for David Johnson. For a variance for mass general law. Chapter 48, section 10 zoning bylaws, section four B the project entails in addition to the left of the current residence, the applicant. Oh, okay. I keep reading that last sentence. Can we
Speaker 9: Have a motion for 98 West Central to Speaker 1: Continue? Oh yes, absolutely. Oh yeah. So Jason, number four on the agenda. Speaker 4: Which one? 29 98 West 98 by move. Did we con, did we open that one already so we have to open it? Yeah. All right. It's open and I move that we continue that hearing without taking any evidence tonight until our September 29th meeting. Speaker 1: At the applicant's request. Speaker 4: At the applicant's request. Second Speaker 1: Gale. Second Gail, all those in favor? So that matter's continued.
And why don't we just, okay, we'll just wait to get to the other one. This is nine Stonebridge circle for David Johnson, right? Yes, correct. Okay, let me take a look here. Okay, so you got the lot, you got the frontage, you got the depth. There it is right there. So you're conforming us to the front yard setback and you're gonna go under us, right? Right. And the side is good and good. Your other side is good remains okay. The rear is good, the coverage is good, the height is good.
Okay. So it's the front yard setback is currently conforming and will go to non-conforming. Alright. And you can't build because of that easement. Speaker 16: Pardon me? Speaker 1: You can't build in the rear 'cause of the easement. Speaker 16: Yeah. Yeah. There's a huge, Speaker 1: The Boston Edison Speaker 16: Easement easement back there. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 16: Yeah. So we have, I'm sorry, go ahead. Speaker 1: Okay, so, alright. So do you know the elements of a variance? Elements of a variance you knew? Did you want to tell us how this project
meets those elements? Speaker 16: So the, the, the hardship that we're looking at, the, the house was built in their early sixties. We have a, a large utility easement across the rear of the property as you had mentioned. We're also tight up against the front setback is encumbered by the, the cul-de-sac, which impedes on kind of the lower left hand corner, which is where we'd like to build a, a second garage next to the existing garage of the existing house. And the encroachment, that's where
Speaker 1: The prob that's where the problem is. It's the garage, not, not the front. There's two additions, right? Speaker 16: Yeah. The, the the three, the addition to the front meets all the setbacks and et cetera. Yep. It's the left corner of the left addition. Speaker 1: And that, and that's occasioned by this very unusually shaped loss? Speaker 16: That's correct. That's correct, yeah. Okay. And the, the square footage that is in that is the 52 56 0.34 square feet is that little triangle there? Yeah. Yep. Speaker 1: Yep. Okay. And it's 22.8 instead of 2030.
Let's see. 22.8 instead of 30. Alright. I, I think I get it. Does anybody here have any questions or find out, does anybody here wants to talk about this? Speaker 4: I can talk. Speaker 1: Go ahead. Speaker 4: I I'm usually not in favor of granting variances and I think this case, again, I would not be in favor of it because I have a problem when a, when a, when a house gets built in conformance with zoning, recent zoning in the sixties, a developer came in here
and proposed a subdivision. The developer decided where to put the lot lines. The developer decided where to put the street, how to lay out the lots, maximizing his profit or her profit and, and created this lot, which just, you know, was barely big enough to fit a house, which it fit a house, it was built conforming to all the zoning except, well, it looks like a minor survey bust in the rear for, for a foot or two for, but then to come back and ask for a variance doesn't seem like, it's
like, it's reasonable, like it's fair because the developer was in complete control at the time and could have designed this subdivision differently to make this lot bigger or to eliminate this lot and make all the lots slightly larger, have one less house and a little bit less profit perhaps, or lay out the road differently to allow for a larger house on this lot. But the fact that this to me, because it was built in conformance with the zoning at the time, and it was only 50 or 60 years ago to, to grant a variance. Now I think we, we'd have a, I know we don't set a precedent here,
but this could apply to every other lot that was built in conformance with the zoning. They got the house that the developer wanted to build and now they want a bigger house. If they wanted that they could have redesigned their subdivision differently, different lot sizes, different layouts or fewer lots and, and got what they wanted at the time. So I just don't think this is reasonable. This is, to me it's a self-inflicted hardship in my mind. Speaker 1: Before I did, did we say who's on this one? I don't, I don't think I did. Did I? I don't think so. Yeah, Speaker 4: No. Speaker 1: So we go 1, 2, 3 and then Ari, I'm sorry, not Andy and Gail.
Me. Yeah. Okay. So Ari's not on this one. Okay. That's Jason and anybody else here? Have any thoughts? Go ahead. Speaker 11: Just from visiting the site, I noticed that you've got trees that appear to be low. Oh, I'm sorry. I did, Speaker 12: Did it again. I noticed you have trees that look like perhaps they are going to have to come down if we grant the variance because of their, how close they are to the additions. Is that correct? Okay. And then that's, I mean that's, that's a shame.
Have you considered an additional plan? I know that in the past we've had folks who came in with plants, they were able to convert into section sixes because it didn't require a variance as Jason is is pointing out. And I mean, when I look at your site, it looks as if you could get additional space without expanding to that point. Have you considered, have you worked with an architect or anybody about a an addition? Speaker 16: Well, I, I, I'm the architect. My, my client. My client is here. I'm, thank you for telling me. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We, we've gone round and round and looked at, you know, different options of where we have space to build out so that there's no encroachment upon any of this. And this is sort of where we came back and landed on and yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, it's a, it's a tough lot. Speaker 1: Anybody else here? Any thoughts? Speaker 16: And I understand your point of whatever was laid out back before some of us were born anyway was, you know, they, they didn't do us any long term favors of how it was set up. It's a, it's, it is a strange, it's a strange shape and a strange lot. I
Speaker 17: I have sympathy. I do have Speaker 16: Sympathy. Yeah. And again, it is just, you know, it's, it's trying to work with the reality of what's here and, you know, come up with the best solution for it. It is the only house that appears to be pushed back up against the, whatever that easement is back there. The other houses coming down Stonebridge are much further forward. And again, we're pushed back because of the cul-de-sac and then we're encroached, you know, tightly up against the, the utility easement. So between a rock and a hard place almost. Speaker 1: Sure. Do you guys have any thoughts you wanted to share? We don't have, Speaker 8: Just to reiterate or to ask the question.
This is going to be, you're proposing it's the second garage. Speaker 16: Is that his? Yes, yes. So it, it is right next to the current garage. So the current driveway cut that's in the cul-de-sac remains. And we tried to work with the, the, the impervious area that was already there for current parking. And there's, there's a single car garage there right now. Speaker 1: Okay, well you, you guys can still weigh in at any time. Does anybody here wish to be heard about this project? No. Here. None. So I, i i, I don't come out the same way as Jason does on this.
I think if the developer was coming back a year after he laid out the plan, then I call self inflicted. But I, I think this is probably as close to the paradigm as you can get as I see it. You, you got two issues I think. One is you definitely have the strangely shaped lot. You got this very bulbous stonebridge circle, which, which creates the hardship. Correct. And then you've got this big fat easement in the back, which is definitely unusual and
therefore you can't go to the rear. And so the only place you're left with going is either out the front, same issue or the side same issue. Now you could make it smaller, but is it usable for a garage? No. Yeah. Smaller. Not if you cut off those 52 feet are critical for a car. Yes. So that's the way I see it. I'm only one vote. And it sounds like the weight of the board is, is, is, is is against me. You need Speaker 8: Three out of or four. We have Speaker 1: Five four. Four four or five. Four out of five. Four or five. That's right. So, you know, if there's,
and it sound, I i i we're not required to turn over our cards here, but sometimes you get the benefit of, of, of, of, of hearing which way the wind is blowing in advance. So we, we know where this one, where Jason's gonna vote anything, you know where I'm gonna vote. And Gail, I think you had reservations, you can tip your hand or not, not gonna do it. Gentlemen, if you wish to weigh in, we're both on. No, Ari is not you and Alan Speaker 8: Based.
I'm not gonna tip my full hand, but based on the amount of Speaker 1: Some cards, Speaker 8: What's that? Speaker 1: We're gonna peek at some Speaker 8: Cards, peek at some cards quick based on the amount of the in infringement into the, you know, to create the variance condition. It seems so relatively small, the nature of the whole project is small. So I, I understand the logic as well. I just am not quite sure that I am, am leaning or not in Jason's camp on this. So that's a bit of the card flash. Speaker 1: Alan, did you want to say anything? No. Okay.
Alright. So this does anybody, did I already ask this? Does anybody wish to be heard? And we got nobody? Okay. So if we make some, he can make a motion. Someone else can make a motion. I don't make motions. Speaker 8: If you're gonna vote against it, you shouldn't make a motion. I can always make a motion and vote against my own motion. Would it be a motion make? I could do that too, but, Speaker 1: Which is unusual. But I don't think it's, it's not untoward. I I don't think we've done it Speaker 8: Quite a few times. Do we, do we, do we, yeah, Speaker 1: We does.
Anybody here? I don't know if, if Ari's not voting if he can make a motion, but does Gail you wanna make a motion? Jason, Alan motion? Anybody? Anybody? Yeah. Speaker 8: Help me with the verbiage and I'll, I'll be glad to make a motion. Okay, well we typically Speaker 1: Do which way Speaker 8: To vote on it. To, Speaker 1: To go to vote In favor. Speaker 8: In favor of it. Yes. Speaker 1: So I'll look at this, look at this guy. Speaker 8: What are we Speaker 1: Doing? Okay, he's he's helping me. Cheat sheet. Okay, I'm looking at 48 section 10 right here. So w why don't, why don't I just help you sir?
