Speaker 1: Well, that may show up, but we have enough to to, to get going. See it. What? It's, so we have five. Okay. Before we, before we start, we have a public speech section of the hearing where any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda and will be taken for 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 in the individual addressing the board during this section, the agenda is, shall be limited to five minutes. So do you, anybody who wants to raise something that's not on the agenda? Okay. Seeing none then we'll get right into it.
First matter is 88 Park Avenue the applicant is. So Hold on one second. I'm sorry. Speaker 2: Just double check. I'm Speaker 3: Sorry. Wait for the second tab, Speaker 1: Matt, is it, let's Speaker 2: See. Speaker 1: Yeah, Speaker 2: Lemme just see. Speaker 1: Oh, it's on here. Okay. So 88 Park Avenue for 88 Park Avenue. Natick, LLC. The application is a request for a confirmation of a legal preexisting two-family dwelling located on the subject parcel. Speaker 4: Hi there. Hi. Are you Good evening. Good. My name's Grant Gao. I am a representing a DA PGA Natick, LLC.
And my address is four East Lee Lane Natick. Speaker 1: Alright, let me just take a look here for a moment. Okay. So confirmation of these existing two family. So we don't need to look at the chart 'cause there's no, it's not dimensionally non-conforming. Speaker 4: Right? All dimensions are conforming. Speaker 1: Yep. So it's just about the use. Alright. And so today, what's the use today? Speaker 4: Two families. There's Speaker 1: Two families now and it's been a two family since when? Speaker 4: Last time I checked is at least from 1950s. Speaker 1: So, so essentially forever. Speaker 4: Pretty much
Speaker 1: It's been a two family. Okay. So let's find out if anybody else has anything to say about it. Amanda, do we know, has it been taxed as a two family Speaker 3: Based on the conversations with the building commissioner? Yes. It's been being taxed as two family, which is actually in the documentation that's actually right underneath your hand. It is recorded also with the assessor as being a two family. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright, well let's find out if anybody here wants to, to, to weigh in on, does anybody wish to be heard about this project at 88 Park Avenue? Yeah, come on up. If we could just have you give your name
and address for the record. Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Paul Lawrence. I live at 79 Park Ave. We have a number of residents here tonight who pretty much would like to say this is a development that really doesn't belong in this neighborhood. From what we understand, it's gonna be a 9,000 square feet Speaker 1: Building. So, so let, lemme stop you just for a second. Just so I want to, I'm gonna listen to you, but I want to help whoever else might want to be heard about this project. We're not here to talk about what's gonna be built. We don't, we're not even here. We don't even, we don't even have to look at the plans regarding what's gonna be built that's not before us.
The only thing before us tonight is the commissioner's request that we confirm the use as a two family. That's it. So if you are here to tell me that for the last 10 years it's been used as a single family, that's something we could hear. If you say, I don't like what the building looks like, that, that's not before us, because what's being built is what they call as of Right. In other words, it doesn't violate any of the zoning code. There's no appeal before us, the building commissioner didn't deny the use. And so that's not properly before this board.
What is is solely the question of whether in fact it is a two, a lawful two family and nothing more. With that said and under that sort of, Speaker 5: Okay, could I address the board then? One of the issues that we've had the residents have had is I'm the only one who's had notification of this. Nobody else did, and not quite sure how and why Speaker 1: That happened. Hold on one second. Let, let, we're gonna have, we're gonna look at that. I have a, an abuts list that is, Speaker 3: I did not print the, a
butters list off. It's not, I don't have Speaker 1: It. Speaker 3: I can pull it up. Speaker 1: Okay. But we got it here. Yeah. Did we, did I, I take it. It's, it's part of the mo of these projects that the notice goes out to. It's a, it's abutters and abutters to abutters and 300 feet. Speaker 3: It's actually only 300 feet to the property line. So it's the property boundary and everybody that's within 300 feet, even if your property only touches by a foot, you still get notification. We also notify the municipalities that abut Natick. And so the list is generated based on
what the town assessor has. The town assessor populates the list for us. Speaker 1: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 2, 6, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. There was 31 notices that went out. So when did they go out? Because Speaker 5: Legal notice here, here are some of the abutters and they, they never had any notice. Yeah, yeah. When Speaker 3: Did these go out? The abutters went out, the butter postcards were mailed based on pegs note on October 1st, 2025. And then they were actually resent, because this is one that was readvertised, the abutters legal mailers were placed in the outgoing mail
on November 4th, 2025 for this public hearing tonight. Yeah. Speaker 1: So that's sufficient notice. But, but well, let's put, put it in another way. The purpose of the, of the notice cards is so that you have an opportunity to appear and you're all here. So that's good. Yeah, well Speaker 5: That's partly because I got the notices and I sort of Speaker 1: Shared with people we're lucky you were involved. Speaker 5: The, and I got involved because when I called the town and said, Hey, wait a second, you know, this project is, you know, slightly outsized for what we're doing. Yeah. They said to come here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: No, I think that that's what they would say. 'cause that's the only place you, you can say it. But without that, that person, whoever you spoke with, didn't realize that the, I would say 99.9% of the projects that come before this board are associated with a structure that's being built that we have some jurisdiction to review because it's, it's, there's some zoning non-conformity that just does not happen to be the case in this one project, which in my memory is the, is the only project that's come
before this board that's compliant because if it is, it doesn't come before the board. There was just this, this one question outstanding as to use. But all that said, Speaker 5: So question, question to the board when, Speaker 1: When you say something, when you speak the developers here and he can hear you. Yep. I don't know what that means. We can hear you too, but that will not make a difference. Speaker 5: Okay. So my question to the board is then in which venue or forum can we talk about? The project is basically too big for the, for the, for the area?
No, it's three. Speaker 1: None that I'm aware of. But that's not legal advice. It may be that this project, again, I have no idea. It may be that this project requires some sort of planning board planning, board approval. It may be, and I don't know, maybe it needs conservation commission approval. Maybe it needs historical approval. Maybe it needs, I don't know what approval, whatever approvals it may need. You might have an opportunity to appear at and express your point of view, but I don't know. But I can tell you that, that anything you say in this hearing, which, which I'm,
I'm gonna listen to, but I'm, but just so I can set your expectations. If you say this thing is just a monstrosity, it's five times the house on either side of it. It will make no difference to this board. Not that we don't care, it's that we don't have any right to do anything about it. Speaker 5: Well, you've saved me from having to say it. 'cause that's exactly that. Okay. Speaker 1: Took a shot. Yeah. Speaker 5: So I mean, basically it, Speaker 1: It's so Well everyone, I can hear other people verbalizing, so just wait your turn. You're gonna get a turn. Everyone's gonna get their turn. Turn. Everyone's gonna get an opportunity to speak if they want to, and we're gonna listen, but we,
but we're gonna be listening for more or less so that you can express your concerns to the developer. Speaker 5: Yep. Well, I, I, I think one of the things I'd like to convey then the process for notification has failed. Speaker 1: That's not him. That's us. Yep. Yeah. Speaker 5: And you know, having spoken to somebody in the town hall saying, this is where you come and do this again, communication lines are not clear. Speaker 1: I think just to be fair, 'cause the folks there are really quite knowledgeable and I found it to be extremely helpful in, in most cases, again, and I say 99.9% of the, of the petitions that come
through town hall and end up before us would in fact be implicated by your concerns. Right. Just this one outlier is probably the only one that anyone down there can recall offhand where a concern about size would not otherwise be addressable by this board. So for them to reflexively say, concerns about ZBA matters should be addressed at the ZBA hearing. That's right. In every single circumstance. It's even right. Today, particularly if you're concerned was it's not a
two-family, right? So they were right to tell you to come down here. You're in the only venue with regard to this project tonight that will have any bearing on your concerns. But now we've set the stage for what is and what isn't on the table, if you will. Speaker 6: So where do we go from there? Speaker 1: I'm gonna have you speak from the, the Deus when you're Okay. And just your name, just so we can get it on the record. That's why name Speaker 7: Scott Carlson 82 Park Avenue. Thank you. And I think that you addressed some very interesting issues
and some, some things that probably all of us who live in the neighborhood are keen to investigate. And we would like to know, basically, where do we find out about the, for instance, you mentioned historical, you mentioned environmental, you know, yeah. Speaker 1: So I was just mentioning those sort of, so kind of a laundry list of potentials. And it, it's also quite possible that none of them apply. Speaker 7: I understand, but Speaker 1: Oh, no. So you're gonna follow up with, with Amanda, should we,
yeah, you can follow up with, this is Amanda, Amanda Loomis. You can, you can call town hall, ask for the building department, and then so whoever answers that phone, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll give you to Amanda. Although with all that said, also, I, I think part of it is, is that, you know, you have to do your own due diligence. I, Amanda will certainly guide you through some of it, I think, but I don't know how much, you know, I don't think they're gonna give you a permitting guideline for, for this project. Let me, let me just because I know this is frustrating and I know that people were here to say something
and that it would have meaning and you feel very strongly about it. I get it. There are rules, there's a zoning, there's, there's the zoning bylaw right in the town, and that has rules. It says in this district you have to have a minimum lot size of this. The biggest building you can build is that it can only be this wide, it can only be this deep. It has to have a certain amount of dimensional compliance. It just so happens that this one does in fact comply dimensionally.
And so if it complies dimensionally, it never gets to the board. Speaker 8: May I make a comment? If you look in the NA zoning bylaws, that's a good place to start and get yourself educated on this is a housing corridor overlay on top of an RSA in commercial district. There are some rules about FAR, which governs the mass of the house on in particular, which made it typically doesn't have an FAR in residential areas, but if it's on in a highway overlay like this one is, then an FAR might apply, which would then limit the mass
of a particular structure. So it's in the native zoning bylaws. It's not easy to get through, but might be a good place to start. Speaker 9: Thank Speaker 1: You. Thank you. Anybody else wish to be heard? Speaker 10: What? Speaker 1: Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you as Speaker 9: Well. Get myself on record. So I'm, I'm David Brock, an 83 Park app. So we are directly across from the, the proposed structure. So I guess the, the frustration is the mechanisms by which we can articulate sort of concerns about the, the size, as you say, the mass, assuming the volume you're talking about the
what are the mechanisms, what are those strictures? It's hard to believe that there's none that Speaker 1: You can, I, I didn't say there were none. I said th So the, the way it works, and again, I I I'm gonna give you this sort of, this bare bones review of what it looks like. But a developer buys a piece of land, has a piece of land, has a house on it, doesn't have a piece of h doesn't have a house on it, designs a house, puts in an application to build that house. It goes before the building department, the building commissioner reviews it and then determines whether it does
or does not comply with the, the requirements of this code, right? Which we don't write the, the town meeting does the, the, what's that town meeting, town meeting does, right? It's that votes on it and creates it, amends it, et cetera. We're, we're, we're not even tasked with enforcing it. What happens is it goes before the building commissioner and he says it either does or doesn't comply. If it complies, he just signs off on it. And then eventually the developer will get a building permit. They build their house. It gotta be built in accordance with this. The building code gets inspected as it's being built. That's it. That's let's, let's call that compliance.
The other one is, is it doesn't comply. And then there's a whole bunch of different scenarios where the building commissioner reviews it and denies it based on non-compliance. Says what kind of relief is required. It could be a variance, a special permit, a section six, finding, what have you. Then it ends up here. Then we're in here looking at plans, looking at dimensions, looking at height, looking at setbacks, looking at all that stuff and listening to the, to the, to the people who come, the abutters, the neighborhood who say, this is horrible, it's too big, it's too tall, it's too close to my house.
All that business that's not before us. There's been no denial. It's here for confirmation of use and therefore we never even need to look at the building. We, we, we, in fact, we don't even have the right to look at the building because it is co i Speaker 9: Under I understand what you're, I'm just saying, what are those particular venues? Are you saying that the building has already been deemed compliant? Speaker 1: Absolutely. At least in, in the one, in the one area that, that we have jurisdiction over, which is the zoning code Speaker 9: Through other, other venues Speaker 1: That you, so the other ones I mentioned were, again,
I have a zero idea if they do or don't have any comp, jurisdiction, jurisdiction on this particular project, but they might be the planning department. So Speaker 9: Who would be most cognizant of those? That particular, and she's the only one, right? Speaker 1: Well, I think she's the primary one. The building commissioner, you could probably meet with them, but I don't think that they're, and I'm not gonna speak for Amanda, but I don't think they're gonna give you a, a full permitting analysis. Right. It's, it's really up to you to find out where this project might otherwise be. Or you could ask the town if Yeah, Speaker 9: I'm looking for some guidance.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I think that's where you're gonna go. Yep. She'll, she'll help you. Okay. I think there's, yeah, absolutely. We're not done, but we follow. Yeah. Yeah. First. Sure, go ahead. Speaker 5: So Paul Lawrence 79 Park Ave. So I, I received this notification, put in, in the calendar, was coming down to the meeting to find, it had been canceled because of somebody's screw up. And we got this one saying, this is, this is your chance to come down. And this is either from Dini or Sarnov, basically said this is the
venue that you're gonna come down to. Okay. So if it, if it, the plan has already been sort of submitted, agreed to, and we had as butters no chance to say No, Speaker 1: No, no. You okay. I I may not be making myself clear. Why are we here tonight? We're, we're here because the building commissioner want ask the board to make a determination regarding the use, right? Is it a single family? Is it a two family? Is it a lawful pre-existing, non-conforming use as a two family? And all the information that we have so far in this hearing suggests that it, it is been used
as a two family prior to it becoming a single family district. Therefore it would be a pre-existing non-conforming use. And that we would eventually talk about it and eventually vote and confirm its use. All this dimensional stuff that we're talking about and that are your concerns. That was never before this board. And in the normal course of the i I described the process, the builder does the plans, brings 'em to the building department. The building department looks at 'em, determines whether they do or don't comply with the zoning code. You never have an opportunity, you're not involved in that process.