Speaker 8: I'm, yes, go ahead. Okay, thank you. Speaker 1: Alright, so Owing to circumstances relating to the soil condition, shape, or topography of the land or structures. Okay, so what you have here is an, an unusual shape of the lot. IE this circle creates this very unusual curve on the lot and reduces the usability of the southeast corner of the lot. That, that condition is not, does not generally affect the zoning district in which the property's located. That a literal enforcement of the front setback
would involve substantial hardship. IE it essentially makes the, that in combination with this very significant easement to the rear makes the only buildable portion of the lot to the south. And even a modest increase to the south will run into the front setback that creates a hardship. And the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
It's a, it as, as, as Andy said, it's, it is an insignificant encroachment into the setback of only 52 square feet. And there will be no detriment to the public good and it will not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. That's what you said, right? I did. Well, I, yes I did. Okay. Yep. If, if that were the motion, then who would, is there a second? Second. Jason second. So all those in favor? One, two. Two. It does not pass.
So it's a denial. And so Speaker 18: Actually I re Speaker 1: If there's three, it's still a denial still going. And so the, one of the, one of the impacts of that is, is that you could come back within two years if something substantially changed and on the plan, otherwise you'd be, you, you couldn't come back for two years after denial. And, and and that is before Speaker 16: The zoning board. Yeah, Speaker 1: Before the zoning board. Yeah. Yeah. There's also a right to appeal if, if we or, or you or you could appeal. If, if
Speaker 16: We're seeking relief with another version, Speaker 1: Another version that's you're not limit that the two year limitation does not apply. Yep. Speaker 16: Okay. Okay. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Speaker 16: Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thanks. Take care. Speaker 1: And the next matter is Westlake Grove for Nardone Corporation, a finding for mass general law. Chapter 48, section six. And the name zoning bylaw section four B. The applicant opposed to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting not performing letter shown on the plan submitted to Westlake. All right, just gimme a second and I will take a quick peek.
So substandard, lot plenty of frontage. Excuse me. Plenty of not enough depth. The front, you're on a corner. Are you on a corner? Corner? Lot corner? Yeah. Okay, so your two fronts and two sides, right? So the fronts are, one is substandard now, but will become conforming. The other's conforming and will remain conforming. The other side is conforming and will improve. The other side is conforming and will also improve. There's no rear coverage is conforming
Is it, is it 25? It's not filled in 25, correct? Yep. Okay. So it's conforming. The height is conforming. Alright, and alright, let's take, so we're talking about lot area and depth. 15,000. You're in an aquifer recharge is there, is there? We're on the edge of it, but we, we did soil testing. It is within an aquifer recharge. Oh, is that what you wrote? Okay. Yeah, I know the, we're at the edge of it, but yes. Pride infiltration, the roof runoff of the to mini mitigate, which we, we are doing.
Is it on there? Yes sir. A hundred percent of the roof is infiltrated. Speaker 18: Do you have the image of the actual house itself now Speaker 1: In a picture of it? Sure do. Yeah. Speaker 9: Alright, Speaker 1: So it's kind of diagonal and you're gonna turn it so it, it's more, it's square to the feet. Square. Square to the square. It's diagonal now. And you're gonna turn right, we're gonna square it up in order to bring the roof height down. That's what we have to do is, is come out to the highest point if we can un unnerving, right? So that we can depress everything. Is that that dimension's on here? Yes sir. Yep. Okay.
To the, to the center lines? Yes. Yep. Okay. Yep. And the calculation, it's, it's called from corner to corner, but we want, okay. So anyone on the board have any comments, thoughts, s questions I introduce themselves One more time. Do we have them Speaker 19: Introduce themselves? Speaker 1: Oh yeah, please go right ahead. We have a guest. Oh yeah. And also, let's see, we'll go. It's got, let's go. Gail, Ari, Andy, David, Jason,
Alan, were you on the last one? Yes, yes, I was on the last one. Okay, you're off. Alright and so we're looking at, oh we're looking at the house. Okay. Alright, go ahead gentlemen. Thanks. Speaker 19: My name is Michael Norris, I'm an attorney and I'm here representing an Naone corporation with me. As you notice, Peter Beamus, who's the engineer, Peter, will make the presentation regarding any questions you have regarding the plan, the new revised plans that we have here, the new plans for this property. I think if you see the pictures,
this house is a disaster and needs to come down. There are other, I did have the opportunity to look at it. It needs to come down. There are Speaker 1: Other that the question is what goes up in its place. Speaker 19: What goes up in its place will be a beautiful house that all the neighbors will love, the neighborhood will love and the board will love it all. It'll be a ma a vast improvement of what's there. And it'll be in compliance with what the bylaws require him to do. Okay, Speaker 1: Well let's find out if the neighbors agree with you or not and we'll come back to the board. Anybody here to weigh in on
to Westlake Road? The neighbors must love it 'cause nobody raised their hand. Oh, I take it back. Give it the full Speaker 20: Outta the people. Speaker 1: Alright, thanks. Lemme just get your name and address for the record. Speaker 20: Oh, my name is Bill Thompson, direct Ofbut at number four Westlake Road. Actually, I don't, don't have too much to complain about this. Go around. Peter, I wanna thank you for listening to our concerns and our, you know, in, in taking those steps to improve the design of this, this build. So I, I'm impressed with the build. Did have a question?
I maybe I didn't see it. How, how big is the house? Square foot wise? Speaker 1: It's 3,300. They don't put it on the plan, so I don't know why they do. Okay. Don't, but I think so was, I think I had to 3,300 square feet. Great. Speaker 20: So just, just one couple questions for you, Peter. On the backside of the house with off the kitchen, it shows a patio. Is that a brick patio on grade or is it, are we talking about like a deck built up to elevate? Speaker 1: No, it would be permeable pavers is what they use. Speaker 20: Pavers. Okay. So it's at ground level. Okay. The only other request I would have from you is along the
property line, abutting our property. Could I ask to get some additional privacy? I know you're putting up a fence, which I appreciate at six feet, but just with the, the grade drop there, could I get you to, you know, put a maybe a, like a hedge wall, like some tall AEs, mature evergreen, something higher than six feet, you know, 10 ish, 10 plus feet, just for a privacy standpoint, Speaker 1: How many, Speaker 20: You know, something to make a nice hedge wall. Speaker 1: I mean, how it's Speaker 20: Hard if we put 'em five
or six feet apart, that's not really giving us much privacy. So it'd be nice to have something that can, you know, mature into a nice, you know, privacy screen, you know, above the six foot fence. Speaker 1: I see. Where you are is you talking about a long, the along where the hou your house is located? Yeah. Speaker 20: Along that property line? Yeah, the Speaker 1: Whole line or just the part where your house is Speaker 20: At least the house and the backyard. So starting to provide some privacy. 'cause our bedrooms are right there as well as our yard being, you know,
a four foot drop off of their elevation. So, you know, it, it's the sight lines, say Speaker 1: As you look at your house front, left corner to the rear. Speaker 20: That's Speaker 1: Correct. Okay. To the rear of the property line? Yeah. Speaker 20: Yeah. So from like the front corner, left corner of the house, if you will, in line with that straight back to the back corner of Speaker 1: The property. Alright. Alright gentlemen, thoughts on that? Well, so, so we, we put the fence in and there's, there's, as you saw in the, the picture, there's trees along that whole edge. So I, I don't wanna cut down a tree to put up a tree. I mean, there may be a gap more towards the rear of the lot.
I, I just don't, I, I talked to nardone about the trees and they would rather keep those trees 'cause it provides an a pretty good crown. It's gonna be hard to replace a tree that's 30 feet tall. Speaker 20: I guess I, I maybe it's a misunderstanding. So I'm not asking you to remove those trees. I know we've kind of, you know, been down that road before and, you know, that doesn't seem to be a, a likely thing to happen. So can we fill in the voids, if you will, with some sort of privacy type, you know, evergreen type trees? Because obviously a lot of that tree
that's there now dies off in the, in the wintertime. So it's, it's pretty, you know, wide open as far as the, the view, you know Speaker 1: How many trees you figured that would be by the, about, you know, in your estimation, Speaker 20: 12 to 18 trees maybe Speaker 1: That, that, that's a lot of trees, Mr. Chairman, A lot of trees. I mean, the whole, the whole length of the lot is, is a hundred. So, I mean, they would be on top of each other. And I'm, I'm only talking about doing the ones from where those trees end. So, so it's probably like 40 feet and I was thinking four or five AEs and I, IIII could do that.
All right. We'll talk about it. Alright, anything else while I have you? No, that's all. Thanks very much. Yep. Thank you. Anybody else just to be heard? Yes ma'am. Come on up. Speaker 21: My name is Peg Brockel. I live at five Irving Road. Nice to see you all again. And thank you again for your service to the town of Natick. Could I see the pictures that you just were given? Yes. I think we might all enjoy those, both of Speaker 9: Us. May I share these? Speaker 1: Yeah, of course. Please. I know at the last meeting when we discussed this property, you had thought about the site distance was a discussion item, so I wanted to make sure you could see that. Is that correct? No, no. I brought them just for informational purposes.
You have, you have, but this is the first time for this one? Yes, sir. Yeah. Okay. That's right. Speaker 21: As I said at the last time that I was here and I spoke, I'm not an architect, so it's hard for me to, Speaker 1: I I apologize for interrupting. Oh, sorry. What is the last time? What are we talking about? We discussed this property at, at, at a previous meeting. Oh, you get that. Did Oh, okay. Speaker 21: And, and you, and you denied their application. Okay, Speaker 1: Fine. Speaker 21: As I said last time, this is, this property is set on a little, on a Noel. And as it not being an architect, I still don't quite understand with the very fine print online, it's very hard
for a lay person to see the detail. I live diagonally across the street from the house. Yeah. That's proposed. I understand something will be built there. Yep. I ask you as the people on the board who know a lot more about this than I do to please review the fine details here that I can't interpret or understand. Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you this. Speaker 21: Yep. Speaker 1: What, what's your concern? Speaker 21: My concern is the height and the size. Okay. On the property on a corner, an extremely busy corner. Alright. With everything from cut
through traffic from 27 to route nine to Cognex from school buses with the two schools in very close proximity, Benham and Wilson. I appreciate the fact that dormers are gone, the elevation is reduced, but I can't tell how substantially that reduction will actually look when it's built. I have to rely on you guys to know all of that. Speaker 1: So we, we, we, we need to, we have these plans, right? We kind of have to envision what that house is gonna look like on that lot based on what we're looking at in terms of these plans.