You're only involved in the process if as a result of that review at the building commissioner level, there's a denial and the developer appeals the denial to this board, the zoning board of appeals. So then, and if you stick around, you're gonna see every other one besides this one is gonna fall right into the kind of thing that you were looking for tonight. It's dimensional issues, dimensional nonconformities. This board will then look at plans and dimensions and heights and all that stuff
and listen to people talk about the things that you want to express. That would be the proper time on those kinds of projects. So you'd be in the right place to discuss the things you want to talk about. If those things were the reason that this project is before this board, which it's not, is that not clear? Well Speaker 5: Is it isn't clear that we got these things saying, come here about Speaker 1: You can come here, you're Speaker 5: And speak to it. Yeah. And then be told it doesn't matter. Speaker 1: No, no, no, no. Let's, let's be clear, let's, let's be clear, it's before this board tonight.
I, I read it. It's number one on the list. It's on the agenda. It was advertised in the newspaper. Cards went out. You're welcome to come. You are just mistaken about the relief you believed this project was obtaining tonight. And this is what was published in the newspaper. It said in so many words that it's a request for confirmation of a legal preexisting two-family dwelling located on the subject parcel. It didn't say it's here for a section six finding, it didn't say it's here for a variance. It didn't say it was here for a special permit. So I think you made an assumption about the kind of hearing
that was gonna occur. Speaker 5: I did not make an assumption. I I you must have give information from the town. Okay. Offices. Alright, sorry. Speaker 1: Well then for, for, for that, there was a mistake in communication and Speaker 5: Multiple mistakes in communication. Alright? In fact, it didn't go out and that's the board's fault. Alright, Speaker 1: Well it's not, it's not the board's fault. It's the board doesn't take care of notice, but well, it Speaker 5: Ultimately rests with you guys making sure that the, it Speaker 1: Doesn't, it doesn't at all actually. 'cause we never touch it. We, we don't have jurisdiction to touch it. It happens in an administrative office in the town and they do a great job. And in my experience, and I've been doing this for 15 years, never once
has someone raised the issue of notice. Not once. So, but there's a, I'm not suggesting that you're not telling the truth, but everyone's here and everyone's here. And so they're having an opportunity to say what it is. They will say and, and we're willing to listen, but we can, we, we, we, we we're stuck. You know, we, we can only do, we, we can only do what the, the law will allow. Speaker 5: Imagine the frustration of the residents, which are having to have a 9,000 square foot building go up in a place that the largest building is 3,200 feet. Speaker 1: Your beef is with the zoning code.
It's with the town meeting who voted in this code, right? There's a dimensional table in here that says, in this district, your lot size has to be this big. It is in this district. You can't build this close to the sidelines. It's compliant, it's dimensionally compliant. There's buildings going up all over natick all, all day every day that we don't know anything about. Why? Because they comply with the requirements of the code. The only reason you come before this board is if it doesn't and you appeal this one is the,
the outlier because it's not a dimensional issue. It's a use issue. So again, you might have thought that dimension was, was a part of this process today. I don't know where that information came from. I don't think it's, it, it, it, it's probably a reasonable assumption to make. It just was wrong. Speaker 11: Dave, can I make an observation? Please? This is new to me too. This particular kind of process. Am I, would it be helpful to say that it it, the public notice that went out to folks within 300 feet,
it went out because it's possible that you know something about the use of the house for the past, let's say 30 years. And so that's why you get the postcards or you're supposed to get the note cards is because you could speak to whether or not it has truly been used as a two-family. And am I correct that that's the reason they get the notification? Speaker 1: Anytime any project comes before this board, the notice goes out. Speaker 11: But I mean that Right. I'm talking about the point of notifying folks permit
Speaker 1: A use confirmation, it doesn't matter. Whatever, any project that comes before this board, it's published and notices go out. They, the, the, the cards maybe aren't as explicit as they need to be or as people might otherwise want them to be. But request for a confirmation of a legal preexisting two-family dwelling located on the subject parcel suggests that it is about use, which it is, as I said. Yes sir. Sorry, Speaker 7: A a follow up then just discussing with my wife,
because my wife's grandparents have lived in the area since the thirties. I believe that's the 1930s. So there's quite a long history there. And my understanding is that basically for a a, a good chunk of the house's existence, it was a single family. And then at some point the family that was there basically decided to just rent out I, I think just a, a, a few rooms from the house. Speaker 1: Does it have two kitchens? Speaker 4: It does. It does, it has two separate entrances actually. It has two means
of ignorance for each side. Yeah. Speaker 1: So it's, it it's been taxed as a two family, it's assessed as a two family for years. So sort of saying that some point in the past it might have been a single family is probably not reliable evidence that would suggest that it's not a two-family. Speaker 8: If it was received a variance somehow in the past for whatever reason, and then it was not used as a two-family for the last two years, would it then lose its right to be a two family? Speaker 1: Well that, those are not the facts before us.
Speaker 8: No, I understand. I'm just, if, if helping people understand the process Yeah, Speaker 1: If the, the, the law says that if there's an abandonment of a non-conforming use, then you lose that non-conforming use. So there, there could be like a gas station in a, in a residential area that's operated since the twenties and then, you know, hard times fall upon the owner and he ceases the use as a, as a gas station for five years and then all of a sudden wants to sell it to somebody to, to another service station operator that would have lost its lawful nonconforming status
because of the abandonment of the nonconforming use. Speaker 8: And if I'm not mistaken, I believe it is the onus of the owner to prove it was still in use. Not on the Speaker 1: That's right. But plaintiffs, all the evidence that we have before us tonight, particularly with regard to the, the assessor's records and the way it's listed with the town and has been listed with the town as a two family for years, suggests that the two family use is in fact what it is. Speaker 8: But I, I guess my point being is this is a highly
technical legal situation that might require creativity beyond, we certainly can't do anything about it, but if somebody out there wanted to do something about it, they need to find some creative help to navigate the bylaws and et cetera, et cetera. Nothing we can do. Speaker 1: Anybody else wish to be heard? Come on up. Speaker 12: Thank you. Speaker 13: I am Robert Burns. I'm at 84 Park Avenue. I just want it on the record. I know we, you kind of beat it with a dead horse beating a dead horse here. But the notification procedures, I think that needs
to be looked at because we, we live right next door to the property. We have not received anything, no notification. So I would just like to put that in on the record saying that I think somebody should look at that notification procedure and do something about that. Speaker 1: Good enough. Alright, we hear you loud and clear on that. We'll just take it to the administrators and make sure that notices go out, which we believe they did in this case twice. Anybody else wish to be heard? Okay. With that we'll close the hearing. And do we have any discussion here? Anybody wish to
Speaker 12: Heard? I just have a question. Why do we and why do we even have to formally approve this? Speaker 1: I, I, yeah, that's my question. My, my sense is that more Speaker 12: Curiosity than Yeah, yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. Matters. Yeah. My sense here is that the building commissioner wanted the board of appeals to hear it and confirm this two family use because I think the building commissioner knew that there was some concern in the neighborhood. Speaker 12: Okay. And then as a, in, in the documents we have, it says this,
the existing structure has been verified by the building department to be a lawful, preexisting to family dwelling. Is that Speaker 1: Well we vote is Speaker 12: I'm seeking legal advice from a lawyer here. The Speaker 1: Vote. The vote is confirming, yeah, confirming, confirming the building commissioner's determination that it's been a two family and, and, and I'm gonna let Jason come up with a motion, but if it were me, it would be particularly a testimony of the, the, that it has two kitchens,
two egresses and that it's been assessed for, you know, an extensive period of time as a two family and listed with the town as a two family. Yeah, it's in the assessor's databases. A two family. Yeah. Okay. So with that, the hearing's closed and Jason, oh by the way, it, it's gonna be, oh you're not gonna like this but, oh yeah, no, actually Jeff is conflicted out on two, no, not this one. No, on, on two on two tonight. Yeah. So unless otherwise informed, it's gonna be David, Jason, Jeff, Rob, and Gail. Got it. Okay. Sorry, can you repeat that? Oh, David, Jason, Jeff, Rob and Gail.
And, and and you know what, you can do that for each one except for 40 Morse, which is gonna be, instead of Jeff it's gonna be Ari and also on Speaker 11: Avon. Speaker 1: To Avon. Yeah, to, to Avon. It's gonna be not Jeff but Ari. Speaker 2: Woohoo. Speaker 1: Otherwise it's the first five. Alright. Alright. Jason, if you would, Speaker 14: I would move that the board. Let's see what the building department said
To receive acknowledgement. So the building commissioner is asking for our acknowledgement confirming that it's a two family. So I would move that we do in fact confirm that the subject property is currently and has been in recent history. We don't know how far back has been used as a two family dwelling based on the evidence we've received tonight, including the town assessor's card indicating that it is a two family evidence that it has been taxed
as a two family structure and testimony from the applicant. That it is a two family structure, that it is, that it has separate entrances for each unit and Speaker 1: Two kitchens Speaker 14: And sep separate kit. Oh two two kitchens in, in the structure. Speaker 1: Second. Second, Jeff. All all those in favor. 1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 1. Speaker 11: I'm actually, I'd like to abstain as opposed to vote against on the grounds that I have not actually seen what I would consider to be sufficient evidence
to vote in favor. You Speaker 1: Abstaining? Speaker 11: I'm abstaining. Okay, Speaker 1: So we don't need any testimony on the abstention. It's four. I do to none. Four. Just four in favor. Four. Four out of four is what it is. Okay, so you're all set. Thank you. The next matter is 40 Moore Street. The applicant is Chris Cap request for a section six finding for the demolition of the existing two-family dwelling and construction of a new two-family dwelling on the non nonconforming lot. Yes. Okay. Howdy. Speaker 15: How you doing Speaker 1: It? Good. You
Speaker 15: Pretty good? Okay. Speaker 1: This is 40 Morris and of renters going get only the owner of record. Oh, one of those guys was a renter. Oh yeah, yeah. Right. Okay. Good enough. That's, I should have said that. Okay, so new new documents have come in, right? Speaker 15: Yeah, so I, I can tell you what I improved. Yep. So after the last meeting, I, you know, I redesigned the house. We, I removed the, the complete walkup third floor. So this allowed me to, you know,
I decreased the overall height of the building from, from 34 to 30 feet. The main ridge line went down another two feet kind of to soften the whole facade there. The large, the gable ends, we removed those. So it, I think it drastically decreased, you know, the overall volume and, and the mass of the house was, which was part of the, the opposition before. Speaker 1: Alright. Did you put in a new, you didn't put in a new zoning chart, Speaker 15: Did you? Yeah, I did. At the very end it says revised zoning chart Speaker 3: So there was something wrong with the printer and so there were two doc,
so there was four documents uploaded. And so if you have, if you could just look on with Jeff or Jason Yeah, sure, sure, sure. The site plans printed out but the zoning table did not print out and the, like the architectural plans did not print out. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 15: I have them here if you need 'em. Yeah, Speaker 1: We might as well if you could. Speaker 3: They're uploaded if you looked at it online, it's just, they would not physically Speaker 15: We'll bring. So the only difference on the zoning chart went from 34 feet and height to 30. Is Speaker 1: That the only thing that's Speaker 15: Changed? Yes. On the zoning chart? Correct. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 1: And these, so just real quick here that it was a lot area, right? I think that's the statement I'm looking at. 30.2 is the new height 0.2, Speaker 15: 30.2, correct. Speaker 1: 29 7 12 7. Yeah. Okay. Right. So then, okay, you were making the east setback conforming, you were making the west setback, conforming and the to two fronts were non-conforming but you were making them more conforming. Yeah. And the lot is, is short. Okay. Alright.
So, and did you have any conversations with the neighbors about it? Have you Speaker 15: Spoke? Yeah, I spoke to the neighbors. I just want to add one more note before we we get to the neighbors. Yeah. But I just wanna note that the, the impervious area, the existing impervious area is about 4,000 square feet and the new proposed impervious area is 2,800. So there was a net decrease of 1200 square feet. Speaker 1: How did that happen? Speaker 15: Well, it was mostly driveway. There's two driveways we removed, like,
you know, I mean it's, it's spread out. Oh, I see. Speaker 1: So Speaker 15: Yeah, so it's, it's right in there. Impervious area in impervious driveways. Got it. Old ones, patios, all the stuff. They have the garage, two driveways. That's the Speaker 1: Old one. Yeah. Speaker 15: Portion. So I revisited with the historical com commission too on the, Speaker 1: I'm sorry, say it again. Say that part Speaker 15: I didn't even hear. I revisited with the historical commission. Yeah. And they approved the, the new design. Do wanna figure out Speaker 14: What's new. Speaker 15: So I can give you a little quick little visual here of, of before and after. Sure. Speaker 1: Yep. Speaker 14: Shot got rid of the windows upstairs. Speaker 11: Is that in the portal? Correct. The comparison? Yes.