Speaker 21: The, the house, forgive me, but when I look at those plans, they're just architectural renderings. They don't set it on the site. Well Speaker 1: They, that, that is true. Speaker 21: And it didn't the last time it actually set it in a very bucolic site, which doesn't even exist in our neighborhood. So I just besiege you to, to pay a little pay close attention to, to what's there because you are the only people in town that have any apparent authority to
help direct what gets built. Speaker 1: We actually have more than just a parent authority. Speaker 21: Great Speaker 1: Actual authority. Speaker 21: Good, good. Yes, you do. Forgive me. Speaker 1: Okay. So if I was gonna just, I'm gonna ask you very specifically that what this board is charged with determining is whether what's being proposed is substantially more detrimental. I get that. Then what's there today? Speaker 21: Yeah, I do know that. Speaker 1: Okay. So if that's the standard, can you describe for me or the board why?
I'm not sure you're even opposed. I, I, so far I you've raised a concern, but are you opposed? Speaker 21: I can't tell enough about it. That's my point. Okay. I'm, I'm relying on you. Yeah. Okay. And I'm relying on you to recall, 'cause you know, weather's field now we, Speaker 1: We can only do what's here. Not in comparison to what was proposed before. It's only in comparison to what's there now, this proposal, this Speaker 21: Propo, I agree Speaker 1: With that. The four corners of this proposal on, its on its face. Right. So the, regardless of what's come in the past, that's what's come in the past.
That's gone. That's, that's done. So anything else you'd like to tell us? If anything Speaker 21: I I, I would like to ask you to, to look at it carefully Okay. And make sure that at least all of the rules that need to be complied with are done or are Speaker 1: Complied with. What I will tell you is that, that what's been submitted is a complete application on its face. All the data is there, all the plans are there. I don't know that there's any questions about what's being proposed that are unanswered from the board's perspective.
Now it's time to say whether what's, what we're looking at is or is not substantially more detrimental than what's there today. Speaker 21: Fair. One other question. Yes ma'am. Because I couldn't tell the, the tree that is currently near the driveway will now be taken out Correct. So that the new driveway can be billed. Speaker 1: It's, it's only up to DPW. There was an issue with the sewer. We brought that everyone's attention. The plans do not make a distinction. If the DPW says the tree should go, it would go. If it they don't, it can stay. I have accommodated that tree. Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Anybody else just to be heard? Yes, sir. Speaker 22: Jim Cody at 14 Bradford Road. Just a clarification, the, we've gone from a driveway garage on Irving to Westlake. Can we confirm tonight for the record, where is the garage? Is it on Westlake or is it on Irving? Speaker 1: Irving. Oh, it's very much on Irving. Speaker 22: On Irving. Speaker 1: Yep. Speaker 22: So my, my issue as I mentioned before, is the site line coming around that corner. You've got a very short distance from coming around
that corner and cars coming up, Irving, it's, they come up quickly. There's a very short line. There's may be, I don't know, I'm gonna guess maybe a hundred feet or so. I understand he is dropped the height down. That's appreciated. But I just, I have questions about how that house is gonna fit the size. That's the only two story one right there at the corner. The houses across the street are ranches, diagonally across is a ranch. So that's my my question concern pictures. And also in my, in my humble opinion, excuse me, four
or five shrubs is ridiculous in my humble opinion. That should be more than that. Speaker 1: You, you're talking about the shrub screen? Yeah, Speaker 22: The one that bill mentioned on the side. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 22: Thank you. Speaker 1: Anybody else wish to be heard? So the pictures, if there's someone else's gonna speak. Yeah, I'm just gonna hold you there for one second. Did you want to make a comment? I I just wanted to answer on the site distance. That's why I provided you with these photographs so that you could see that there was good site distance here. Oh, what I do, having been to this site now a few times and, and to do the soil testing with the Board of Health that,
that people who drive through this neighborhood don't stop at the intersection of Westlake and Irving. I I I don't control that. There isn't a stop sign. There May, may be helpful as they did. The board doesn't, the board doesn't either. Right. There is one at the other end of Irving, but the department of the Transportation engineering, if they think it's the fire department, they'll, they'll make it determination. There's good site distance here though. There's more than enough for the travel speed of, of even someone going too fast. Okay. Sam, hi. Before you, before you go, I just wanna mention one more thing. Assume that we have no knowledge of the project
from its prior incarnation. Okay. So start from where we are today. Yes ma'am. Your name and address for the record. Speaker 21: Okay. My name is Marjorie Ness 16 Richard Road. Hello. And my concern is the quality of the construction. This builder has built quite a few homes in our area and many of them have problems. So I, a second I'm stop. Wonder how a we check Speaker 1: Stop. That's not for the board. That's for the building department and the market. They will have to be built in conformance with the building code.
We don't have any control over that. That's the building department. And if it's shoddy construction, I have no reason to believe it will be, it either won't pass the inspection by the building department or a buyer won't buy it. So those are the two governors, if you will, about that concern. And it's not one within the jurisdiction of this board. Speaker 12: Can I just add to that though? We are talking about what is a, a detriment of substance and actually what she's talking about could fall into the category. I mean, I I have no reason to assume his, his project is in this category,
but causing a detriment to the neighborhood. Could be poor construction, an attractive construction. I'd just like that. Speaker 1: I I dis I disagree completely, but we all have our opinion. I'm Speaker 12: Just one. Speaker 1: Do you have anything else? Speaker 21: No, that was my concern. Thank Speaker 1: You. Anybody else wish to be heard? Yes ma'am. Speaker 23: Hi. Hi, I'm Lydia Shaffer, nine Richard Road. Hello. I'm just wondered if, if we could do a comparison to help get an idea about the size of the house. Another home they built was 22 Bradford, I believe.
Is this a going to be a similar sized house? Speaker 1: A fair question if you know. I, I I don't, but I will say the scale of this has been reduced from substantially from, from, from a previous application at this site. It's, this is a much smaller footprint post. So the answer is you don't know. I don't know. No. 22 Bradford. I don't remember what that one looks like. I'm sorry, Speaker 23: What about one Liberty? Speaker 1: That's a D that I know one Liberty. That was a home that was specifically done for that location. And, and this, I I would say the building height probably is very substantially similar.
I think. I think you're talking what overall? Speaker 23: Yeah, bulk. Speaker 1: Bulk. Okay. If you can say, yeah, I, I, I don't think that Liberty was a corner lot. It was a smaller unit too. So I would say it's probably on the same scale and scope. I don't think that's a large home at all. Okay. Scale and scope. Speaker 23: Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Anybody else wish to be heard? Okay, seeing none, board questions, comments, thoughts? Did, did I say who's on it? Yes. Speaker 3: Mr. Jack, Mr. Enright, Ms. We Roberts, Mr. Ky and Mr. Blevins. Speaker 1: Okay. Go. Speaker 4: I think I, I want you going,
I wanted to verify the height just to make sure that it was measured from the center line of the intersection. Speaker 1: Yes sir. It's on the center line is calc and then the, the height of the building is also the Right. Speaker 4: Got that one? Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 12: Oh, because I noticed I have the same question. The building height exhibit says that the grade plane to the ridge is 34.12 feet, not 29 from top of foundation. And that's a five foot difference. Speaker 1: The define term, because we have to do average grade. So on your other lots it's different. This is a corner
Speaker 12: Line center. This, a corner line is measured from the center so Speaker 1: It drops everything down. So that's where the delta comes in. So it, unfortunately, that's how it has to be described, but it's, it's much lower than what is allowed. As a result of that, you, you drop everything down. So it's, it's a little bit different than your normal ones where you're looking around the house. You, you're not doing that on this lot. Right. Use the center line of the street. Speaker 12: Right. Okay. I'm, I guess I'd like more explanation for future for why, why in one spot on the application it says 29 feet
and another place it says 34.12 because it should be the same for what? For where the ridge ends up. Regardless of how your, but the, there shouldn't be a contradiction within the application. Same. Speaker 1: I understand the house itself is, is 29. So if you thought about it, that's 29. But, but it's, you're right. So you're saying I think, I think, I guess we could have two different, two different lines. Maybe Mr. Robert is correct. The, the actual height in accordance with the requirements of the code is 34.12. Right. Agreed. Okay.
So we'll make that change in the, in the chart. Right. But the, sorry about that. If that's how you're seeing, I'm just saying too, if you looked at the architectural, you'd see the 29. So 34 point what the requirement is three five. That's the, it meets the requirement. So it's Speaker 12: Just under Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I understand. No, I it is right, but it's much lower than normal because of its definition. Okay. Any other questions? Speaker 12: Oh, I, I am also concerned about the fact that we cannot determine the square footage from looking at the, at the elevations.
I checked at 5:00 PM I still didn't see the square footage. I don't feel good about voting on any application that doesn't include that. And I would make a motion to that effect that we postpone to the next month, if that seems reasonable to folks. Because I know this, you know, well, no, no, nevermind. I forgot. I just remembered this is a completely different, so nevermind. I'm fine with continuing it. Speaker 1: It's fully dimension. I, I, i, I just, they So why don't you, why don't you doesn't write it on there a number. I'm sorry. Try to come up with a number if you can.
Yeah, if you want to. Speaker 12: Well, and also the existing. Speaker 1: Alright, anybody else? Speaker 4: Jason, Mr. Chairman, if I could just, that's Jason. I I know it is, I I'm not an expert in mass journal off 40 A, but I, I was searching around a little bit this week and I found a section, mass general law is 40 a section three. And it reads in part no zoning ordinance or bylaw shall regulate or restrict the interior area of a single family residential building. Nor shall any ordinance or bylaw prohibit goes on to a few other things. But I I, I take that state law to, to,
for me, it means that we, we can't regulate the square footage of a single family residential building. We, we have no input into that. It's, and it would be improper for us to base our decision on that information. And so I, I don't, that's why I don't ask for it. I'm not concerned about the square footage. I'm more concerned about height with depth, bulk, how it presents on the street and to the neighbors. But I really, I I just don't like the idea that we take or that we're, they're focused, we're focused on square footage or, or floor area. I think we should, Speaker 12: Can I respond to that? Sure. Which would be, I I hear
what you're saying about regulating, however, our job is not regulating the total square footage. It's one of the factors that we are judging as opposed to saying you cannot go beyond X number or you have to be less than X number. I haven't heard anybody suggest that there's a particular number that, you know, we're requiring. Speaker 4: No, that's that's true. I agree. But it, for me, it's, it's information that does not and should not inform our decision. It's like, in my mind, I, I was trying to find an example and you know, we're, we're not allowed to
make our decisions based on the age of the owners or whether they're going to rent or own or if there are a particular religion or a particular gender or certain characteristics. And this one I think is, is similar to that. We, we can't base our decision on that information. So why are we asking for that information? Speaker 8: So for, for me, it's, it's so closely, it's, it's not a, it it, comparing it to age or religion. It's sort of a, a red herring. That's it. It's so separate from the actual content that where is the square footage is very tied to the massing.
Meaning that one could make the argument, well a this is all one floor and it's got 30 foot ceilings. Well no, we, we know there are going to be floors in there. And so if you do have the square footage and not say that we can't do it ourselves, you know, they're, they're on there. And so I hear what you're saying. I hear what you're saying. I don't necessarily need the applicants to give us that square footage. 'cause I don't think it's clear. I don't think we're clear enough as a whole entity about if we're asking for it or not. So that's something we could talk about. But I do think that as a, as a metric it is, it is very helpful. 'cause it is so tied to the massing
of these residence residential structures that are, are so well known. You know, we know there's a first floor, we know this is a second floor, there's an attic, there's a basement. So it, it is a helpful data point. We just need to, I think, decide as a committee if it's not clear already if we're requiring it or not. Speaker 1: The only thing I'd add is that, that the percentage, so the coverage, it's a one story building and then there's a two story building and, and all we're doing is going up the, it's 5% and, and it's a 10,000 square foot lot. So you do the math, it's 500 more square feet of footprint. So it's not a big increase. It's relatively small.
So I, that's how I keep it in perspective. But in the future, I, the previous plan in the previous application had the square footage there, the architect puts it in. In this case, this architect not put, did not put it in. And I didn't take him to task to put it in. So I don't wanna just guess the number, but it's pretty damn close to the, the square footage I told you. Speaker 24: But you are going to a two story. Speaker 1: Yes sir. Speaker 24: You are going to a two story, correct? Speaker 1: Yes sir. That's right. No, I am, I acknowledge that. Speaker 24: Yeah. And the only other two story is next door in the Speaker 1: Neighborhood. No, there's a number of them. No, there's a number of two story buildings in this neighborhood.
Speaker 12: So isn't there a half story above the second story Speaker 1: In this instance? There's a, there's an attic, but it is not, it's, there's no footage up there. It's very small if you look at the roof Speaker 12: Pitch. Yeah. I'm just interested above the knee wall limitation, how many square feet do we have of potentially livable space on that level? Because that's something I was looking for. There's Speaker 1: No third floor plan because there's no, there's no, Speaker 12: There's no stairs. No. No. Okay. Just a sally, there's Speaker 1: Nothing there. It's very small. I mean it's, it's,
Speaker 12: There's a window. Yes, Speaker 1: There's a window. But you, you, you could stand up in the middle and probably touch your arms out and touch both eaves. I mean it's gonna be that it's that low. Okay. At this point. That's why the third floor before was higher in the previous proposal at this location. Speaker 12: It'd just be good if we could confirm that. It's very frustrating when we don't have, or it's frustrating to me, just speaking for myself, not having the plots for each floor. Speaker 1: Because there is no floor there though, ma'am. I'm just saying there's gonna be a scuttle hole to get into the attic.
That's all. There's no, there's no space, there's no habitation space up there. Speaker 12: Oh, so there's no flooring. Speaker 1: There'd be no flooring. No. There'd probably be, it'd probably be some plywood to put some mechanical systems, but that's it. There's not, there's not enough space up there to capture. Speaker 8: Yep. So there's a note about an attic drop downstairs, you know that? Speaker 12: Yeah. Okay. Alright. Thank you. That's good to know. Speaker 1: But you're right, you can, when you're contrasting it, there was a proposal at this location that had a third floor. There is no longer that this proposal are any comments, thoughts? Questions? Speaker 25: No. It seems like, you know, just looking at the plans,
it seems like certainly an effort was made to reduce some of the massing from the top, but beyond that, no, I have no other specific comments. Speaker 1: Andy, Speaker 8: My only question last one is, and you may have said it in your intro sir, but did you review these plans with any of the neighbors before coming in? Speaker 1: No. No, I didn't. Okay. Alan, anything before we close? Speaker 24: No. Speaker 1: Jason, anything else? No questions here. Okay. Speaker 12: I just have a real quick one. Go ahead. Sorry. The, in the senior inspector's letter,
it was not in the application when I looked at it today. Do we know why we don't have his letter? Speaker 1: Are we talking about the denial letter? Speaker 12: Well, the one that comes from the senior inspector. Yes. Speaker 3: It's in the building permit. And you have the building commissioner's denial. Speaker 1: I just wanna make sure I know which one you're talking about. Relief must be granted that one, Speaker 12: The one where it lists the dimensions, which require that it go come before this board usually. Speaker 1: Okay. So the one, because Speaker 12: Then it gives us those numbers. Some of the numbers for why, why it has to come here. Speaker 1: Wait a minute. The billing commissioner letter. Speaker 12: Ben Sarky Speaker 1: Never indicates it, but let's see,
Speaker 12: It's usually part of the file and there's an empty space where it says it hasn't been submitted. Speaker 1: Could it be lower though? If you look at the attachments, I'm pretty sure I saw it. I'm just wondering if it may not be in the, the placeholder where you normally see it. Okay. I think I did see it though, but it may have been further down. Speaker 24: Are you talking about the senior building inspector determination? Yeah. Speaker 12: Is that, that sounds like the right, I don't have it on my screen, but I think think that's 'cause it's, you know, it's down the list in Speaker 1: No, I don't, I thought I saw the lower part of the attachments. It came after. In other words, it, it just,
I just feel like it was at the bottom of the list. Okay, well we're not gonna wait, we're not gonna take the time. So we're gonna close the public hearing and termination. Does anybody wanna make a motion? I would move that we approve Speaker 4: The project project based on our finding that's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than previously non-conforming provided built and substantial conformance of plan submitted and any requirements from town depart departments who've submitted letters to this board this evening. And I think there was still a question about a condition about how many and what type of arbor or evergreens to be planted along the property line.
Speaker 1: So I would suggest that the, that the length of the, the neighboring house, but only the length of the neighboring house be planted with nine foot ores at, I mean, I, I really don't know the, the, a reasonable distance. Do you from one another? I don't, I'll say at a distance to provide a, a reasonable privacy screen, Speaker 4: I would amend my motion to incorporate that. Speaker 1: Okay. And that's it. Speaker 4: I think that was all I
Speaker 1: And as, as as amended. Second, Speaker 4: Second. Speaker 1: Andy second. All those in favor? So it's 1, 2, 3, no r you're not on this one. I'm not sorry. Four, five. So she's, she's not, she hasn't voted Gail. Gail's voting. No, Speaker 12: No, not voting for this. Speaker 1: Why No, she's, she's telling me Yeah, you you, you have to vote. You you have to be. Oh, Speaker 12: I'm sorry. I mean, I am not voting in favor. Speaker 1: Oh, no, no, no. I'm okay. No, I'm saying you're on it. Yes. To vote yes to vote yes. So the motion's been seconded And all those in
favor, now raise their hand. Okay. One, two. It does not pass. We'll see you in court. See you in court. Okay, so the next matter is eight Hudson Street or eight Hudson Street, LLC for a finding for mass general law. Chapter 48, section zoning bylaws. Section four B The applicant proposes to raise the existing single family dwelling, construct a new single family dwelling on pre-existing non-conforming lot as shown on the plans to submit eight Hudson Street. Did you expect that folks, if we could just have you congratulate each other
outside, that will be helpful. Mr. Chair. Actually, can I have a five minute? Yes. We're gonna take a five minute break. Speaker 12: Oh, I, oh, just a request. I know that a lot of the same neighbors who were here for this case are may be here for the one that's two cases away. And I was wondering if for their convenience, if it could be, if, if, if there's, unless there's a compelling reason not to take it out. Run the Irving. Yeah. To have, move it in the, within the agenda so that they're not stuck waiting till nine 30. They've a
Speaker 9: Motion to move, take something out. Speaker 1: Yeah. So there's only one more. Speaker 12: Is it possible to do that? Speaker 1: We're gonna go ahead and do this one now and then we'll come back around. Speaker 9: Continuance. This Speaker 1: One's a continuance Speaker 9: So it's it's gonna Speaker 1: Be next anyways. Well, two more one. Yeah, there's only one more. Yeah, Speaker 12: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry. There's only one more Speaker 1: Beyond. We're not gonna entertain that motion. Okay. Sir, you're here on Speaker 9: Eight Speaker 1: Hudson Street, correct? That is correct. Oh, we're taking a five minute break. I apologize. Yep. Five minute break. Thank you Mary. Here we go again. I appreciate it. Alright, thanks everybody and thanks for your patience. We're gonna get going again. Eight Hudson Street.