Speaker 14: Which ones? Well the window's up there. Oh but it used to over here. Sorry Speaker 1: About that. Speaker 14: Right. The extension. Yeah. Yep. Speaker 1: Okay. So yeah, this is old and new, right? I see This is all dropped 'cause it would look weird. Too many Speaker 14: Old. We don't need them if you're not gonna be walking upstairs either. Alright, go back again. Speaker 1: Well let's find out, let's find out what the neighbors think. And anybody here to discuss 40 Moore Street, smaller too. Come on out. Speaker 14: Want to zoom in? Speaker 1: Just your name and address for the record. Speaker 16: I'm Jenna Levin. I live at 42 Moore Street,
which is directly across the project and I'm totally, my husband and I both are in favor of this project. We think it's a great idea. We think it will help our neighborhood. We think it's a really nice structure that Chris has designed and whatever we need to do to. Okay. It we're we, we agree. Speaker 14: I think you're doing that right now. Appreciate Speaker 15: It. Speaker 1: Thank you. I saw two hands go off. Did you? Yeah, yeah. Come on. Just your name and address for the record. Speaker 17: Sure. I'm Morgan McDonald
and my husband is Steven Darville. We live at five Chester Street, which is directly behind 42 Morrise and across from 40 Morrise. And we're supportive of it as well. Speaker 1: Okay, thanks very much. Anybody else wish to be heard? Well look at that. Huh? Speaker 15: We had the previous neighbor from the other meeting. Larry. Larry, that's still document, I mean that's still Larry Speaker 14: Forner. Yeah. Larry Forner spoke in Speaker 1: Favor. Oh, favor, favor, favor. Right, right now. Yeah. I, no, I remember still on the record. Yeah, he he built his house. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker 18: I know. I can't speak on behalf of 'em if they're not here, but I did talk to the neighbors across at 37 A and B
and they also were like, Woohoo, something new. They were excited. They live in two new townhouses side by side also. Speaker 1: Great across from me. Great, great. Well for, for me it's not really a close call. I voted in favor. I would've voted in favor over the last time it was here. There's, there wasn't then. And there remains no opposition on the record. And now we have 1, 2, 3 separate people who live directly in the, in the neighborhood. Abutting and or across the street are adjacent to the, to the property. Voting in favor. Oh, sorry.
Supporting the project as, as redeveloped. So that my, my opinion hasn't changed since you Yes, I have one question. Yeah. Speaker 11: Can you please come to the microphone? Yeah, it needs to be in the recording. Sorry. Sorry, Speaker 16: Sorry. Jen. 1142 more street. Morgan and I were just chalk chatting briefly. We weren't here at the first time when Larry approved it. But how come the third floor attic is not allowed? Speaker 1: It's not that, it's that in so many words, what this board is tasked with doing for this type of project is determining whether what's going to be built,
what's proposed is or is not substantially more detrimental than what's there today. And it's a subjective determination. And there's five voting members, there's 3, 4, 6 people who have an opportunity to ask questions and weigh in on it. Five would vote. We took like basically a straw poll and at that time it was, was it two, two to three? I think it was two in favor in the straw poll. And I think three opposed. It wasn't gonna, it wasn't gonna be,
it wasn't gonna be approved as then currently constituted because the board made a determination. It is their job to do of whether it in fact it was or was not substantially more detrimental. I thought it wasn't, but others thought it was. And so rather than vote it down and have to make the applicant re advertise and et cetera, we give an opportunity to have it continued to today and see if he could satisfy the folks on the board as to whether it was or was not tention board detrimental.
That question has not been answered by the people who were opposed with the last time. So that's where we're about to go. Speaker 16: Okay. Speaker 1: Yeah. So Rob, you were one of 'em. I was. I was. And how do you feel about what's coming back? Speaker 8: It's a significant improvement. Dropping it by four feet was, you know, significant and reducing the impervious area is also welcome and yeah. Thank you. Speaker 1: So that's one, two. Jason, did you wanna say anything? Two good. I mean I three I could go on, Speaker 12: I'm out. But I just wanted to add, I think removal of the gables helps for the people on either side to bring
that massing down so it's kind of Yeah. Shrunk in a little bit. Even though I'm not a voting member on this one. I still have, I still have opinions. I agree. Speaker 1: Ari, Speaker 19: I was gonna say, it sounds like you really did take the advice of the board to heart and incorporate that I think in a meaningful way. And I think also hearing from the additional abutters and neighbors also certainly helped as well to hear additional commentaries. Oh yeah. Gail, good job. Speaker 11: Hi. Yes, I'm, I'm glad to see that it's shorter than it was. I was surprised to see that the floor area, which is required on the checklist is still,
it was still not there when I checked yesterday and today. Can you tell me why that is? Speaker 15: Which, I mean I've never filled that out in any of of the meetings. Are you talking It's Speaker 11: Required for all projects, Speaker 15: The existing building floor area. We're gonna change that. Yeah, i, I, I Speaker 3: Gonna change that. So gross floor area is not required for residential is only required for commercial Speaker 11: And the checklist says it is, Speaker 3: It doesn't matter because that is only for commercial. Yeah, we, we should, so Speaker 11: We move wrong then It's wrong. We will, it's been wrong for a long time. Speaker 3: I am working on taking those things off and updating Speaker 11: Them.
Okay, well that, I'm glad to have that information. Speaker 3: Yeah, so we are updating those to reduce any confusion. Speaker 11: Okay. So have you spoken with the abutter whose tree is going to be affected? Because it's right, it's either on the lot line or next to it on the east side. Speaker 15: Is that the rear? I Speaker 11: You probably would call it the rear. It's kind of confusing 'cause it's a corner lot right to Speaker 15: I reached out to him, you know, but he, he lives somewhere else so he rents those two units out. So no, I haven't spoken with him
Speaker 11: And the, the neighbor. Okay. So can you tell me how close the excavation is going to be to that tree's roots? 'cause it looks as if you're gonna have to excavate into the root system of the neighbor's tree. Speaker 15: So we, we excavate four feet beyond and then I, I don't have a location exactly of where the tree is, but Speaker 11: Well when you look at the lot you can see it. We'll Speaker 15: Have to consult the a It's a big Speaker 11: Tree. Speaker 15: Yeah, we'll consult an arborist and see, you know, if we're gonna damage the roots then you know, something will have to be done. Speaker 11: I mean it typically happens and trees usually recover from having their roots damaged.
Yeah. But when you put in a new foundation wall, then they can't grow back into the soil where they used to be. And that's where it starts to endanger that tree. It can become a toppling hazard. Speaker 15: Sure, sure. No it's fine. Yeah, I'll have to look into it. Can I, Speaker 16: The tree I believe you're talking about when you're staring at Moore Street at the house is behind the house, that tree is pretty dead. It's like, should be looked at anyway by an arborist and it's falling a ton into our neighbors that's selling to him the backyard.
So I don't think that should, I mean I'm all for trees but I don't think that tree is a consideration just so you know that it's, I think it's already Yeah, I saw it when the leaves were still on. Yeah, I think it has problems just so you know. Speaker 1: Okay, thanks very much. Okay, with that we will close the public hearing and Jason, why don't we have a motion? Speaker 14: Motion. I would move that we approve the project based on a 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 the plan submitted and any requirements from other town departments
who submitted letters to the board tonight. Speaker 1: Second. Second is Ari and all those in favor is 1, 2, 3, 4. And all those opposed one. You're all set. Good luck. Just one question. Yeah. Is 40 Speaker 8: Morris is gonna be the side of the house? Are you gonna change the address to, Speaker 15: Yeah, so I have to talk to Dave and the fire department and figure out the addresses. Yep. Speaker 1: Okay. The next project is 15 Pitt Street. It's 15 Pitt Street, LLC. It's a request for section six, finding for the demolition of existing garage and the construction of a new garage
and addition on a preexisting non deporting lot or structure. Hi there. Hi. How are you? How you doing? Great, thank you. Okay, let me just take a quick peek here and see where we're at. Okay, so the lot's small, not changing the frontage is good. Depth is no good, but not changing the front is non-conforming but will will increase but remain non-conforming. The side west is non-conforming but will will become conforming. Same with the other side. The rear, oh it's a corner.
So two fronts and two sides. So let's see what's the other front look like? I have one front, let's see, Speaker 8: I don't think it changes. Speaker 1: No, let's see. Okay, so Pits and Nelson, right? Yeah. So the two fronts are Pitts and Nelson and you gave us 12, nine and the other's 16, six, right? Is that right? 16.6 And the proposed is, oh no, no, I'm sorry.
That is 19 nine. Okay. Yeah, 19 nine and the other one is, doesn't change. Okay. 19 nine and 12.9. And that's good. So now we have the coverage. Is conforming the height? Do we have the the height in feet? I have an average of 28 feet. 28. And is this 20? What's the th is it 30 here? Do we know? I believe it's 35. 35.
Let's, let's just double check that so we get a good number. This is RSA, Speaker 8: I think it might be RG actually Speaker 1: What is it? I have a chart here if you'd like it. Oh yeah, if you could that me see me fine to get in rg, thanks very much. Think so. Speaker 14: Hit street Speaker 8: Airplane says I wanna say I. Speaker 1: Okay. Is Speaker 8: It far enough away? Speaker 1: 35. Right? So 35 and it's 28. Okay. And alright, good enough. So you're putting an addition on the back of the house Speaker 12: And removing the existing Speaker 1: Garage. And removing the existing garage. Right. Okay.
So let's go outta order here for a minute and find out if anybody's here to talk about 15 Pitt Street. Anybody here on 15 Pitts? Okay. As anticipated, anybody here on the board have questions about this project? Hearing none or Speaker 11: Actually just a minor one. It from looking at the drawings, it looks like the tree that's in your backyard will probably not be affected. You're not gonna have to remove it. Right? Speaker 1: That's on the far corner. Speaker 11: Yeah, that's what I thought. I just wanted to confirm that. And you're not doing any excavation beyond the necessary
underneath the new garage, right? Speaker 1: Exactly. Yep. Speaker 11: Great, thanks. Speaker 1: Okay, anybody else have anything? Are you Speaker 8: Changing the roof lines at all on the main Speaker 1: Structure? No, Speaker 12: I had the same question. I think it looks squirrelly when you look at the different elevations because of the grade change. Yeah. Yeah. And I had to look at that twice. The garage sits a floor lower. Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah it does. Yeah. Half a floor. Yeah, it's nice addition. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay, so with that we'll close it. And Jason, if you would, Speaker 14: 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 nonconform use and structure provided it's built and substantial performance with the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments. Who submitted the letters to the board tonight? Speaker 1: Second. Speaker 12: I'll second Speaker 1: Is Jeff. And again, it's the front, your honors front five. All those in favor? All those? No, that's five. Okay. So you're all set. That's great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. You bet. The next matter is 19 Porter Road, CG P two Realty trust. A request for section six finding for the demolition of an existing one.
Family dwelling in construction of a new one. Family dwelling on a preexisting non-conforming lot. Counsel, Speaker 20: Good evening. How Speaker 1: Are you? Speaker 20: Very good. How are you? Good. Good. Speaker 1: Okay, lemme just take a peek. The lot's good. The frontage is not, depth is good. Fronts good, bad by a whisker side on but will become conforming. Same with the other side. Fear, conforming to good height. Good frontage. You're in the A A RD, you see that?
Speaker 20: Sorry. Speaker 1: Aquifer recharge. You're in the aquifer recharge district, you see that? Speaker 20: Yes. Okay. And just for edification, the conservation commission met Thursday and did approve A NLI for the project. Speaker 1: Okay. Oh I see. I can see it here. Yeah. Great. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: Deep lot, huh? Okay. So, oh, I see the recharge area right there. All right, we'll go outta order again on this one. Anybody here on 19 Porter Road seeing no one? Okay. Board questions, comments, thoughts, concerns?
Speaker 11: I have a question. Sure. So on November 12th, the board of health said that the estimated seasonal high groundwater is two and a half feet in the front of the property. Now I understand that of course when you're putting in a Caltech device and filtration unit that takes care of the runoff from the roof, the roofs. But that, given that the minimum clearance from groundwater is two feet, I mean it wasn't clear to me when I was looking at the drawings.
Are you putting in a basement at all? Speaker 20: No, it's a slab on grade. Speaker 11: So the whole project is on a slab. Okay. That's good to know. Yep. Also, oh, this is just totally aside. Are I smelled a gas leak when I was there yesterday? Or are you aware of this? There's something in, it may not be your property, but I just wanna put it out there. It smells like gas. Check it out. Yeah, yeah. Seriously Does tomorrow it was pretty strong that you'd wanna know. Nobody wants big boom have
Speaker 21: Down, it'd be okay. Speaker 14: Yeah, demos done. Speaker 11: Yeah. Yeah. Demolition taken care of. Many lives were lost. Speaker 21: I'll check it out tomorrow though. Speaker 11: Okay. Also, I am looking at the total square footage and it looks as if I, or the, I'm sorry, the gross floor area, it looks like it's over 5,000 square feet. Speaker 20: Well first of all, I apologize, I did not put it on the zoning chart, but the existing floor area is 1,196 square feet and the proposed is 3,964.