We already said finding right? Did I say that? Yes. Eight Hudson Street for eight Hudson Street. LLC. Hi. Hi. Let me take a quick peek here and Speaker 9: Can I hear your name? Speaker 26: My name's Peter LaVoy. I'm the civil engineer for the project. I work for d and l Design Group, usually here with Vincent O'Brien. But his car caught on fire today actually. Yeah, he, yeah, he couldn't make it. Let's Speaker 1: Hope the hearing goes better. I hope he Speaker 26: Makes it. I hope he made it. He wants, I hope he did too. No, he, he made it. It's just this car did not make it,
Speaker 1: Did not make it. Okay. Hold on a second. Let's take a look here. Speaker 9: I've had a problem like that, Speaker 1: That Speaker 9: I had a problem like that. Speaker 1: Yeah, a little bit. Alright, so looking at the, at the table here, again, your lots small, your frontage is small, your depth is good. Your front's good. Your side's good? Your other side's good? Your rears good? Your coverage is good. Your height, Mr. Chairman? Yes sir. Could we have like, who is voting? Oh yeah. Who did not vote? Unless Ari's and this one. So 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Andy's not on this one. Okay. Speaker 9: Okay, so you, you, you, Speaker 1: Everyone but Andy. Okay, everyone. Okay, we got the height at 34 7 5 Speaker 9: Constructing, that Speaker 1: Does not trigger storm water erosion. The existing wives are gonna cut cap. Alright. A PD. Alright, so there we go. Speaker 9: Alright. Speaker 1: Okay, let's go. Let's go outta order here for a second here. Anyone here on eight Hudson Street? I see some movement but no hands, no one here on eight Hudson. Okay. Board comments?
Is the height calculation on there? Yes, it's, it's on there. Okay. Speaker 26: It should be. There's a, a little here. Speaker 1: I see it. Yep. Go for, let's see, average grade 1 72, 2 0 4. Speaker 9: Lemme read this. This is like the one on, Speaker 8: Was it up towards Dairy Queen? Speaker 26: I'm not sure. We've done this house a number of times over on Greenleaf. We did two of these houses that I don't know if we did it, but we've, this is like a, I want to say our fifth house. Same style Speaker 8: G style? Yep. Yep. Speaker 9: Square footage. Four.
Speaker 8: Okay, so in, I'm sorry. Where? Yeah, where in the comments. We can comment. Oh please. Okay, so I'm just looking at the cover sheet. So square footage, there's no total but just doing rough math. Yeah, Speaker 26: It's 45, 9 70. The attic is optional. So the, the 6, 6 6 I think is the, the square footage that's optional. So yeah, Speaker 8: I get, I get more than 45 though just by looking at it I get almost close to 5,000. Yeah, Speaker 26: I think it's 45 97. So it is right under the 5,000 square feet. Speaker 8: Oh, oh 45. No, it's more like 49.
Can you just look at your, just look at your cover sheet. Yeah. It says square footage. You got finished basement 17 at a thou over a thousand first floor and second floor. Yeah. So what do you got like 4,900 or so? Yeah, Speaker 26: I'll do, I'll do it quick. Speaker 9: That'd be great. Speaker 1: 49 31 are the first three numbers. Speaker 8: Yeah. Speaker 12: And with the attic it's 55 97. Speaker 26: Okay. Speaker 9: It's eight. Speaker 1: Okay. What do we got? Anybody have any comments, questions? Speaker 26: Yeah. 55. 55 97. Yeah, sorry.
Speaker 8: It looks like they've got the proposed infiltration as required by the board of health. You saw the letter from Yep. Board of Health. Speaker 26: Yeah, we did do testing. The entire roof will be collected and dispersed into the two, two recharge areas. One in the back, one in the front. Yep. We did shift the, so the house is staying basically in the same location on the left side. We're holding the house on that side 'cause that was the closest where the existing house was and it extends like an additional two to three feet towards the, the driveway.
So it gets a little bit closer to the right. But we held the left side, we moved the driveway into the center of the lot. You can see where the driveway is. It was more towards the abutting property. So now we shifted the driveway to the center. So we kind of kicked that driveway away from the abutter. There are gonna be no trees cut down for this proposal. It's basically a, a lawn area and we're gonna be working within that lawn area so there will be no trees that would have to come down for this proposal using the same
sewer service in the water service locations. So we don't have to tie into the road. Speaker 1: Anybody have any thoughts, comments, questions, concerns? I do, yes, go ahead. Speaker 12: So there's a stone wall on the left side. Correct. And it looks, it looks as if, is that accepted as the property line? It looks that way from the plot Speaker 26: I would say yes. It does show that the stone wall is on the property line. Correct. Speaker 12: And there are trees all throughout that stonewall from my site visit. Okay. And at the rear lot line it's hard.
I know I didn't trespass so I don't know exactly where the trees begin and end for the rear property line. Whether they belong to the neighbors, whether they're on the lot. Speaker 26: So if you, if you look at along the back property line, there is kind of like a chicken y fence that Oh, that we located. You can see along that back property line, there's little circles all the way down it, that's a fence. So there is a fence but the tree line is on the other side of that fence and no trees will be touched along that stone wall. Right. Speaker 12: So in addition to the excavation
for the foundation itself, what soil disturbance do you expect to reach? The left lot line where the stone wall is, Speaker 26: I would say the setback line. So you're looking at Speaker 12: On the left side, but, but during construction there's usually a whole bunch of dirt that gets piled up and moved around beyond, beyond because of the Speaker 26: Size of the lot. They'll, they'll put it in the front yard or they'll have to take it off. Plus we're bringing material into the site. So they'll strip the, they'll strip the lot from the loom, they'll remove the loom, they'll do their work and then when they're done we'll they'll re spread it. Right. So there will be really no, no place
for stockpiling on this lot 'cause you can't stockpile it in the back because you can't get to it. The front will be in the way. So I would think that they would take it off. We did submit part of this, there isn't an erosion control plan that shows that we're gonna do waddles. And so fence on the lowest side, on the high side, we would put a snow fence. So that would deter any disturbance past that. So that would be at the limit of grading. Speaker 12: Okay. So just to be clear, you don't expect the disturbed excavated soil
to enter the setback on the left side? Speaker 26: On the left side? Correct. Okay, thank you. It's, and the setbacks 12 feet, so Yes. Yep. Speaker 25: I'll just, I give you just a couple of, I guess my thoughts and looking at sort of the data and the sheet and the plans and whatnot. It just, it seems massive for that, that plot. I mean it's pushing right up against the top of the height with like a quarter of an inch of the maximum allowed height. It's, you know, over 21% sort of coverage in the area. So it just feels like it's maxing out every possible corner there.
And you'd mentioned like that attic top was like that 666 square feet, but it's still, still feels very large for that lot for me. I can't speak for anybody else. For me that feels like a, an a very large house for that lot. Speaker 26: Right. And like I said before, we have done this house on similar size, lots on Greenleaf. Same, those, those lots are similar in size. They're around 15, 15,000 square feet. This one's 11. But Speaker 25: It makes, makes a difference. I mean those, I mean not, I it's not relevant if those houses were in front of the board before. No. Understand.
Speaker 26: This is No, I'm just letting you know that. Speaker 25: Yeah, no, for sure. And and I can appreciate that. But it's just, like I said, it's a small lot and it's super tall and it's super wide and I think that's sort of part of it. Just the density of it feels, feels big. But that's just my feeling. Speaker 8: And we have, we have no one, no neighbors are here. None, no neighbors. Yeah. These, these are the ones that I, I I struggle over. Let's be honest. I mean I think that having the garage that are pushing up forward, I feel like that there's a really simple flip that, that this sort of type of design could make that's frankly better for the neighborhood.
You know, there's a lot, unfortunately, like forcing these garages forward has become this sort of easy design move that may help in the footprint. But when you look at so many houses done, you know, before five years ago in Natick, it's just, it's a really strange typology. And I think it could be flipped here. It's not purview of this, this committee, if no neighbors are here, you take out the finished basement, you could tell us that no one's going in the basement. You could tell us that no one's going in the attic and it would be a 3,800 square foot house.
Yeah. It's scraping the limit of the, of the height I think. But at the same time it's not, you know, maxing out the other setbacks. So yeah, this one's really on the fence for me especially. 'cause there's no neighbors here really. I mean, I think there could be definitely a case to be made for, you know, dropping that front peak down, putting a hip on it, just having it feel a little smaller. But there's no one here. Speaker 24: But you also said that you are willing to, it's the attic part. Speaker 26: I said that the attic was an, it's an option. So they, at this point, they don't know if they're gonna use
that livable space that's up there or not. So it's kind of an it's still gonna be there. It's still gonna be there. Correct. You Speaker 1: Should assume that that is part of the habitable area of this property. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 26: I I would, yep. That's a fair statement. Speaker 1: It's a beautiful looking house. It's very big. I'll just give you my 2 cents, you know, crediting everything. Everybody said, there's nobody here saying it's gonna provide, it's gonna create a substantial detriment for me. It's, it's not close it, this board has heard me say this innumerable times.
I'm not here to substitute my judgment for the neighborhood about what is and what isn't detriment. And everyone got the card, everyone had a chance to review the plans. And those people who came here tonight to express their dissatisfaction are zero. Therefore I conclude that there's no objection and that if there's no objection, I can't, I can't say that there's detriment, let alone substantial detriment, which is what the statute requires. Those are my thoughts. Who noted
Speaker 12: A quick question, peg, did we get any notification cards that came back for this application? And while we're at it, any of the rest of Speaker 1: No, no, no, Speaker 12: No. Okay. Yeah, you're right. Nevermind. Thank you. My foul. Thank you. Speaker 1: Oh, no worries. What was that? What was that little interchange about that little whistle? No, but what was that? Speaker 12: Oh my foul. Speaker 1: Okay. We just, we knocked not Speaker 12: Allowed to talk about other, other ones proposal, Speaker 4: The technical. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. About what it did. I accept it didn't come back on any other Okay. Project that leaves one and then there was you,
Speaker 4: Oh. Are we tipping our cards now? Speaker 1: If you want you can comment or not comment. Speaker 4: No, I, I don't think this would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what's there today. I've looked around, I didn't do a site walk, but I can see on Google Maps there are a few other houses just right across the street that are almost as large if not bigger. Yeah, I think this would fit in fine to the neighborhood. It's just another single family house with another single family living in it. I, I don't think it would be substantially more detrimental. Speaker 1: Anyone have any other thoughts before we close the hearing? Speaker 12: Quick question. Did you talk to any of the neighbors? Speaker 26: The only person that I personally talked
to was the gentleman to the right when I did the soil test. And he came out and was watching me dig the holes for the soil testing. But that, you know, we told him what we were doing and why we were doing the soil testing, you know, and we did tell him that we would, he probably would be getting notified because we, we had to go in front of the zoning board. That's, that's basically all. Speaker 12: So you didn't reach out, I mean No, your team did not reach out to any of the neighbors to see if they were, they could understand the scope of the project or Speaker 26: Anything?