Speaker 11: If you're including used, oh wait, wait, wait. That's right. You just said there's no basement, nevermind. Yep, Speaker 20: There we go. Because, Speaker 11: Yep, that makes a big difference. Okay. Neighbors trees are overhanging the lot, quite a bit on the right hand side. I'm wondering if there are gonna be overhanging limbs. It appears that you'll have to remove limbs. Have you spoken with that neighbor about this? Speaker 21: No, we haven't. I actually got a list to conservation the other day. I think there's only four trees that we plan on taking down
anything that's on a neighbor's property once it's laid Speaker 11: Out. Oh yeah, I understand that. Yeah. That's a separate matter though from, you know, having a conversation. Yep. And the, have you, have you actually heard from them how, how they feel about this height going in next to their, their homes? 'cause it's going to loom quite a bit. Yeah, Speaker 21: We haven't heard anything from them. Speaker 11: And you haven't approached them? Speaker 21: No. No. Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, anybody else? Comments? Thoughts? Questions? No. Okay. Close public hearing and Jason, if you would,
Speaker 14: I will move that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming use and structure provided it's built and substantial conformance with the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submitted letters to the board. Speaker 1: Second. I second Jeff. All those in favor? And all those opposed four to one. You're all set. Perfect. Speaker 21: Thank you. Thanks Speaker 20: Very much. You guys have a wonderful Thanksgiving. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Speaker 1: Next matter is to Avon Street. Jeff is not on this one. The applicant is Nicholas Tro Janowski. A request for a section six finding for the construction
of an open air front porch on a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Alright, it's front yard setback. How are you? Speaker 22: Good, how are you? Speaker 1: Good. Just so we get your name for the record. Speaker 22: Nicholas TRO Janowski to Avon Street. Speaker 1: Let me just take a, a look here for a second. So the lot's small, the front is good. Depth is short, non-conforming front will become slightly more non-conforming. The side's good. The other side's good. The rear iss good. I know the rears not good, but not changing. Oh, you on a corner? Yes. Okay. Small. So two fronts again.
Let's see, let's double check that. Okay, so Avon, that's the assisting. Speaker 2: Okay, let's see. Speaker 1: Front and front. You got, I hate, Speaker 2: Don't put the fricking Speaker 1: 16 four. Speaker 2: You're looking at Speaker 1: What's the, what's the Speaker 2: It's Speaker 1: 12 M 1, 12 4. I don't see, does anyone see the 16 four? So Speaker 22: This, the 16 four is Speaker 1: To the front, but I don't see it on the plan.
Speaker 2: Oh, Speaker 1: Am I looking at the wrong plan? 17 four? Speaker 22: No, it looks like, yeah, it looks like there's a math error. It's 17 four. 17 four and Speaker 1: Then, okay, so, so Speaker 22: 17, I think it should be 13 four on the proposed plans to the, to the porch. It's gonna be about Speaker 1: 12, 12 4. Speaker 19: I see 17 four for the Speaker 1: Frontage. I see 12 four I think there on the proposed. And then lemme just see the other front though. Are these scalable? Speaker 22: This should be, Speaker 1: Let's see. Okay. But it's not changing. It's not, that's not changing.
Yeah. Right. Okay. So it really doesn't make a difference. Okay, so the, Speaker 19: You share the existing plot plan at the bottom that has a 17th floor Speaker 1: Is the frontage, that one I see. Okay. That, that one. I see. Yeah. So we're good, we're good there. And the other one, the other front on Moore Street is not changing. Speaker 22: Correct. Speaker 1: So it's, it's okay. Building height. And did we know what, okay, your proposed porch is not taller than the existing structure? Speaker 22: No. Speaker 1: Okay, so then the building height is okay
and the coverage is going up a bit. Alright, let's take Speaker 2: A look. Speaker 1: So you're just putting on this Speaker 22: Yeah, we're, we're replacing the existing steps with different set of steps that are gonna be in better shape and then putting a little roof Speaker 1: Over. It's just this little piece out in front, right? Yeah, yeah. Okay. Alright. Let's see. Is anybody here on two Avon Street? Okay. Not unexpected. Does anybody here have any questions of two open air, front porch, correct? Speaker 2: I Speaker 1: Don't even think, do you see this? Speaker 2: No, I do now take a look. It's okay. Yeah, it looks good.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And here's what it looks like today. Speaker 2: Oh, it looks much better possible. There's no question It's not a curb appeal. Speaker 22: Yeah, it's like a house faced without a nose right now. Speaker 1: Okay, so you live in the sphinx? Yeah, Speaker 2: Pretty much. Speaker 1: Okay, so that's it. No questions. Let's go ahead and close the public hearing and, and Jason, if you would, Speaker 14: I would move that we approve the project based on finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the pre-existing non-conforming use and structure provided disability and substantial performance of the plan submitted and any requirements from the town departments who submitted letters to the board. Speaker 1: Second. Second. A. All those in favor? Okay. That's five.
Oh, you're all set. Great. Speaker 22: Thank you Speaker 2: For your time. Speaker 1: Next matter up is 12 Hemlock Drive. The applicant is Bruce n and Eva m Willens. It's a request for a variance, a dimensional side yard setback for the construction of an addition on the west side of the existing one. Family dwelling on a pre-existing non-conforming lot. Hi. Hi. Hi. How are you doing? Speaker 2: Good, how are you? Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, so yours is gonna be different than everything you've seen so far from the first one and different from every other one that's come that you've seen.
You're getting relief that's different in kind than what you saw before. You, okay, yours is more complicated. Instead of making a determination whether it's substantially more detrimental, we, we have to make statutory findings as follows. One, one that there's something unusual about your, we're gonna hear from Jason and then I'll say it in English. Speaker 14: I will read from 40 a section 10 variances. We have the power to hear
and decide a grant, an appeal upon petition with respect to land or structures where such permit granting authority specifically finds that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures, and especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it's located. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial, or otherwise to the petitioner or appellant. And that desirable relief may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially interrogating from the intent or purpose of such bylaw. Speaker 1: Okay. So you familiar with those environments? Have you heard those before? I, Speaker 14: I, I didn't hear. Not in Speaker 1: Those words. No, no. Sola over. So for first, let, let's find out, is anybody here on 12 Hemlock? Okay. Alright, we're gonna in favor or opposed? I'm the architect. Hello. And you in favor? You with a in favor? Favor. Alright. Alright, so
let me explain something to you and then you can take that and extrapolate from it for a moment. Let me, let me just look. Here it is as to the side, the west side setback, right? Yes. So this is, this is an addition you're putting, is it an addition? It it's a garage that's close to the left, the left side, right? Correct. Okay. And okay, so here's the way I describe it for people. If you have a square lot
and the whole rear of the lot is ledge, normally you'd drop the house sort of right in the middle of the lot, maybe slightly forward, but the ledge is there so you can't put it there. You could, but you'd have to bring in dynamite maybe, and blast. And that's very expensive and a lot of headaches. So instead you wanna just sneak the house forward, just a hair, and you run into the front setback, right? So it's, there's something on the lot that's unusual. In this case, it was a topographical or, or it could be geological, right? So, so the, the ledge, right? That's what made it unique.
And the whole neighborhood doesn't have ledge. You have ledge. So it's unique to you. It's this unique thing about the lot. It could be the shape, it could be the topography, it could be subsurface conditions. And as a result, you can't put the house where you normally would. And you need to vary the code to accommodate your project. And it's the minimal that's necessary to make, you know, reasonable use of the land. And it doesn't result in substantial detriment or, or a derogation from the, the public good or from the intent and purpose of the zoning code. Now with that in mind, right, you kind of have
to make an analogy about how something associated with the shape, topography or soil conditions of the, of the, the way the statute reads is the, the lot or structure such that you have to go into that setback. You follow? And so with that as the backdrop, do you think you could come up with it on the fly or do you want to take a moment to discuss it with, with that as the backdrop, we could kick it back and you could get together with the architect
and see if you could formulate something. This is why, to be perfectly frank, I'm giving you an opportunity to, to come up with an argument, right? To fit these statutory criteria. It's not subjective, it's not, it looks good and there's nobody opposed to it, like all those other ones we saw tonight, right? Those were different standard. This is, this standard is a statutory standard. We need to check these boxes, right? So the lot is kind of a regular shape, right? It's not that, is it the soil conditions? I don't know.
That's up to you to tell me. But the way the statute reads is that, and I don't know how exactly this works legally shape topography or soil conditions of the lot or structure. Okay, so we good? Speaker 14: I think so, and I think because we were, we were new to the process, so we were on the fence on to topography or what it was. But I think our, our case is that it's dimensional
because we have a swimming pool in the back. We can't put anything to the right. The only place that we can is to the left. So I don't know if that's a, Speaker 1: So maybe that's, again, again, Jason knows that, that, that the statute reads shape, soil conditions, shape topography or soil conditions of the lot or structure. So I think what, what I'm hearing tonight is that your structure is unique. That the shape of your structure is such that, that it, it is unique. You have the sewing pool essentially makes this lot un it cannot be changed without a minimal variance
into, into the side yard. It's the only place left. Speaker 14: Correct. Okay. Speaker 1: That doesn't sound unreasonable. And it will not result, I, I take it you don't think it will result in, in, in some sort of detriment to the neighborhood. Speaker 23: In fact, we, we have, I don't, I believe you were submitted with some approval of letters from our abutters, including the person who owns the home to the left of us that would be most impacted by this. And he actually came over yesterday. He lives, he owns the, the home
and lives in our neighborhood a few streets over. So technically a neighbor. Okay, Speaker 1: I see that we have all these letters Speaker 23: Of support. Yes. And he came over and, and Bruce walked the area with him. Sure. We mentioned that we were going to put a new fence structure along, you know, both our properties and that we were going to take how many feet, Bruce, of the asphalt out, because right now that whole side of the house is a driveway. It's huge. It's at like a double driveway
and it's all asphalt and it's ugly. And so we would like to take a good portion of that right next to the west side of the garage that would be built and put up probably, I'm gonna put, I'm gonna guess 10 to 12 foot maybe varieties or variet or something, make it more green there and which would aesthetically be pleasing to both of us. And he really liked that and so do we. So, okay. Speaker 1: Alright. Speaker 14: Can I make one comment too? Of course.
I can't say enough about Amanda, what, what she's helped us with. Yeah, she was very helpful because we were pretty, because Speaker 23: We, Speaker 14: Maybe not ignorant, but on the process, but Amanda's really been Speaker 23: Yeah, helpful. Speaker 1: Well, thanks for saying that. We appreciate it and we second that, that sentiment, so, okay. And I think I get it. And for me, I think you can string it together in a way that that satisfies the, the, the elements of, of the, of the statute. But I'm only one vote. So let's see. It's the front five again, right? You're back on this one?
Yes, sir. Okay, so we'll start over here. Rob, you, you've seen enough. I'm, I'm okay, Jason. Speaker 14: I don't prefer variances. I have a hard time figuring out the substantial detriment here. And you know, it was, it was a, it has a house on it already. It was built in conformance with zoning at the time. Zoning has changed. Now it's a non-conforming lot. But nonetheless, the, the structure conforms, which is great, but to create a new non-conformity, I have a, I have a hard time getting over that.
Speaker 1: Okay, Jeff, Speaker 12: I think I can get there, especially with, there's no other place to put it, especially even in back where you could flip a garage. Yeah. Speaker 1: Pool. That's where I was, Speaker 12: Even though it's not ideal to put a garage in the back, but I still, that's allows me to get there and it's a decent Speaker 1: Project. Sure. Ari. Speaker 19: Yeah. You know, I would say, I'm, were I voting on this? I would probably, Speaker 8: I would, would I I could get there. Yeah. Gail? Speaker 11: So I was struck by how long this garage is. It's 41 feet deep, So that's like two
and a half car lengths if we're a variance. I, I mean, I feel kind of like Jason does if, if we give a variance for a project like this, I mean, and I hear that you have support from neighbors, which is great. It's much better than the opposite. But I, I'm, it does raise the question of if we let you guys have this particular variance for something that is not, you know, actually a hardship, what don't we have to, again, I mean, variances are, there's a higher bar, right?
You have to have four out of five votes for a reason. I'm, I'm sort of struggling with why you need to reduce the setback by a third to put in a 41, because this is not just eight feet into the setback, it's eight feet for 41 feet deep. That's a big intrusion overall. Speaker 14: And, and it's, and it's actually what you were saying. So the reason, the length is because of, we are trying to back both our vehicles in or pull 'em both in the garage and hence that's the length.
And also we're trying, we have two sheds on the property. We want to get rid of one shed to be able to put our, our riding lawnmower, a snowblower and, and whatnot in the garage. So that's why we're, you know, that why we're asking for relief Speaker 8: Question. Okay, Speaker 23: Go ahead. Speaker 8: Any reason why you couldn't shave a couple of feet off either side and then knew you wouldn't even be here? Speaker 23: So, you know, we've lived in our home for 48 years and as, and we just recently both retired full time.
So we, and we're naturally planners, so we are thinking about, you know, what's to come and we really wanna put both our vehicles in the garage and be able to have accessibility, direct accessibility into our home, which is a one story home. So, you know, we don't wanna leave. And having that direct access undercover, which we've never had, which we've never really thought about, and now as we are aging, it's really important.
And that's Speaker 8: My, yeah, I'm not thinking of the 41 feet and 24 feet. Well, I mean, you make 24 feet, 20 feet, you're not even here. Right. You're Speaker 23: Just, just approved and off you go. Right. Right. So, you know, to be comfortable and safe enough to be able to, you know, as you age, you know, opening a door in a inside a garage, it's not a two car garage side by side, so you don't have as much room. And I know it is a little bigger than a average size, I guess one car. But I, I just feel like, I mean, Bruce has a,
a pickup truck, so it's not gonna be like a, a small vehicle opening the door getting in and out. It would be me hitting something for sure. But Speaker 1: I didn't give you an opportunity to speak. So if you want, did you, yeah, if you want, please go right ahead. Yeah. And your name and address for the Speaker 24: Record. Thank you, sir. Yeah, this is, yeah, I'm the resident of 11 Hemlock, just across the street of 12 HeLOCK. Yeah. So I know there's a different, different restrictions other than the other case, but I want to show my strong support to this project is because in our neighborhood we cannot afford to lose
a, a violent bruise because lots of builders come to the neighborhood to knock down the current building. Yeah. To make the, make, make a house. But we change the, the environment even worse than the, than the neighborhood. So that's why our entire neighborhood support this project. Okay. Yeah. Because we try to keep them here to let them have the very beautiful retiring life with us, and which we can, we can grow our friendship in the future.
Yeah. So that's why we want to show our strongly favor to this project and to support, support this project to make this neighborhood better future. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Appreciate Speaker 1: It. Opposite of variation. You want to, did you wanna say something? I know you raised your hand, but did you, do you want to add anything? Speaker 14: So I did want to add, it's going right over your, your shoulder. Speaker 23: It was Trisha, it's Speaker 1: Not necessary. Speaker 14: I thought you were talking to me. Speaker 25: Tricia Kendall. I'm the architect. Yeah. I, I think that they expressed really well, kind of the, the point to the project is to, it it,
they've been in this house a long time. They'd like to stay as opposed to other houses in the neighborhood that are being torn down and putting up two story, two and a half story houses. They've lived there 48 years in, in the house without a garage at all. And, and now are, you know, trying to get some, trying to get a place to put their cars so they can stay there in the future. So we held it as tight as we hoped to in order to make that garage easy for them
to use in the future. But obviously I understand, I understand about how variances and special permits work. So we understand that it's in your court. So thank you. Thanks Speaker 1: Very much. So let's just go, go ahead. Speaker 12: The shed in the back left that, because it's just a shed. It does not, and it's in the eight, it's in the 12 foot setback. Hmm. Speaker 1: Clever. Yeah. Speaker 12: I, if that goes away, does that make this a section six? Speaker 1: I I think the commission has already
made that determination. Right, Speaker 12: But is that the shed that's going away? Yes, that is the one. Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I, I think you, I think if I'm, tell me if I'm, I'm hearing you right. If you measure from the shed to the sideline today, your actual, Speaker 12: It's very, it's a, it's a violation. Right? Speaker 1: Right. But so that determination appears to have been made, right? Because the commissioner's letter required a variance. So to the extent that the measurement is taken from the main structure or the shed, he, he has clearly ruled
that it's from the main structure Speaker 12: Or else he, but is that correct? Speaker 1: Oh, I don't know. We, we don't, we we take it on fate that his denials are, are accurate unless they're obviously wrong. I don't think they are. I think they're not. Okay. No, I think we, we measure from the primary structure. Speaker 12: I think you're right. I'm, yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. That was a, he was trying to do a solid error. Go ahead. Speaker 14: So I just wanted to ask one more thing that Eva and I walked the neighborhood the whole time every day. And we, we were noticing, we wanted to see before coming to the board to see if anyone else had
garages that were tight. And we took pictures of a number not only on Hemlock, but in our neighborhood. And I didn't, I didn't upload 'em, I didn't send it to him. Yeah, we didn't Speaker 1: Ultimately that that's not where you're getting hung up. Right? Speaker 14: Okay. No, just wanted to put it out there. Speaker 1: I appreciate it. All the sort of subjective elements appear to all be there. The question is, is whether or not we can sort of tie your project to causally to something on the lot. Right. And so, unlike anything you've seen tonight, yours requires four
or five as Gail indicated four or five votes. The other ones required three votes. So lucky you and it would appear based on the straw vote. You, you have 1, 2, 3 in favor and it sounds like two, one opposed and won on the, on the negative side of, of things. So Gail, if you want to tip your hand here for a minute. So that, 'cause what I'm, go ahead. You tip your hand without voting if you want. Do you wanna tell them what you're gonna do?
Because I, we, we, we tend to give folks the option of rolling the dice but not blindly rolling the dice. This is a friendly board and, or let's go, let's start here. Do you want to tip your hand? Y Speaker 11: Yeah, I, I I remain concerned about the fact that it's coming in four feet deep and then 41 feet long. Speaker 1: So that's a no. Okay. If, yep. Speaker 26: There there is a recent, fairly recent case, they may want to ask for an extension and take a look at this case.
Ms. BI versus only appeals. Speaker 1: What'd you say? It was not solicited. It Speaker 26: Was not solicited. Give his name. That might be helpful. Can Speaker 1: We just get your name for the record? Speaker 26: Attorney Vincent O'Brien that they may wanna look, the facts are a little different, but it may be helpful where the court found in a 48 section six finding that a variance is not necessary. It's fairly recent and I think they should take a look at it. Why Don maybe Speaker 1: Take, why don't we get the name of the case for Speaker 26: Yeah, the name of the case is ADA versus zoning Board of Appeals of Brookline. And Speaker 1: You have a citation. Speaker 26: It's A SJC case
SJC 1 2 516 20 19. But I think it went up to the SJC. Yeah. Speaker 1: SJC. Well we can find it. I, I'll, Speaker 26: I'll try to find it and I'll make a copy for the board. What's Speaker 1: The gist of it? It Speaker 26: Doesn't, the gist of it is essentially saying, well, you know what 48 section six does, of course, That the SJC found that construing the statute to require a variance in addition to a finding of no substantial detriment would quote, render it nearly impossible for many homeowners to renovate, modernize, or make their substantial improvements to an old home. Particularly if the,
those improvements would increase the non-conformity nature of the structure. And it goes on to economic infeasibility. But it basically seems to imply they were talking about a bit different part of the, the statute seems to imply that a variance, if you find, make a finding that it's a two-family, it's preexisting non-conforming structure and it's not detrimental to the neighborhood that it's su substantial and variance may not be warranted. So they may want to push this off and take a look at that case. Well, so Speaker 1: That, thank you very much. Thank you. Also, you can get his card. So this is what, this is where we are. Okay.
If it goes to a vote right now, it's not gonna, it's not gonna get voted in favor. But we're gonna give you an opportunity to do two things. One is, as lay people, we sort of, you walked into a difficult situation with this variance piece. And so if you wanted to go to a vote and, and it gets denied, you can't come back for two years with something this, unless the project is substantially changed, which of course it would be. 'cause it wouldn't be voted in favor presumably if it
came back with the same project. But there's a two year waiting period you have to re advertise Yeah. Pay again and all that business. The other thing you can do is just, we can continue it for a month. You can refine your arguments, try to overcome the objections by these two members and maybe can still counsel in the back and, and then, and then and then come back and see, and see what you can present. That's really where you are. Speaker 14: Can I just ask through you, Mr. Chair? Sure. What Ms. Roberts? Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm going to, I I'm, Speaker 14: I'm gonna, you know, I mean No, she was for you.
Speaker 1: I'm for you. So I, my sense is that if this was a 20 foot garage that was stepped four feet into the, into the setback, you'd probably be okay. But it's the 41 feet, which is substantially more than the, the sort of typical garage. Your response to that is it's not for one car, it's for two and they're gonna be one behind the other. That's why it's the, so there you go. But it is what, it's 41 feet is what is turning her off. And I think Jason's objection is, is more sort of fundamental.
IE you bought the lot, the house is on the lot. You knew what you had when you bought it and really what your, your uniqueness is not unique. It's that you're lost too small to build the addition that you want. And he thinks, I think he thinks that 20 feet wide enough for a garage build a 20 foot garage and you're not, you don't have to come back. And that's a decision you'll have to make. Well it'd be a Speaker 14: 12, 12 foot wide garage. Yeah. 'cause 'cause we're asking for 16 feet. Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. Yep. What he said. Yeah. My bad. No, you're asking, you're going from 12 to eight, you only need 12.
Speaker 14: That's the setback. Yeah, the setback, our setbacks 12, it's now they could fit a 12 foot garage in Speaker 1: And comply with the setback. 1212 Speaker 23: Foot wide. Which is probably too small for what we're looking for. Speaker 1: Yeah. But again, there, that's where you are. You'll, you know, if you sit down with council or do your own research and, and, and, and, and can string together an argument that might carry the day with the two current no votes. Then you come back and, and you, and you see how you do. And if, if it gets approved, you're all set. If it doesn't get approved, then you can go back
and sit together and say, do we wanna do this at 12 feet or not? But that's the decision you'll make until then. I take it that you want the continuance. Speaker 14: Yes. Okay. Speaker 1: Yes please. Alright, so why don't we go ahead and vote to continue it to Speaker 14: December something. Speaker 1: So this is the one that you need to decide. Speaker 14: We have to decide now why Speaker 3: Do we needed a second? You can meet. So it, it was scheduled for the 29th, but it seems like schedules aren't really Oh, because that's between Yeah. Yeah. The Christmas and the New Year's. But we could meet
and we still have time to meet on December 22nd if that was more amenable Speaker 1: People. Yeah. Before we do that, let me just, can we take a five minute recess? It's about scheduling. Yeah, we're gonna, we're gonna keep you, you're still on the, the case is still on. We're gonna take a five minute recess and we're gonna check schedules 22nd of December. 22nd of December. I don't mean, I don't know. I I prefer 22nd. The 29th of course. Yeah, the 29th is out. 22nd. 22nd. I think I can do that. Let's find out if we can do that. All right.
So we'll take a five minute recess, we'll be right back. Okay. It's eight 12. Okay. Not December. And so there won't be any more notice that comes out but we'll just do a motion and vote on it and then we'll see. 12th, Speaker 14: Not December. Speaker 1: No January. Speaker 14: Okay. I would move that we continue this hearing until our next meeting on January 12th. Speaker 1: A second. I second is Jeff and all those in favor. Okay, so it's five. Oh you're all set. But now do we need to have him sign something? Oh yeah. 'cause of this big gap. Yeah, I'll send an email to them.
Yeah. So if you're gonna get something from Amanda that says sign here, it says basically you're assenting to the continuance so that we don't run up against the time time issue. Okay. Speaker 14: Yeah, thanks for your help. Thank you very much. Thanks for the option too. Speaker 1: Alright, the next matter is five Bradford Road. Five Bradford Road LLC. Wait a minute, lemme start that again. Five Bradford Road. Five Bradford Road. LLCA request for section six finding for a demolition of a one family dwelling
and the construction of a new one. Family dwelling on the precinct. Non-conforming lot counsel. Thank you. How are you? In the last couple of meetings asked us to show similar houses Speaker 26: In the neighborhood just to show mass and Speaker 1: Sizing and how they compare. Oh yeah, no, I'm actually familiar with, yeah so I Speaker 26: Just, we put that together. I fact that might be helpful. Speaker 11: Is this in the portal? Speaker 26: No, I just, we just did it a few moments ago. So just, just informational. We can put it in the portal but Speaker 11: No, my concern is that the neighbors have not had a chance
to see what comparisons are being presented to us now. Speaker 1: It's entirely unnecessary. Speaker 26: Yeah. And yeah, it's, yeah, that's, Speaker 11: It depends on what Speaker 1: That's like saying. You have to make your argument on the portal night's, the night when you wanna present evidence, everyone can see it. They can hear it. It's a big, you put your plans in that's required. Your argument. You don't have to put in, you can bring it to the board. The lot area is short, your lot frontage is short, your depth is good, your front is good, your west side is good, your east side is good, your rear is good. Coverage is good. And your height is good.
So we're talking about lot area, a lot frontage, right? Speaker 26: That is correct. Alright, Speaker 1: Let's take a look. You're in an aquifer recharge. Do you have, can't do anything about please? You have it? Yes we do. Okay. Speaker 2: That's what the town meeting said the zoning is. Speaker 1: All right. And we'll just flip through this. Alright. Okay. What would you like to tell us? Speaker 26: Good evening. This is a preexisting lot pre preexisting home. Roughly 1700 square feet. Currently this house is gonna be about 3,600 square feet similar to the other houses in the area as mentioned by the chair. The dimension requirements we don't meet are the, the area
and the frontage, but all other dimensional requirements we meet or exceed as far as setback from front side and rear. We also meet building lock coverage percentage and building height, which would be 35 in this, in the zone. And we're 33 meet six inches. Speaker 1: Fantastic. Okay, we'll do what we've been doing. We'll go outta order here. Five Bradford Road. Anybody here on five Bradford? Yes ma'am. Come on up and give your name and address for the record if you would. Speaker 27: Marjorie WA 16 Richard Road. I do, I'm concerned about the size of this property
and the height of the property. It is on a hill so that it's going to, and the hill starts to go down. So the property next door is gonna be, is a ranch one story and it's gonna loom over that. I'm also concerned about the height of the of it 'cause that's very high. And also in general it's just very large for the neighborhood. We have a, we have had quite a few large houses go in and they do dominate the neighborhood and change the complexion of the neighborhood.