No, I did not. Nope. Okay. Speaker 1: Everyone likes to watch a hole get dug Speaker 4: Now. He stayed there the whole time. Speaker 1: Like I said, I need a supervisor. It's good. Okay. The, the public hearing is closed and we'll have a motion. Speaker 4: I would move that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the pre-existing non-conforming use and structure provided it's built and substantial conformance with plan submitted and any requirements from the town departments who submit the letters to the board. Speaker 1: Second, second, Andy, although again, it's, is it me? It's, it's, it's everybody. I
Speaker 27: Dunno if I can, Speaker 1: Can I second it then? Can you second? Second? Yeah, second. Speaker 27: He's, he's gotta be a voting Speaker 1: To second. It's Speaker 27: Gotta be on the hearing to second I think so. Speaker 1: Okay, hold on. Let's re second that. If we could if, do we have another second? Can I second? I will Second. Okay. Alan seconded. All those in favor. 1, 2, 3 passes. Good luck. Thank you. And last certainly. Oh no, we have to vote to continue 34 Bacon Street. Do that. Speaker 4: I move that we continue the hearing for 34 bacon
Speaker 1: Second Speaker 4: 34 bacon to September 29th. Speaker 9: Second. Speaker 1: All those in favor? Aye. Okay, there we go. And last but certainly not least, 14 Irving Road for Mark Cahill for a finding for chap mass general law. Chapter 48, section six. And then it zoning bylaw section four B the applicant posted to raise dwelling construc new single family dwelling on the previous to nonconforming. Lot shown of the plans. Hello? Good evening. Good evening. Hi. Good evening. Speaker 9: Start by distributing. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 9: Thank you, thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, so I'm just gonna, while you're doing that, if it's okay, I'm just gonna run through the table. Who's voting we're gonna go, what did we do last time Andy was not on it. So we'll go Alan. Not on this one. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in a row. Okay. I'm not on it. What's the look? Speaker 11: We can talk about it another Speaker 1: Time. You talking about the way I have to assign the voters? Yeah, Speaker 11: How you decide with this, with the associates. Speaker 9: It's Speaker 1: Just, I just alternate whimsical. No, no it's not. I just try to give everyone opportunity. Okay. Speaker 11: Yeah 'cause that sounds great to me everybody.
Speaker 1: I try to get everyone in involved. Okay. Yeah, yeah. Right. Speaker 11: Great. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. So the lot small frontage is good. Depth is good. Setback front is good side's, good side's, good yard's. Good coverage, good height, good lot. Just a lot. Alright. Okay. Does trigger storm water management, if you saw that
exceed, require minor storm water permit within the aquifer recharge area? Storm water infiltration, is that shown? No it's not. Okay, but you'll do that. That's correct. Alright. Soil tests were just completed. Okay. Alright, let's just take a quick peek here. 14 Irving. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay, you're on. Just introduce yourself if you would. Speaker 13: Yes, I'm Neil Glick. Good evening with Coran Lichtenstein. I'm here representing 14 Irving Road LLC, which is the applicant.
With me is Mark Cahill, who's the manager of the LLC. And we're the last ones on your agenda. So I'll try to to be brief. This is a corner lot in a 1953 subdivision in which almost all of the lots were laid out and approved in 1953 at 15,000 square feet. Current requirement is 20. That's the only non-conformity as the chair just pointed out. We comfortably meet, in fact ex exceed
the other dimensional and things like and anything to do with the building envelope, like lot coverage and, and actually the proposed project improves on a couple of the setbacks in comparison to the existing house that's on the property now. So there is of course nothing we can do about the lot size. It is what it is. 15,000 feet was 15,000 square feet was compliant with the bylaw in 1953.
And indeed was probably pretty generous for the time. But in today's market, as this board is well aware, prospective homeowners seek a larger home on their lot. There's nothing wrong with the existing 1954 ranch houses. That's a perfectly wonderful form of housing. It's just that today's families are looking for more space. Now my client meets that contemporary demand with a quality product and good design. And I'd refer you to exhibit A of the memo
which shows the plans for the project, proposed project elevations, floor plans. And I included in exhibit A the existing and proposed survey plan so you can get an idea of what's what's there now and what's being provided with the project. These are individually, this is an individually designed home. It's not repeat, not a McMansion.
We're talking about 3,730 3007 90 square feet of livable space. It doesn't tower over the neighbors. We're well within the height limitation. And you can see that on the design, the design plans. Exhibit B shows the actual 1953 subdivision. And if you look at sheet four, you can see lot 1 0 9, which is the intersection of Irving and Richard. That's the locust, that's the, the property in question.
And again, you can see that these lots are all basically the same size, 15,000 square feet. I also included another subdivision next door or next to this, which again is from the same era and has the same houses or same lot sizes as we're talking about on our particular subdivision. Exhibit C shows the Locust project in green, right on the corner of Richard and Irving. But then you see a large cluster
of yellow lots right around there. And this has to do with the neighborhood. All of those lots shown on exhibit C in yellow are lots that are two story larger homes. The existing ranch house on those properties was raised and new homes were built on them with relief from this board. I think it's important to take a look at that
because what you see is that while the neighborhood still contains many of the older homes, it also contains quite a few of the larger homes such as the one in question here. So it's not that a two story center, colonial home is detrimental to the neighborhood. It is in fact a part of the neighborhood. And by the way, on exhibit CI just focused on the homes in the immediate vicinity of the, of the
of 14 Irving. If I expanded out, there would've been an awful lot more of these yellow lots indicated. Speaker 24: I'm assuming that your exhibit D Speaker 13: I'm sorry, what? That your Speaker 24: Exhibit D. Speaker 13: Exhibit D. Speaker 24: Is that your exhibit D Microphone. Speaker 13: Exhibit C I'm sorry. Exhibit Speaker 1: D is the housing. Speaker 13: Exhibit D shows the yellow lots in pictorial form. So it shows you that. And these are all projects that were granted relief, the same relief that we're seeking
in some cases more relief. We only need relief on the lot size. All of these basically had lot size issues. Some of them had setback issues or frontage issues. We don't have those on this pro property. But you can see that the project that's proposed does not stand out, is not going to be looming over the neighbors. It is in fact accommodating to the neighbors and is part of the neighborhood. So with that, we'll entertain any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you, you did your homework. This is very nice. It's, it helps put everything into perspective. You're getting your Speaker 13: Money's Thank you. Speaker 1: It's a relief. Oh you like that? We have a, we have a thumbs up over here. Okay. So why don't we start with the back then just we'll go outta order. Yeah, we got a Yep, come on up. Your name and address if you would for the record. Speaker 28: Alan Berg, nine Liberty Street. The house across the street from where they have building is much bigger than what he is proposing as far as I know down on, on Irving. So that's, you know, his house is just, to me it's,
it's like gonna be smaller so it fits right in, in, in Speaker 29: The Speaker 1: Neighborhood. Very good, thanks very much. Anybody else wish to be heard? Yes ma'am. Speaker 21: Marjorie Waner 16 Richard Road. My question is, there's several other houses that Mr. Kale has built and they're all exactly the same for the most part. Is this gonna look exactly like the others? Speaker 1: Hold on. And before you, before you answer that, so, so again, I hate to stop you. The plan shows you what's gonna be built and we don't care about anything else that's ever been built by this builder anywhere else on in the world.
Just what's being proposed here today. And if he's built this same house five other times elsewhere in town or elsewhere in the Commonwealth or anywhere else in the world, it's just not relevant. Speaker 21: I have, it's difficult, you know, picturing, picturing what something looks like from the plans. 'cause I'm not used to doing that. So I just am wondering does this look, is this plan the same as the others? Is this what it's gonna look like? Okay, Speaker 1: I'll tell you what, I don't think it's relevant for the board. Stay right there if you would. But if you can answer that question you
to help her understand it, then go ahead. Speaker 29: This house is different from the houses that I'm building right now at 25 and 29 Irving, but it is similar to two houses that I built over on Beverly Road a number of years ago. Speaker 1: Does that Speaker 29: Help? Does that help? That Speaker 13: Helps. And I, I believe Mark that it also has a different, what's the term I'm looking for? It's late. I'm sorry, footprint. The, the, the, the shell of the house envelope. The siding Oh oh is different as well. Is it shingles? Speaker 29: The the, the front is gonna be shingles.
What I tried to do is, this is a corner lot. The houses that I'm building at 29 and 25 Irving tend to be longer colonial style dwellings. That longer dwelling facing on Irving in my opinion would've given me a short backyard and would've given me more massing on Irving. So what I did is I took the house and I'm facing it on Richard and having less mass on Irving and a different design. Yeah. So it's, it's actually, it's a, it's a narrower house Speaker 13: And the and the, the, the center entrance is a little bit different the way it's
handled as the other one's on Irving as well. Speaker 29: That's correct. Speaker 21: Is the size the same or it's a smaller or larger in comparison? Speaker 29: It's slightly larger, but that's doing mostly because there's a one story dining room addition off of the front. So the main house is actually a little bit smaller than what I built at 29 and 25. Irving. Okay. Speaker 21: Thank Speaker 1: You. Thank you. Anybody else wish to be heard? Okay, seeing none questions, board thoughts? Who'd I say is on it? Everyone but me? No,
Speaker 25: Everyone. I had one question Speaker 12: Everyone but everybody but Speaker 25: Everyone but Al Speaker 1: I drank my entire cup of coffee. Sorry, we'll start over here Jason. Speaker 25: Well I have no, Speaker 13: No questions Speaker 1: Nor do I Andy? Nope. Alright, Speaker 25: I just had one for sake of understanding. Was the height calculated accurately for it being a corner lot was sort of the center line of the two roads and whatnot from Irving and Richard? I'm just curious. Speaker 29: It's my belief that it is, yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 12: Okay. I have a few questions.