I mean the developers come and they get their money and then we're left with these very, very large houses that dominate the neighborhood. And also I, I have a question about the trees in the there. Fire Speaker 1: Away. Speaker 27: Right? And I know that a neighborly Schaffer did write a email. Speaker 1: I didn't see it. If there was Speaker 11: It's in the file. Okay. Or, oh wait, it may not be on the portal, but we got it in our email from Lydia Schaeffer and she said she couldn't be here tonight and she expressed her concerns about,
I mean it's in the email so if somebody has that in front of them, they can read it. Speaker 1: I do not. I'd like to read it. Mr. MCC chair. I have it right here. Okay, go ahead. Would you like me to read it into the Yeah, sure. Okay, sure. It's not too long. Speaker 19: Few words dear BA members, thank you for sending the notice about the November 24th, 2025 meeting about five Bradford. Unfortunately I am unable to attend so I'm sending a request as a resident that lives one street over. It concerns me that the large trees are being removed when many could be saved. This happened at three Liberty Street. The large tree in the front of the lot was taken down. Even the builder could readily, could,
could readily explain its removable in the end. He said it didn't go with the landscaping. The builders see lots as projects. We see them as our neighborhood removing the big trees that could be saved as a detriment to the neighborhood. We are losing sky to these bulky dwellings. It would be nice to keep as many trees as possible if to soften the view and clean out air. There's a lovely evergreen tree in front of the fence at five Bradford and deciduous trees around the backyard border. There is a tree to the right of the house on the border with Mrs. Fine's home at number three. That tree is really hers and should not be cut down. I mentioned this even though it may seem obvious
because friends have lost trees to builders that just cut without checking. I'm asking the deciduous trees be saved. Hopefully the evergreen can be too. It's close to the construction lots. That might not be easy. I'd like the ZBA to go beyond the nuts and bolts and take into consideration the trees and environmental impact of a new construction. Thank you for your time, energy, and work you expend to keep. Natick a lovely place to live. Lydia Schaefer, A nine Richard Road. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay, anybody else here? Wish to be heard? Speaker 27: I just have one more point. Yeah, go on. This is probably beyond the scope here, but it does have two different colors on the
building on the house and doesn't look very good when you do that, in my opinion. Speaker 1: Not so much into the aesthetics here. That's aesthetics. More like a sizing massing kind of thing. Height, whatnot in bulk. But thank you for that. Anybody else wish to be heard on this project? Okay, hearing non board questions, comments, thoughts? Speaker 11: I have a question. The, it's very nice having the, the colored rendering, the, the computer painting of the front. But there's a discrepancy. It appears that there is a dormer with windows in that rendering,
but on the elevations there is no dormer on the third floor or the half floor, whatever you'd prefer to call it. Am I correct in assuming that that dormer is not gonna be part of this building? Speaker 12: We will be Speaker 11: Because it's not in the elevation. Speaker 12: The elevation of the render? Speaker 26: Yeah, but not in the, Speaker 12: You were willing complete that when we applied the, Speaker 1: Wait a minute, I didn't hear what he said. Speaker 26: Well he was saying he would include that with the building permit plans. The the so Speaker 1: Is is the, Speaker 26: The rendering shows the dormer.
Speaker 11: Well the non dimension photographic right image shows a dormer, but the elevations that have dimensions does not include the dormer. Speaker 1: So yeah. So is it going with or without? Speaker 26: We were proposing to go with Speaker 1: With. Okay. Alright. Speaker 12: So looking at the floor plans, how are you getting into the floor? You're not, is this aesthetic, this Speaker 26: Aesthetics on the, yeah. Speaker 12: Okay. Alright. Speaker 11: Okay, so there's a sally hole, correct? To the third floor currently that's what's in the plan.
Speaker 26: Is that what you call those Speaker 11: Or? Well that's what my contractor calls it. I think there's other names for them too, but Speaker 26: Yeah, it attic recess. I just think of Chevy Chase when they think of that thing. Right? Speaker 11: Yeah. So are there truss rafters that prevent that from becoming usable, livable space? Speaker 26: I don't think you have a area. Speaker 11: Pardon? Speaker 26: I don't think there's enough height area. Speaker 11: What is the height on the third floor? Speaker 26: I have no idea. Do you know what the height is on the third Speaker 11: Floor? Because there's no elevation, right, that I could find
that the packet or in the file? Speaker 8: Well I don't think you're gonna get a bedroom set through one of those Speaker 26: Little Yeah, and I just don't quarter what you call a ties. I'm, I'm just looking at the dimensions. But Speaker 11: The, the reason I ask is because of course there could be alteration later where a stairway is, is constructed to the third floor Speaker 26: Possibly. I'm just not sure you have the ceiling height in there looking at the Speaker 11: Yeah, that's why I'm asking since we don't have a plot plan for that or a floor plan for that Speaker 8: And I just can't see how they can fit a stairwell
to the third floor anywhere. Yeah, you have to take it Speaker 11: Destroy, well that, that hallway is pretty large on the second floor. There is room to do something. Speaker 8: You would be blocking one of the three doors. Speaker 1: Okay, let me, let me, that, I don't think, that's not gonna be the thing that tips this project in favor or against. Right. So let's, let's move on from that point. Do you have any other questions Speaker 19: Over here? I had one Mr. Yeah, go ahead. Sure. Are you adding any sort of earth to the existing grade to raise it at all? When you're putting in the house is essentially gonna stay at the same, Speaker 28: We are adding two feet of grade,
Speaker 19: Two feet of grade to that. So that would mean, okay, so the overall height, it's now 33, 33 0.6. So effectively 35.6. Speaker 28: Well we're adding, we're adding two feet of of grade. But the foundation is still gonna be what, 33.6 Speaker 19: Foundation. Okay. But I, I guess I'm just saying from a perception standpoint, it's still going to look up, but it's from grade it's 33.6 or from the foundation. Right. But you're adding two feet of dirt. Speaker 28: Right. So, so the, the final grade to the top of the roof is 33.6 From
Speaker 19: The final grade? From the final grade. Speaker 28: From the final grade grade. Speaker 19: As of today, it will be two feet on top of that. Two feet high. Yes. And then 33.6 on top of that. That's Speaker 8: Correct. So it'll be 35.6 from today's top upgrade's. Speaker 28: Correct. Correct. Speaker 8: Which I can't remember it Speaker 11: Isn't 35 the limit. Speaker 1: No, no. So the way the building commissioner determines height is from the proposed grade, not from the existing grade. So, correct. But that's, it's something that the board can consider for sure. In other words, if they, if someone came in here and said we're adding 12 feet of fill
and then we're gonna put a 33.5 foot house on top of that, it doesn't violate the height requirement according to the building commissioner. But it may violate your sensibilities, which is what matters here before this board. So do be substantially more detrimental. Yeah. Right. Speaker 19: And the argument was already that Speaker 26: Wouldn't be substantially. Speaker 1: Exactly. Exactly. But but the height calculation is accurate from the building commissioners point of point of view. Yep. Speaker 19: Understood. I just think that the point was made that the house essentially sits on
a small hill to begin with. Yeah. And so adding two feet on top of that and then 33 plus and height on top of that. I think, you know, I'm not voting, but from my perspective that feels a bit high. Speaker 28: Can I just make a comment on that? So this, this street slopes from the right to the left. So the lot on the left is lower, but the lot on the right is higher. So slightly, slightly. Speaker 26: 180, 180 4. Speaker 28: Right? It's two feet. It's two feet. The lot on the right is two feet higher than, than our lot Speaker 26: Our finish grade Speaker 28: Off in.
Yeah. So understood. I just want you to know, I mean, it, it's, it's not on a hill, it's just that the whole street slopes down from left to right. I, I just want you to, that's all I wanted to say. I mean I understand Speaker 12: Two feet of grade, is that, and it, is that evenly spaced or is it to level out your lot? Speaker 28: It's, it's to level out the lot And so zero Speaker 12: Ish, two, two feet as it goes down the street, Speaker 28: Cor correct. Two feet to No, it's, yeah, so it's, so I'm basically taking the high side of the, of the lot
and I'm, I'm kind of leveling it to the left 'cause I'm trying to match kind of the grade on the right side with the right house pulling that in. Yeah. Speaker 26: So we're starting here and kind of going like at it like this. Speaker 8: So you're gonna have a drop Speaker 28: Correct on the left side? More Speaker 8: Substantial drop than a gradual slope Speaker 28: On the left? Yes. It'll it it should, yeah, it should, it it, it should be, you know, it is a drop but yeah, I guess you can say Speaker 26: Yeah, we're tying up finish line, finish grade line into the right grade, existing grade and flattening Speaker 8: Up.
Speaker 28: Nope, I got it. And the reasoning why was drainage, I was trying to try to control the drainage from the high side to get it around the house. So then by doing that, that's why I put the driveway on the right side, which is the high side of the lot. So the, the driveway comes in flatter and then trying to gently use the grading towards the left. So it kind of flows to the left of the lot in the front yard. It's gonna kind of flow Speaker 12: Your name and address. Speaker 29: Jim Cody, 14 Bradford Road. I lived right down the street. We've on that street for 30 years.
I have concerns now that it's been explained about the grade that the house is gonna be too tall. I get the difference between grade and top of foundation, all that. It's too tall in my opinion. Also, when you go to grade that off the Mars, whose house is immediately to the left, what's the difference in height? That's gonna be from the new grade at number five to the house right below that. And I'm concerned about water going down to their hill. And are you, are you grading it? Are you putting a retaining wall? I just, you know, I'm very concerned over this. Very concerned.
Speaker 12: Okay. You do want to address. Speaker 28: So regarding drainage and stormwater, I, I've done a stormwater report. So I've designed it in a way that I am going to collect the roof runoff and put it into the underground chambers. So I've taken the, the majority of the impervious area and had control that. So I'm not increasing any rate or volume towards the left. 'cause that's because what you do is you take your interest point, which is the lowest point where water is going now
and we can't increase any runoff from rate or volume. So that's what I've controlled with, with taking the roof and putting it into those recharge areas. Speaker 1: Okay, great, thank you. Speaker 29: And the difference in the grade, that was my second question. Are you putting a retaining wall or how is that gonna look from the neighboring property? So, Speaker 28: So on the le on the left side of the lot, it's the grade that's there is gonna stay for the first, if you look at the, for the first 16 feet and then you've hit the foundation and then it kind of grades up at a, like a five
to one slope on the side. So you do have a little retain, you have a small retaining wall that connects the house so you can, so he can put windows on that left side, but that grade is basically staying the same as it is now on the left side of the lot. But as you come around to the front and as you come around to the back, the grade gently goes up to the back of the house and to the front of the house 180 because you can see that the grade on the left side of the lot is at 180. That is staying the same over there.
And then you come in probably another, what's this one? I don't know, 10 feet. And you see that 180 2 spot shot is like a rectangle with 180 2 x zero. So you can see that 180 2 contour is just pushed out a little bit towards the left side of the house. Speaker 30: I just want to raise it up to be that level you, that side. Speaker 29: Okay. Still too tall. Speaker 1: Thanks very much. Next. Anybody else wish to be heard on this project? Okay. Speaker 11: Oh Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. No, Speaker 11: Ahead, go ahead. I didn't see this when I looked at the project earlier.
Where exactly is this retaining wall? On the diagram? On the plot plan? Speaker 28: On the plot plan, this, there's two little wing walls coming, one's coming out towards the back. You see the little circles? Yeah. And then there's one in the front. So you're kind of just keeping that open with the existing grade at the bottom. Speaker 11: Right. So how much soil is gonna be behind those retaining walls in terms of height? Because I already had questions about the grade being raised. Yep. Two feet. Well it, it looked like it's more than two feet in part of the lot.
It was looking like it was three to four feet at some points that it was difficult to tell for sure. Two feet, at least for me. Speaker 28: Right. So you look at the 180 2, which runs through the left side. So in the front you're looking at 180 4 at the left corner. And then in the back where it says 180 2, that's like 180, 84 and a half and then it goes up to 180 5. Is he 180 5 x zero? So that's, that's further up. So that's, you know, it's three feet maybe at the,
at the back where that bump out is. But on the left hand side it's only two feet. Because Speaker 11: I thought I was hearing two, but we are also talking about three, Speaker 28: Right? Correct. Because then on, if you look on the right side, we're, we're on, we're two feet also. So it, it's kind of, it's between 2, 3, 2 and a half. Yeah. Speaker 1: Anybody else Speaker 11: Just wanna clarify the groundwater? According to the documents we have, it's, we start hitting groundwater at four feet
below current surface. Correct? In the back, Speaker 28: Correct. Speaker 11: And four and a half in the front. Correct. And you're putting in a basement? Yes. And how high are the ceilings? Speaker 28: I would say they're eight feet. Speaker 11: Eight feet. So seven foot. How do you manage that with a two to three foot grade elevation? How, how do you Speaker 28: So from Speaker 11: Foot clearance Speaker 28: From, so from 180 2 minus four and a half. And then that's why we raised, we raised the structure. That's why we raised the grade.
So it's not sticking out of the ground. So by doing, by raising the grade, we can get the, the, you know, we're above the groundwater elevation. Speaker 11: It seems really close. I mean two foot separation. And then you're saying you're only raising the grave by two feet. I, I have questions about this. It just, it seems fuzzy and it's a really serious matter, especially in that neighborhood. There's been co promise properties that have been compromised by water intrusion that comes in afterward. There are properties that have been compromised by water coming in because of a large project coming in next door to someone.
It's a big problem in this neighborhood. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, anybody else? Thoughts, comments, anybody? Speaker 8: Anything? Yeah, I'm looking and I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. What's that four foot drop on the left hand side of the houses on the drawing? Four foot drop From where to where? Speaker 28: From the top of concrete to finished grade is four foot. So the top of concrete is Gotcha. 180 6. Speaker 8: Okay. Speaker 28: Just so they can put windows on the left side. That's what it's representing.
Speaker 12: It seems like the addition of the basement is creating a lot of addition issues with the height and groundwater and, and everything else. Wondering how crucial that is, Speaker 1: It's, Speaker 26: Do you have any issues with the groundwater? Speaker 28: I mean, I mean we did the soil test and I feel confident that we're above it. Speaker 12: More concerns with the Speaker 28: Board here? No. Oh, okay. Okay. Speaker 26: From an engineering perspective, I wanted to Speaker 12: Make sure from an engineering standpoint, if it works, they got an indoor pool. I mean it doesn't work if, but it's the height.
I think that's what's driving a lot of the, the, the groundwater is driving the additional height of the threading, which is pushing the house up is the ridge beam will be two feet higher because of that issue. Which is, even though the way the building commissioner measures it is, it doesn't matter. It does matter to people on board and to the community. Speaker 2: Anybody Speaker 1: Else? Speaker 14: I would say I'm having a similar problem with the height of this building. Typically we would, in, in past decisions,
I think we've not allowed an applicant to fill and then exceed the height of the structure based on the new, well compared to the old grades, we've held them to the height of the building based on the existing grades. And here they would, looks like they might exceed it by maybe only half a foot. But it seems like that is the main concern in the neighborhood is the height. Yeah. Speaker 8: Well I have an additional concern on the measurements when I'm looking at the proposed drawing proposed structure, it says 180 4 on the right and it says 180 2 on the left, which I'm guessing is
where the, and it says the average grade, when I look at the height calculation, the average grade is 180 4, which actually is the peak on the right. So the average grade would, if I just took those two it would be 180 3. Speaker 1: Let me, let me jump in here for a minute and say this. You heard which way the wind is blowing so I take it you wanted some time to, to kick this thing back and talk about Correct. Okay, so let's do that. It's January 12 is the next meeting and I'm, you heard the concerns
of the board and so they, they will just address those immediately when we come back in And you might want to talk to these folks over here. You can exchange information and maybe they'll be edible to a discussion. With that, Speaker 14: I move that we continue the hearing to our next, well not our next meeting, but our meeting on January 12th. Speaker 1: That is our next, that will be our next Speaker 2: Meeting. Speaker 1: Second. Second is Jeff and all those in favor. Okay. So it's 4, 4 5. Wait this to continue. Continue.
Sorry, I was looking at the, okay. Five. Oh, you're all set. We'll see you in January. Speaker 26: So in light of your next meeting, not only happy Thanksgiving, but Speaker 1: Merry Christmas. Hey. Yeah, there you go. Right back at you. Thanks very much. The next matter is 2 3 6 North main street. Applicant is Nassar Maher of request for a section six finding and a variance from the front setback for the tear down of existing one family dwelling and the construction of a new one. Family dwelling preexisting nine forming lot. That's what it says. Speaker 14: 180 2 1 8 1 0.9. Speaker 1: So saying it's one evening. Yeah. Yeah.
Let's take a look here. That's, so this just before, before we go on, this is at a previous zoning meeting. Did you come before us? Once before? Speaker 31: Yes we did. And Speaker 1: What happened? What did we do? So Speaker 31: We got approved to do an addition in the back and that ended up just not being feasible because of we were asked to also do a stormwater drainage and after bringing in Kevin, who's the engineer to look at it, it just wasn't feasible. So. Speaker 1: So this is a totally new project. Exactly. Okay. So, so let, let, let's, let's take a look here. Was this the one with the curb cuts? The good news is there's no one, no one's behind. You don't
Speaker 31: Want the curb cut. The previous owner tried to do any legal curb cut. I think that's, Speaker 1: That's the one. Yeah. Okay. So the lot's small and the front is just short and then your depth is good. Your front's good. Your side, your west side's good. Your east side's good. They here is good. Wait a minute, coverage is good height. It's good. What am I missing? Yeah, where's the variance? The front setback I believe is the on 30 39. 39. Oh 30 to 24 on the front setback. So it should say 30 39 9 existing and then 24.
Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 1: Okay. That's a mistake between Saturday there's a mistake. Okay, now let's take, Speaker 2: Right Speaker 1: I remember this. I am seeing, oh here we go. And you can't kick that back because you run into some grade issues in the rear. Speaker 32: Yeah. So hi everyone, I'm Kevin Clady from Boston Civil. So I first got on this project back in January. We did do test pits to kind of really set that the design elevation for the, for the drainage. And then you know, as we were really looking into it, we noticed that there was the swale from the property to the north plan view. Right. That you know, it really was just limiting the flow
and would've completely blocked it off. And we had run into, we've been doing a lot in Natick and had run into another issue where even during construction it just kind of blocked the neighbor's water, didn't allow it to flow through. And this is a unique site because there's really no outlet for the water. It's just essentially a big basin. So we've actually gone through and you know, we obviously don't have the location set, but we've submitted this to Claire and the engineering department. They really didn't have any comments on that. We're taking the water from the roof, bringing it to Cultech underground and then basically we're like
demonstrating that the model of that pond in the back, or we'll call it a pond, is basically the water level's not changing. So, you know, there's, we, we could, we had this sit fitting in the setback but we, you know, my recommendation was to really push the building forward to maintain that flow path. You know, we just really didn't want to get in that situation during construction or you know, later on that Speaker 1: Just allowing the water to go back. Speaker 32: Yeah. We really just pushed everything to the back. So that's kind of where, you know, he's obviously Speaker 1: So that topography is driving the design. Speaker 32: Yeah, yeah. He, you know, he started with an addition
of the existing house, then it went to a new build and I think he even trimmed it back another five feet from the back. So, you know, that was my way to help manage the water. You know, we could obviously do like a catch base in there but you know, it could be a decent amount of water from the neighboring parcels that don't have their managed or their water managed now. So it made sense to me that's, you know, where the building was placed and you know, and then obviously the surveyors and the architect kind of took it from there. But that's really what my reason was for
not liking the location. Speaker 8: You should have stood up when we were talking about variances. Speaker 1: Yeah. Only the other guy didn't have the benefit of this Speaker 8: Crazy topography of a hole in the middle of his block. Speaker 32: Yeah, it's definitely a unique site. Honestly, we weren't sure how to model it normally 'cause you're modeling the runoff off the property. But yeah, we've, you know, we have a full stormwater report. You know, Claire didn't have any major comments. It's just you formalization of it has to wait through, through this. But, but yeah, that was kind of our reasoning there. Speaker 1: All right, well I don't see anybody here to talk about it. So anybody on the board have any Speaker 33: Questions for the Ken Phillips attorney for the board?
Er has a hair to my right. He's the owner. He intends to owner occupy the property. The, the input that he did have from Abutters were, were really concerned with the drain water and the storm water not running off onto their lots Running brook or creating additional problems. They're already obviously larger project on nine and 27 just south of here. And just so you know, the positioning of this, I think essentially across the street is a cemetery. Southeast diagonally would be Theo's pizza and things of that nature. Everything that would run from the west side of this north main street ultimately
I guess would run into Lake Ochi wood at some point in time. So there's somewhat of a steep grade as Kevin eloquently pointed out. It is unique soil and topography leading to the, the hardship of really pushing this further back into what would become ponding. Speaker 8: This is section, this is a section six, right? It's it's, Speaker 1: It's a variance. It's actually both. It's both. It's a section six as to, hold on. It Speaker 8: Seems that's what the lawyer was saying. You know, you no at everybody. This one actually is get the, get Speaker 33: The Melo case Speaker 8: Actually got fill going Speaker 1: On here.
Section six as the lot area and frontage and a variance as to the front setback. Speaker 8: I got it. What is the front Speaker 11: Set? I don't see that on the agenda. I just see the section six. It's says section. Speaker 1: Section and a variance on at least the one I'm looking at. Yeah, I think there's an Speaker 11: Mine Speaker 3: Does, no, it was updated today and it was just a request for a section six finding and a variance front setback for the tear down of an existing one. Family dwelling and construction of a new one. Family dwelling, preexisting nonconforming lot.
It was the agenda that I placed on your, Speaker 11: Okay, so this change was made today, Speaker 3: Well it's not agenda, it was just there was a copy and paste error. Speaker 1: I have no, I have the, okay. Speaker 11: We should have seen it sooner. Speaker 1: I I have the, the updated one, which is what I read into the record. Okay. Any questions here folks? I have Speaker 14: Questions about the, the swale in the back. Is it a regulated wetland resource area? Has it been delineated? Speaker 32: It's not modeled as that. It was a nice sandy soil, so I wouldn't guess, I'm not a wetland scientist, but
Speaker 31: I think Claire said it wasn't. Yeah, Speaker 32: And Claire didn't have any major comments on it when she reviewed it? Speaker 31: I think she checked during the meeting and said it wasn't, I mean, don't quote me on that, it was like over a month ago, but I'm pretty sure I was told it wasn't wetland. 'cause I was told that would open a whole can of worms, see if it was Speaker 14: And so how often does it flood out there? Speaker 32: I i, Speaker 14: Has it ever flooded? Speaker 32: I don't live there, but I, okay. I Speaker 31: Mean I've seen some pu like I've had the property for a year. I've seen some puddling, like, but nothing Yeah, you know, major. So Speaker 32: Yeah, we noticed it was like a, it was like, you know, classic urban fill, like, you know, loy layer, but below that was loy sand, then a fine sand
and we did see soil modeling in there, so it was obvious where the water level was and you know, we modeled this whole basin as, as a, as a loam assuming, you know, nice. Speaker 14: Yeah. Grass. And so related to that, do any of your neighbors have like an easement on the property to allow them to discharge drainage onto your land? Speaker 31: Not that I know of. Speaker 14: So what's preventing you from stopping that from happening? If that's the main source of any flooding, why wouldn't you just regrade your land or, or do something to prevent your neighbor from trespassing
with his runoff? Speaker 32: I that I just meant like from our, my visual observations, they didn't have like, you know, the type of stormwater management and new construction would have and then, you know, just the natural drainage pattern of that comes through here. You know, during the, I don't know what happened with the running Brook circle back in the day when that was built, but it probably was tied to somehow making its way there. I don't, you know, I just don't know the, the history of that. But you know, we just, we wanted to do our best where we could to keep the water, you know, within the limits of this property to divert it around and mimic the existing condition,
Speaker 14: I Speaker 11: Guess. Yeah, perhaps that street name has something to do with, I found that a brook that runs in a circle in your backyard Speaker 33: Could be, and I think maybe 50 or a hundred yards south of this on the same side of North Maine. There was a big culvert project not that long ago, I believe as well. I, I would imagine the majority of the restaurants would be how it, how it's graded from North Maine to keep it off the, the main thoroughfare Speaker 14: I guess for the board. What my thinking, I'm thinking, I'm not seeing any reason why they can't fill that swale in and build on it.
It's not a regulated resource area. It doesn't have a history of flooding or ponding. Speaker 11: Well, except there's probably vernal. That's probably a vernal pool given how, I mean it is a serious, I mean it's almost like a kettle hole, but it looks like it was manmade over the years. Speaker 14: But they said it wasn't regulated, it's not delineated as a vernal pool. It's not a vernal pool. Speaker 11: Well vernal pool is different from a wetland, right, because it's Speaker 14: Spring, it's type of wetland. Yes. Speaker 11: Right. So I mean you used to be on conservation, right? That's why I'm looking to you. Okay, so vernal's are not actually fully protected the way wetlands are, am I correct?
Speaker 14: No, they're protected even more thoroughly. Oh, they Speaker 11: Are? Yes. That's good to hear. Speaker 14: The only difference is they don't have a buffer zone. Wait, they Speaker 8: Have a 200 Speaker 11: Ah, thank you. Speaker 14: No. In Natick 200. Yeah. Is that Natick or the state? Oh, state. Oh, alright. So they do have a buffer zone too. Okay. So that's, that's not on this property. There's no vernal pool, there's no regulated wetlands. Speaker 11: Okay. Speaker 14: So I'm, I'm struggling. I'm wondering how it drain, why there's a hardship here or a, a condition affecting the property. I don't see a condition, I see a low area in the backyard that could be filled in. I don't see that as, I Speaker 32: Don't think that was the, the issue is actually from the north side, just where the,
the neighbors run off all flows onto the property. I mean, we, I guess could probably block it up, but then it just, then all the neighbors are, they don't, their water's getting blocked and we didn't want to create a condition. Speaker 14: Right. But you don't have an obligation to allow the neighbors to discharge water onto your land. Speaker 8: I'm not sure how much they can stop it. I mean the neighbors are above, Speaker 31: It kind of has to go somewhere. And I also don't want to like piss off four people, you know, 'cause then they'll be here, you know? Doesn't really solve the problem for me. Speaker 14: That's, that's a private property dispute between you and your neighbor?
Yeah. If I started discharging runoff on a regular basis onto my neighbor's property, I think we would have a problem. Yeah. Me and my neighbor. Speaker 31: Yeah, I understand. Speaker 14: I mean, it's, it's a form of trespass. Speaker 8: So you're saying that they should just fill in up to 169 foot elevation here and then sort of everything would be flat, so there's not a Speaker 14: Variance, right. Is Speaker 8: That a financial hardship? Speaker 14: A couple hundred, a few yards alone? Or fill? I don't think so. Speaker 8: I don't know how many, A few is, but Speaker 14: Couple dump trucks. Speaker 8: Is there any reason why you would prefer to be closer to 27 than farther back? No.
Speaker 31: I mean, my understanding was that that's not feasible. But I mean, that does sound better. I just don't know what the costs, like you said, like I have no idea what the cost of filling that whole thing in would be. Speaker 8: I would be more concerned about is it a true remedy or is it just a patch? Is it going to continue to soak in and become not solid ground underneath the house? Speaker 14: I don't know. No, the, the sand there, I mean, I live in that neighborhood over off Evergreen and it's all sand. I mean, it, it perks really, really well. Okay. So I don't think there'd be a problem with, with ponding water or, you know, any kind of perched water table.