First of all, when I was on the site I couldn't find the gross floor area for the existing, which we're bound to compare with for these decisions and the proposed. Can you tell me what the gross floor area is for the existing house and the proposed, Speaker 29: Well, the proposed is 37 90. Speaker 12: So is that including Speaker 29: Two floors? Right. Speaker 12: So I, 'cause I couldn't find a basement plot plan
or the half floor attic floor plot plan when I was on the site. Speaker 29: There's a drop stair, so the attic, there's no staircase up to the attic. So the utilities will be up there, there is a window in the front that is just for, for looks just for in the gable end. Okay. There'll be plywood up there so that people can put storage up there and the workers can get the heating system in. But there's no staircase up to the attic. Okay. It would not, that's good to know would be something that would be finished. Speaker 13: But to your initial point about comparing existing versus
proposed in terms of floor area, and while I heard before the discussion about how there is no floor area ratio requirement, but to answer your question, obviously the, the existing property would have less floor area 'cause it's only one floor. Yes. But if you look at the existing and proposed survey plans, the footprint is sim very similar because Speaker 12: It's a ranch. Yes, Speaker 13: It's, well, but I mean the, so it's, it's, it's going to be less than the 37 90
and it's, but we're staying within basically the same footprint. Speaker 12: So by the way, just, I know this, this, I'm still grappling with this, but it's good, it's important to point out that there is a difference between the floor area ratio and the gross floor area. And so I'm not asking for the ratio, I'm just adding, asking for the total. Speaker 29: Understood. Speaker 12: So, so then my other question is, I'm looking at the elevations from the left side. That is a very large wall that has almost no articulation in terms, well I, I'm,
I'm not an architect, I'm probably using the wrong word, but I see one, you know, one small window on the second story and one pair of windows on the first story that, that's not the most attractive housing side I've ever seen. That, you know, it's going to be feet away of course from the folks who are on that side of the property. Is there any way you can, let's see. As, as my contractor put it, take the curse off it. I mean it's, it's, Speaker 29: Well I, I had a, a philosophy that,
or a question I ask people, do you design from the outside in or the inside out? It happens that the two bed, the two bedrooms that are on the second floor, those are the bed walls. So we typically don't have one to have windows on a bed wall. And it's the same thing on the, on the first floor. You know, there's a family room or there's the kitchen there. That's what that window is. So it, it, it really is a, it it's a design. It's a, it's a, I think it's always a legitimate question. I'm not sure there's an answer to, to design from the inside out. Yeah. Speaker 1: It's an interesting way of putting it.
What what's interesting is that, and, and, and it's not an illegitimate question, but had this been designed with two or three windows on the second floor, you very well could have a neighbor coming in and saying, you know what, like the house hate the windows. It invades my privacy so that someone isn't here right now. Maybe because there's no window. So we're not gonna redesign this home based on our own sort of idea of aesthetics, because that's not the board's purview. This is about whether there's substantial detriment.
And, and, and, and you may think there is, I just don't hear it from anyone who lives on that side of the house or in that neighborhood that this house is substantially more detrimental. And as I've said, innumerable times, I won't finish this statement. Anything else? Anything else? Anything else? Anything else? Anything else? Speaker 12: Is the height being measured from top of concrete or from the averaged grade? Speaker 29: Average grade. Speaker 12: So you're, you're positive we have have that measured from the middle of the streets on both sides?
That's correct. Because I, I mean, you sounded like you weren't a hundred percent sure. Speaker 29: No, that's, that's how it was. That's how it was measured. Okay. Speaker 9: Yeah. Thank Speaker 12: You. Speaker 1: Closed motion. Speaker 4: I'll move that. We approve the project based on a finding that's not substantial. Sorry. Speaker 1: Infiltration. Speaker 4: Oh, we did, we check the infiltration was Speaker 1: That's not there. They need to do it. Speaker 4: Oh, that's not there yet on the plans? No. Nope. And it was required from the board of Health. Speaker 1: Yeah. I suppose we'll just get it by incorporating that. By incorporating the, yeah, fine. Sorry, keep going. Sorry, I
Speaker 4: Just wanted to check the board of health letter here. Speaker 1: It's, there Speaker 4: It is the recommendation of the board of health that some means of infiltration be provided to mitigate stormwater runoff. Speaker 29: That plan is in the works and it's, it was waiting for a soil test, which was done, I believe last week. Okay. So we have good groundwater is, is quite deep. So we don't have any problem. We just need to fill in the figures. Speaker 4: Then I would move that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than pre-existing, non-conforming use and structure provided, spilled substantial conformance with the plan submitted and any town requirements or recommendations from town boards
or departments who submitted letters. And specifically that the applicant will work with the Board of Health and provide the storm water filtration as recommended by the Board of Health. Speaker 1: Second. Second, Ari. All those in favor? 1, 2, 3. You pass. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Alright, take care. And do you have any peg any business for us? Some minutes of you. Okay. Speaker 9: You were an I. You were a Yes, I was. Yes. Speaker 1: He he was a, he. Okay. He was a no. And an I
Speaker 9: I was But Andy, you were a yes or a no. I Speaker 1: Was in, it was a, a No, it was Jason, David, and Ari Yeses. Gail and Andy Nos. Speaker 9: Mr. Speaker 1: Chairman. Yes, sir. Move Speaker 9: To Speaker 1: Adopt the minutes. Oh, appointment. Oh, is that what this is? Sorry. Go, go, go move Speaker 9: July 25th. Speaker 1: Second. Speaker 4: Second. Speaker 1: All those in favor? Speaker 4: Wait. Any discussion? There's, Speaker 1: Sorry. Speaker 12: There are some amendments that I would like to go over with everybody before we adopt them. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Speaker 12: Okay. So they're minor. Go ahead.
It's just that. Okay, so first of all, I'm listed as Mr. Wein Roberts. Whoops. That's not a horrible thing, but it'd be nice to fix it on, on the six Oak Knoll case. I'm listed as Mr. Wein Roberts also. I am, I'm, I think, again, we may have run into the FAR versus gross floor area issue. There is, there is something in the minutes that says that gross floor area isn't required on the applications, but it, it actually is on under, you know, it's listed
as all projects on the checklist. So just to clear that up, there was a note saying that, you know, that that wasn't Speaker 1: Can we move Hold, hold on, hold on. Hold on. Hold on one second. I just want to double check that I, Speaker 12: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It is six Oak Knoll. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: It is listed that way. Yeah. How do you like that? Yep. Building flory gross. A meaning all projects. Speaker 12: Yes. All projects. Yeah. Speaker 1: What, how Speaker 12: Do you, so again, this is why I've been being a pain about it.
We could revise that. It's right there. Speaker 4: We could amend that David and have him change the form. Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't know. Maybe Speaker 12: Why would we change it in that direction though? Because Speaker 4: Again, we're, it's, it's not something that we're allowed to regulate as, as a board Speaker 8: According to what you, I mean, we need to make that decision. Speaker 1: I think we're gonna leave it just like it is for the time being and we can we'll adjust it ad hoc as these projects come up, correct? Speaker 12: Yeah. I think all the other stuff is just Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 12: Two unimportant. Thats Speaker 1: It as, okay. Thank you as amended. Second. Second. Speaker 12: Oh wait, I'm sorry. Three oxbow.
There's six people listed as voting Six, not five. That's it. Speaker 1: Alright, we're Speaker 12: Gonna, so somebody, somebody's listed for three oxbow who needs to be removed? That's all. Speaker 1: Was it unanimous Speaker 9: Y Speaker 4: Go back and watch the video. Yeah, Speaker 1: We have some, Speaker 12: I'd Speaker 3: Have to, few minutes were taken from the video. So Speaker 8: That's how you do it. Speaker 3: No, I don't do it. My admin assistant probably. Speaker 1: Ah, all we just, well, let's make that you, let's just make that correct, that correction. Speaker 12: Yeah. Whoever's supposed to come up Speaker 3: For six ox. The, the vote is 5 0 0. So Mr. McCloskey, Mr.
Enright, Mr. Gottlieb and Mr. Speaker 1: Is that five Speaker 9: Five? Speaker 12: We're talking about three oxbow. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 1: That's five. Speaker 3: Okay. So then the other item of business is, Speaker 1: Oh wait, I'm sorry, as amended. Second. Second Ari. All those in favor? Yep. Unanimous. What was the honor? Speaker 3: So the other item of business, the chair of the select board. Ask this board to address remote access to our meetings. Speaker 1: Ahuh It is. Okay. And is that on the agenda? Yes.
Oh it is, it is. Okay. So let's go ahead and take it up. Alan. Remote access. I'm sorry, it's like a hybrid meeting. No. Speaker 3: Yes. Okay. Be zoom and in person. Speaker 1: So according to the state of the law in Massachusetts, it's not required, but it, it can be required by the board after discussion. Speaker 18: Board chair is the one who's asking us to, Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. Sorry. Select slip board. It's on the, it's on the agenda.
Let's forget. I don't think who, whoever raised it is, is not necessarily relevant. The question is, as to the propriety of it, let me go first. I have no idea what any other board does in this town. I do. Whether they do it hybrid or they don't. I think what's going on here is very unique. It is difficult to understand what the project looks like when you're looking at it directly. The people who are sitting in the assembled also have some difficulty, which is expressed
on many occasions. Understanding what is being proposed is critical to making the determination about detriment, about whether or not the project meets the requirements of the zoning code. And we're lucky enough to have the ability to have people like they did tonight, come up, look at a plan, share a plan, share photograph, point to something and describe what the concern is so that we can make informed decisions. I think it's unique in that way.
This, I require these, these plans, these tangible plans every time so that I can fully comprehend what's being proposed. I have difficulty doing it on the screen. I want to hold it in my hand. I wanna look, I wanna point, I want to ask questions. That's what this board does and I think it does it very well. I harken back to COVI when I, I really do credit the way the board handled those. I know those, those were not hybrid, they were fully remote. But it made our job very difficult.
It made it uniquely difficult because of the way that we do our job and the, the level of detail that are on these plans and not having that sort of interface with the people in the know, the people with the questions, I think was a detriment to the way the board operates for those reasons I would not be in favor of it. I think the, the, you know, tonight was relatively a relatively short agenda with relatively uncomplicated projects
and we we're still here for two and a half hours. And when you start saying, I can't see that on the plan or can you show that? Can you blow that up? I, what are you pointing to? I just think it makes it ungainly and I think the process loses something in that translation. I think it hurts the board's ability to do its job. I think it hurts the public's ability to fully understand and comment effectively on the projects that are very meaningful. Bless you. Meaningful to them. Very, very meaningful to them.
I also think it impacts developers' ability to express, excuse me, to the public, what it is that they're trying to do. For all of those reasons I would not be in favor of Alan. Speaker 24: So I'm all for transparency, but I think you raise exceptionally valid points and I would not be in favor Speaker 1: Of it. Jason, Speaker 4: I think I agree with everything you've said. I think during COD being full remote was very difficult. I think our meetings were less efficient and probably, I mean they were as, as transparent as they could be full remote.
We had to do it that way, but it wasn't ideal. And that, that's why we have in-person meetings otherwise, except for pandemics. But I think you're right. The people that would try to pay attention from home would not, they would have more difficulty understanding what the conversation is following the discussions. They would be unable to come up and look at the plans over your shoulder and see where you drew the gate on the east side of the building. And it, it, it's, it's not ideal. But again, like, like Alan said, I would be in favor
of more transparency, but I think it's not a heavy lift to write an email, write a letter, or even attend. It's, it's not all that difficult. But I think it's also, it gets what you talked about David, was the nature of what we do here is sort of quasi-judicial. We're we're making decisions that affect a neighborhood and sometimes even a larger area than that. But it's based on some very complicated law regulations, architectural plans, civil engineering drawings. There's a lot of very complicated data
that I think takes a little more specialty and, and knowledge to interpret and understand. Not to say that other people, non-professionals, laymen can't get it. But to try and do it from home seems very, very inefficient. And I think that gets to my main concern is the efficiency of it and the lateness of, of how long our meetings run. Sometimes when we have 10 or 12 or 15 hearings in one night, they can drag on. We've been here to 11 or 12 o'clock sometimes. Not frequently thankfully, but it can happen
and it's just gonna be less efficient. And we're gonna be here until, you know, morning hours the next day. If, if we're making it that easy for people to attend virtually, but yet they're, they're not gonna have the advantage of being as in tuned as up to speed as as seeing all the details that they can see when they're here in person. Speaker 8: Andy, I I agree with yeah, everything was said and I think I would only add that the only hesitation I had about going hybrid was, hey, you, you know, you will get more people at the same time.
I know to how you described it before, and I take a lot of stock in this too, of who shows up to either support or not support projects. And I think by having it in person, you make sure that people who really feel strongly one way or the other come, I feel like if, if it is hybrid, it lowers the barrier to giving input and I think makes our job even harder to make decisions.
'cause I, so I can see arguing the other way as well, but this is how I feel about it that I think you're gonna get the people who really care about it are gonna come. I don't feel like, you know, six 30 on a Monday is a tough ask. I mean I know some, some things in Boston are at 10 o'clock in the morning, you know, it's like, you know, for similar, similar committees. So yeah, I think we should keep it this way. Alright. Speaker 25: I would agree that that going hybrid it feels as untenable given sort of what we discussed
and how we discuss it and the fact that emotions run really high for these kinds of things with neighbors. And I think it would just get into, I think just it would draw this out considerably. The one thing that I would say, so I, I support what everybody has said. I think I would say the one thing that I would add is that we do make a lot about people having to show up and get here. I understand that. I think there's also a variety of reasons why people don't come. I think whether it's they missed something, they came in the mail, they don't understand the process. This is very sort of mysterious and murky sometimes to people how this sort of works. And so I think that, you know, if allowing people the chance to sort of dial in and see and not participate
or whatever, if they can't get it on television or they have a way of sort of seeing it in sort of like a hybrid capacity on a zoom meeting, I'd be supportive of that. But I, I agree that I don't think that we can conduct the meetings in a way that's sort of other committees do because of how we do it. I think to give people, yeah. Speaker 12: Okay. I just realized Mark Cahill said something that's very useful when he was talking about how you do you decide to build the house from the inside out or the outside in. We just demonstrated we're thinking from the inside out. If you talk to Natick residents about this,
who've had any kind of dealings with this, they're astonished that we are not hybrid. And I won't bother with all the other committees that are already hybrid. I'll just focus on one. The planning board planning board has just almost identical demands that this board has. And I they have been hybrid for, I don't know, more than two years, three years. They have managed. I, to me the appearance of trying to keep people out of this is extremely, I I
Speaker 1: Take it too. Speaker 12: I I, let me finish please without interruption. I didn't interrupt you. I object you the Speaker 1: Description is is completely inaccurate. We're not trying to keep Speaker 12: People No, I said the appearance. Oh, I said the appearance. That's very important. Good. Very important. 'cause I agree with you. Okay. And also I'm the only person on this board who has been on the other end of the needle in the past three years. Speaker 1: What does that mean? Speaker 12: And I'm about to tell you. So because I first started attending hearings in July of 2022 when it was Zoom only
and the hearings that I was attending, which took four separate months, those were all zoom only. What I found was I was surprised how well it did work. I, I hate Zoom meetings personally. I was surprised, I was really impressed with how Lauren who was, you know, in your position at the time and you David, how well it went. And I, I don't, I cannot think of a single excuse to give my fellow residents about why we would be continuing. The only other committee that is similar,
that is also still in person only is the conservation commission. If, if my, the notes I was given are correct. So, and again, I understand why we're not comparing ourselves to the school committee and even the select board, but we absolutely are comparable to the planning board. And I think in the name of transparency, and by the way, it wasn't just the chair. I was, we were at the same hearing because that was when we were doing the applications, the entire board select board was concerned about the fact that we don't have hybrid, we
Speaker 3: Only receive correspondence from the chair of the, the select Speaker 12: Court. I I understand, but I'm saying what they said during the hearing. I, that's why I am relevant Speaker 3: To what we're discussing. We're discussing the letter from the chair, the select court not Speaker 12: Oh, okay. I didn't know you were referring to the letter. Okay. But, but I can tell you that's the reality and I just, I would really like to suggest that this this, it doesn't have a good enough appearance to, to continue. I mean, again, I I've, I've talked to numerous residents
who are like, what do you mean it's not hybrid? 'cause they haven't had any reason to come, they haven't been involved. They're always very surprised. And again, planning board, I'll leave it at that. Speaker 8: Thank you. One clarification. So like when we're on TV right now, is this live? Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're on tv. Okay. I know. I I hey so, but so someone can participate in this way, they can Speaker 12: Watch No, no, they can only watch tv. Speaker 8: That's, that's a, that's a participation. They, that is watching. Speaker 12: No, they can't be part of any debate or subsequent questions. I understand Speaker 8: That, but I'm saying like that, that is a level of,
if we're to, if we're saying we're not being transparent. This is happening, this is happening live. People can, people can listen in. If they really, really care about it, then they come in. Speaker 12: No, no, that's my point. No, if there's only one hearing on a case and somebody cannot come that evening because of every, all the things that happen in life, I understand. Speaker 8: They can write in you think. I don't understand what you're saying. I understand what you're saying. Speaker 18: I do and I also understand what you're saying. I also think that the, the potential
impact of how much longer, it's not the risk. It's a very detailed process which is very arduous and sometimes very painful. Can be extrapolated three, four times with involving more. Speaker 12: And the agenda could be shorter. We could, we could hear fewer cases per hearing if it turns out that there's a problem. Because Speaker 1: 'cause of the applications, there's a, there's a deadline for the hearing date in 40 A, if we don't have the hearing within a certain period of time, it gets constructively approved.
Speaker 12: Oh, okay. Yes, I'm familiar with that. Thank you again. Planning board. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Good enough. So I'll just end by saying I, I think it's valuable. Everyone's input is very valuable. I would appreciate everyone's viewpoint on it. Somehow this scheme under 40 a existed in, since its conception and the public meeting law somehow sufficed until there was a pandemic. The pandemic's over, it's back to the way it was, it has existed for eons and,
and somehow existed effectively, efficiently, and without significant problems. As this board has, we've, we've, we existed on zoom through the, through the pandemic, which is no longer with us, thank God. And hopefully we won't have to go back there. But that's my opinion. And so I think what we should do is just go to a, an informal vote. I think that's probably the best way to do it. I took Speaker 3: Notes about how everyone felt and I will report my notes to the select board Speaker 1: Chair.
Do they want to hear a vote? Speaker 3: I, that's not the impression I got from the correspondence. Okay. Speaker 12: Vote. We're also missing two, two members tonight. Just saying. Speaker 4: I was wondering Yeah. Who would vote? Would it be just the members or No, it would be everyone. All Speaker 1: Eight. Oh, I, okay. I guess if, if they wanted to go to a vote, we'd have to wait. Yeah. Till the other two members come. But Speaker 18: They're not asking for Speaker 1: A vote. Okay. Good enough. Not Speaker 18: The chair is just saying, yeah, Speaker 1: We would Speaker 18: Like you to consider this. Okay. Speaker 1: Agenda meeting. Consider it considered, Speaker 18: Therefore Mr. Chair. Speaker 1: Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Okay.
Thanks very much Peg. Thank you.