Speaker 32: Yeah, we're just thinking about like worst case scenarios with like, you know, storm events. We see that they didn't have any, you know, storm water management on their properties. I looked at this months ago, so I don't have it off the top of my head, but it seemed like it was a pretty big drainage area all going to this point. So we just really wanted to protect the house from, you know, that water coming in there. 'cause if we pushed it right to the back, you know, we can't maintain that swale with the tree that's on the neighbor's property there. You know, it's, it's basically right on the property line, you know, it's visually shown, but when you count, affect the roots, roots, you know, didn't do really too much crazy, crazy grading there,
you know, so it's just, we're really just trying to protect the property and then during construction, avoid issues. You know, if we pushed the house back, you know, I guess it would work on paper, but then it just increase the chance of water coming into the basement and, you know, it could be a lot of water for one of those higher storm events. So that was kind of my logic of trying to protect the building. But Speaker 11: Speaking of the trees on the property, I noticed there are multiple stumps in the right rear corner. Did you folks remove those trees after you purchased the property Speaker 31: Behind the house? Speaker 11: Yes. Behind in the, right. So what was the
Speaker 31: Reasoning? So they replaced them with, you know, smaller trees. They were big oak trees that were kind of Yeah. Danger of the house. So Speaker 11: There's, there's multiple oak trees that are there right now. Yeah. Along main and in that funny little additional area where there's also a grove of hemlocks that's not on your property. Correct? Yeah, we spoke, it's not on your property. Speaker 31: We not allowed to touch those and I, I looked those there, so yeah. Speaker 11: Okay. So those oaks are staying and the evergreens are staying because the tree ward and that's public right away or something. Oaks,
Speaker 31: The oaks are on my property. The tree warden said I could do whatever I want with those. That was his what Speaker 11: He said. Okay. So they're like right on the edge. And are you inclined to remove those? Speaker 31: Yeah, I wanted to replace them with smaller trees that are kind of, so Speaker 11: They're all coming down. Yeah, Speaker 31: It's, it's two Speaker 11: I I part of the reason I ask is because one of those oaks, if I'm recalling correctly in the front is on the, the, you know, proposed structure plot plan also the one that's right next to the driveway corner and the sidewalk. Speaker 31: Oh, just the fact that it's still there. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
I I didn't know that that was crucial. Okay. But yeah, I mean my plan is to replace it with like a hedge wall or smaller trees that aren't gonna, I don't have to worry about falling on the house or anything like that. Speaker 11: Okay. Actually no, here's, here's a more significant concern I have. I looked at the application on Saturday and there's a set of dimensions for the existing house. House on Sunday. I looked again and the dimensions for the existing house have changed significantly. Do you know how that could possibly be for the existing house? No. All right. So Saturday the,
the west side yard setback, the rear yard setback and the building height, they're listed as three particular numbers. And then on Sunday they had changed significantly. So the side yard setback to the west is now seven feet different. The difference between the two numbers, the rear yard is 15 feet different. 15 feet. And the building height changed by close to two feet. We're talking about the existing building, not,
not the proposal that, you know. Yeah, I, that, that, that disturbs me. How, how, how did this happen? Can you explain? I Speaker 31: I could call my contractor, but I Yeah, I have no idea Speaker 1: The numbers we're looking at in the charter, correct? Correct. Except for the one adjustment I made to the front yard to 24. Speaker 31: This come from survey, no. Speaker 2: Misinterpreted the survey. Speaker 11: So that's a little alarming. Right. I mean that's a computation error of some kind or a survey error. Speaker 32: I i, I am not involved in that process,
but I know the contractor was pretty stressed out filling out the application. Speaker 11: I can understand that. However, is that Speaker 1: When I was hired Speaker 31: It was two days before. Speaker 11: I mean that's a big, big change. Yeah. Speaker 31: It's just, it that's, you know, we're talking about a new structure, right? Speaker 11: No, no. The existing house. Yeah. It's as if, you know, the existing house has moved on the lot between Saturday and Sunday. Yeah. Given the numbers we're looking at here. No, Speaker 31: We can follow up. I'm just saying that would be torn down right under this proposal. Speaker 12: On the, on the,
on the, so you're talking about the two zoning charts that are on the website right Speaker 2: Now? Yes. Okay. Speaker 11: If I had only looked at Saturday, I would have a very different idea of the orientation of the existing house on the lot. And it does matter for this project obviously. Speaker 31: Okay. I I honestly, I don't know how it happened so I don't know how to respond. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 31: Yeah, Speaker 12: I said that this, it said the second one was uploaded on October 29th. Speaker 11: I think I, yeah, so what I'm just saying is Saturday, if I had only looked at your project on Saturday, I would be looking at one set of numbers.
But I looked at it again on Sunday and it's a different set of numbers for the existing house. Speaker 31: But October 29th 'cause that's almost, Speaker 11: I'm talking about Saturday and Sunday two days ago. Speaker 31: So does that mean there's a third, 'cause you said the second was, Speaker 12: So there's, there's two zoning charts on the website on the portal. One was uploaded on October 24th and one was uploaded October 29th. Okay. Those are the only, oh, Speaker 14: But that doesn't sound, Speaker 11: Yeah, so does that, does that track with the discrepancy? Speaker 12: Looks like this is, Speaker 11: But I mean, I mean does it,
is it the same numbers as because if it's the same numbers that would Speaker 12: October just Speaker 14: Left that depression there. Speaker 33: Maybe it was buffering the older one to the best of our knowledge, the three of us did not upload anything from Saturday to Sunday. There's obviously one other player contractor who may have had access, but they would've advised I would hope myself before the hearing. Speaker 12: So nothing's on one that's up there and has been up there since October 29th. Speaker 33: I mean that, that's our understanding. That was the final, but you know, Speaker 1: Is that what you're looking Hmm? Is that what you're
Speaker 14: Looking at? Yeah, same print. Yep. Speaker 1: Alright. A Speaker 31: Little more comforting. I know that's still, well Speaker 11: It, it, it is still puzzling because we're not talking about the proposed structure. Yeah, we're talking about the existing. So even, even though they were posted different days, I I, Speaker 1: It sounds like someone made a mistake but Okay, here's where we are right now. Let's, I I don't think there was subterfuge here so, 'cause we're obviously looking at the plans. So Rob, did you want to give your feedback on this and give some guidance to the applicant on this project?
Speaker 8: I can see why this would pass, you know, for a variance. Not sure I would personally choose, I would probably do a fill and move the house back, but I have no issues with Speaker 1: Jason. I think you, you already in indicated, has anything changed from your perspective? Speaker 14: No, I think a variance is an extreme relief from our zoning bylaws and there are other solutions that don't require a new, new violation of zoning. So I think they could fill the back and move the house back and comply with the front setback. Speaker 1: I I'm not, I don't have a problem with it. Speaker 12: I don't think I do either. I I I see the value of
keeping the swale and drainage both from both from what's your property and understanding what Jason is saying about it being two kinds of problems are your problem and not your problem. And even so having that, having that water pooling there could become your problem and which would be topography which I think meets the requirement for variance. Speaker 1: Ari Speaker 19: Kind of glad I'm not voting on this one. I would say I tend to align with Jason. I think that not that I'm not in the given other options,
would I necessarily shoot the variance down, but I think the variance is almost like the last resort and it's to here and sort of explore the other option would be something that I'd be interested in. Maria, I voting. Sure. Speaker 1: Gail. Speaker 11: Yeah. Yeah, I would, I would like to see a, another additional option. I, I know in the past for this board it used to be rather routine to present more than one option to the, to this board. I'd like to see an additional one because Yeah, now that I know this is also a variance that concerns me for the same reasons that it concerns Jason
and Ari. Speaker 1: I, I would caution about coming with multiple options. They both have to be, they will both have to be reviewed by the building commissioner. I don't, I I think that is an uneconomic and probably non feasible or infeasible way of presenting a project to the board. I'll Speaker 11: Leave you through. Well that's just one member's opinion. Yeah. Speaker 1: I, I leave you through your own devices. I I I it would not be recommended and, but I, I get Amanda can weigh in but you bring two sets of plans to the board and then he shoots 'em both down.
You come before the board and then we get to choose the options. I don't like it but it, I think it creates an unnecessary complexity. Bring plans that you want to build is what you've done. And the board has spoken, it sounds like if it went to a vote right now, it would go down three to two, which would three in favor, two against, which would not pass. As you've seen, we give you an opportunity to, to sort of reform the project and or the argument and come back if you so choose or you could withdraw.
It's entirely up to you counsel, what do you, what do you Speaker 33: Feel? So one procedural question would be could we vote independently on the finding and not necessarily on the variance Reschedule the variance gets I don't Speaker 1: Think it gets you anywhere. No, no. I mean ultimately it can't get done the first and the reason why is because the first line of every decision that's gonna be built in substantial conformance for the plans that are submitted and then without the variance it could not be built in the substantial conformance for the Speaker 33: Plans, the actual plans we have forward. Sure. Speaker 1: So all that said, you want to come back?
Speaker 33: Yes. And we, if we could also get some insight to what, if any options would be more Speaker 1: Welcome if I'm over here, here's push it back and fill Yeah, you might wanna look at some numbers in terms of the cost to fill. Yeah, that might change. And over here it's, I'm not sure I'll let her speak for herself Speaker 32: In terms of the fill at the back. I just, I just based on my experiences with Natick, probably like 20 or 30 houses now. It's always about maintaining or improving existing conditions. So that idea was, you know, although we could probably just fill in the lot
and have them fight with the neighbors, just from my own understanding, like I I see that conservation drainage review side really wanting to make sure that's problems Speaker 1: Not, again, I'm not speaking for Jason here, but if you meet with Claire and say can you give your feedback on filling this, the rear of this to keep the house compliant and as between the two, see what, see what she says. I mean again, I can't speak for him, but if you come before us and say you met with, with the conservation and she said under no circumstances would we want you
to fill the back, leave the house up front, it's much less invasive and impactful. That probably would mean something to him. But we're back over here, which is I spoke for him. I can't speak for you on this one 'cause I just don't know what you're, what you're thinking is help them help me. Help you help them. Speaker 11: Yes. Yeah, I, I agree with that. If, if it turns out you suddenly now have this hardship that you cannot fill what's like a kettle hole or something on the property
and it takes up a goodly portion of that entire lot that does look like you have an argument for a variance for that. I still concerned about, I mean there were, I didn't bother to bring it up, but there's missing dimensions on some of the elevations. They really are all supposed to be there according to this. I think, you know, certified plot plans showing property dimensions, location, dimensions of existing buildings, proposed structures, existing driveways, et cetera. Building plans, elevations for additions and new structures. I mean I know it's, it's boilerplate
and there's, there's missing dimensions that concern me. So Okay, Speaker 31: We'll make sure we follow up Speaker 11: On that. Yeah, just, just make it real nice and clean. Yeah, Speaker 31: I'm I'm not pulling the strings here now. Yeah, Speaker 32: Thank you. Speaker 11: Yes, thank you Speaker 1: Enough Speaker 30: To let them build. You don't need a section six on top of that. Speaker 1: Tell him Speaker 14: I I haven't read it yet so I don't wanna Alright, Speaker 1: Well did you get that site? It may have some Speaker 33: To you. Yeah, I'm, I'm somewhat familiar with ada. The only difference with ADA is this is a, this is a tear down. ADA was adding a dormer and it violated a, a FAR. So it depends how you see tear downs
versus additions renovations. The, the, the dormer added more square footage, usable square footage and then that altered the calc. So it took the non-conformance and made it more non-conforming. Arguably. And I think that was the court's workaround on doing something reasonable. Speaker 1: I was the case Speaker 33: 2019 below 2019. Speaker 14: I'm Speaker 1: Sure I just can't, I don't Speaker 11: Recall. So that's in the current, I forget the name of the big compendium, the big expensive book. What's the name of that again? Speaker 33: Lot is useful. Speaker 11: No, I mean, well wait, the,
the lot is the case, correct? Correct. I mean the, the collection of land court decisions or is Supreme Judicial court decisions? Yeah, it's, it would be in there because it's 2019, correct? Correct. Yeah. Speaker 33: Okay. It's been a while but it they, they normally differentiate on tear downs versus Speaker 11: Yeah, I would think so. Speaker 33: Additions renovations Speaker 11: To existing Speaker 33: Otta was a dormer on Yeah. Something in Brooklyn that was there for a hundred years. Yeah. Yes it did add square footage but that was it. So they, Speaker 11: Yeah I wondered because if it was 2019 we should have been dealing with this Ted Speaker 1: The Speaker 11: Last six years,
Speaker 33: Couple years off with COVID but it came back around and it is useful on additions primarily. Yeah. Yeah. That's why he mentioned it I think where the garage was longer. Speaker 11: Oh I get you. I get you right. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 1: Alright, so we're gonna vote to move it to January 12th around. Alright. Yeah, Speaker 14: Move that we continue this hearing until our meeting on January 12th. Speaker 1: Second. Second agreeable over here Jeff, those in favor? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 C Thank you for Speaker 33: Your time. Speaker 1: Okay, thanks guys. Alright.
Aren't they your, we had everything tonight and they all like sort of overlap with each other. It's pretty cool. Alright. Yeah, sure. We need, Speaker 14: Oh, I'll move to adjourn. Speaker 3: The only thing is, is the meeting calendar, I don't know if you guys usually vote on it or, but now it is amended. So what we would do is on January we would only meet once. So we would meet on January 12th, the 29th instead of the 26th. And we would have no meeting in December. Speaker 1: Sounds good. Have no meeting in December. You wanna vote on it now? No, Speaker 3: You don't need to. I'll just, if the board is okay with just advertising
or collecting applications for January 12th. Yeah. Perfect. And then on the, and then also February 23rd and then we can just start populating those two. And then on the 12th we'll vote the calendar. Perfect. That's all I need. And then you'll have minutes at the next one. Speaker 1: As always we a motion to Ajour. Second. Second. Yep. Around the here. Help with these books.