##VIDEO ID:https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/994DtmGEsi0VDYK3jJI2BJ72GfgNIpU2/media/929681?autostart=false&showtabssearch=true&fullscreen=false## <v Speaker 1>All right.</v> Oh, good evening folks. Before we get started, <v Speaker 2>Hey.</v> And then, <v Speaker 1>Is this not working?</v> <v Speaker 3>Hello? Need your hammer?</v> <v Speaker 1>Hi Michael, how are you?</v> Okay, we're gonna get started. Thanks. So before we, we start, we have a public speak section where any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda, and it will be taken under advisement by the board. There'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. This section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes in any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. Does anyone have anything they'd like to raise that's not on the agenda tonight. Okay. Seeing nothing, we'll just go ahead and get started. The first matter is for five Scarsdale Road, an application for five Scarsdale Road Realty Trust for a finding in variance per mass general law. Chapter 48, section six and 10, nat zoning bylaws, sections four B and five A. The applicant proposes to construct a two car garage on the preexisting non-conforming law is shown. The plan submitted that matter is being continued. No, that is fine. Oh, oh, it's going on. It's going forward. Yeah, that, oh, I'm sorry. It's a continued hearing. Do we have anyone here? Four five Scarsdale? No. Okay. So he <v Speaker 4>Emailed me too and confirm the time.</v> He might be running late. <v Speaker 1>Okay. So we'll go ahead and kick that to the end.</v> The next, the next matter is a continuation for 25 Hillcrest is going forward. <v Speaker 4>This is gonna be</v> <v Speaker 1>Continued. Okay.</v> That's what I thought. Okay. This is an application of Joni Shehu for variance per chapter 40 A and section 10 of the Mass Zoning Act. And four B and five, a bylaws for the construction of a single family dwelling and a nonconforming law as shown on the plan submitted that matter is being continued by agreement to <v Speaker 5>Feb 24.</v> <v Speaker 1>Feb 24. So we get a motion move to</v> <v Speaker 5>Continue the hearing to Feb 24</v> <v Speaker 1>Second.</v> All set? Yes. All those in favor? Yep. Okay. So that's continued. If you're here on 25 Hillcrest, that matter is not gonna be heard tonight. It's gonna be heard on February 24th. The next matter is 24 Marshall Road, an application for Seth Doby. A variance is required for the front entry and section six findings required for the side yard setback per mass general law, chapter 40 a section six, and the natick zoning bylaws, sections four B and five A and chapter 40 a section 10 of the MA zoning act and section. It's there twice. Four B and five. A five a two of the eight 20 bylaws. The project is for a farmer's porch on the front of the single family dwelling and an extension of preexisting non-conforming structure as shown the plan submitted. Do we have anyone here on 24 Marshall Road? Come on up. Where to podium? Right, right here, if you would. So I, I'm going to, I'm gonna have you sit right here. I I'm going to recuse myself 'cause my daughter babysat Yes. Or has babysat for these folks. Yes. And so <v Speaker 5>We stay at Farmer's porch.</v> <v Speaker 1>I don't know anything about anything.</v> I'm not gonna comment. So if you'll do the, do your thing, <v Speaker 5>Do my best.</v> Okay. <v Speaker 6>We just brought some extra handouts for clarity.</v> It's what was submitted. We just <v Speaker 7>Provided, I, I uploaded the CAD files</v> when the time came to make the deadline. But we thought these might make the clear, make the point a little clearer. <v Speaker 5>Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 7>And it basically is that, I'm sorry. Oh,</v> <v Speaker 5>Can you introduce yourself</v> and tell us what you're hoping to do here? <v Speaker 7>I'm sorry. My name is Seth Doby. This is my wife n Okay.</v> And we are, let's see. Our primary goal is the pre-existing non-conforming, the side setback where basically we're trying to add a kitchen to the back of the house. And the existing structure sits eight feet from the property line. I, we've designed it to step back as best we can, but we need a little bit of breathing room right at the corner there for the living room. So we're asking for that. Side setback is the primary reason that we're here. The secondary reason would be the foyer that we're asking for. And that started as the front porch project. But we've sort of designed our way out of that topic by way of increasing the height of the building. So the front porch depth is not really an issue unless you make it one, I guess so. So there's that side setback, and then there's the front foyer entry. All of these areas are highlighted in yellow. And then lastly is mostly below grade. We have a driveway that dips, dips down from the street down to a garage below the house. And so we have some stone retaining walls. The driveway's really difficult, especially during the winter time when it gets snow and ice. So we're looking to put a little protection over the garage door so I don't get killed, but it's falling snow coming outta there. A trellis or a little roof. Again, it's just above grade. And then the front steps again are at grade or below grade. Really, they're just landscaping steps. But they occur within the 30 foot setback. So I thought I'd ask permission. <v Speaker 5>I was very nice of you. Alright, well</v> <v Speaker 7>We're off to a good start then.</v> <v Speaker 5>Gonna take a look at the variance checklist here</v> or the, the chart looks like you've got plenty of area you're deficient on frontage 70 feet where 120 is required. Understood. So that makes it a non-conforming lock. <v Speaker 7>Right.</v> <v Speaker 5>Depth is good.</v> Front setback is currently conforming, but it will go to 22 in the proposal. <v Speaker 7>Well, the building inspector came back, so we,</v> we went back and forth on those numbers. 20 or 22. Okay. It has to do with the depth of the porch. So no, no more than 20. <v Speaker 5>And then side yard west is required. 12. You have eight.</v> 1 8, 1 will stay the same <v Speaker 7>Except for one, assuming I've judged grade correctly,</v> one of the front, one of the steps goes a little bit past, but for the most part, we're holding back from the existing structure by a couple of feet. But we're asking to sort of meet in the middle of the setback and the existing structure. And if you want to go into reasons for that, it has to do with geometry and wishful thinking, I guess. But, <v Speaker 5>And then the other side is 12 existing,</v> 12 proposed 12 stays the same, I guess. <v Speaker 7>Correct. Yeah. We're not asking for anything on that side.</v> <v Speaker 5>Rear yard is conforming with 227 feet coverage.</v> Okay. Height 23 2 is below the maximum. So it looks <v Speaker 7>Like we, well actually to to the point there,</v> we're actually going to be increasing the height with the new addition. And the reason I bring that up is 'cause the farmer's porch is based on the depth of the, or the height of the building. <v Speaker 5>Okay. Okay. But the maximum height will still only be</v> <v Speaker 7>23, 2 24 something,</v> <v Speaker 5>24 something. It's,</v> <v Speaker 8>That's what</v> <v Speaker 7>It's 24 10, sorry.</v> 23 2 is the existing, <v Speaker 5>Okay.</v> So the chart's a little bit off here. <v Speaker 7>Oh, sorry. There were a couple of reissues of that.</v> The wrong one may have gotten printed. All right. <v Speaker 5>We just wanna,</v> <v Speaker 7>Or, or, or filed rather.</v> <v Speaker 5>If we do decide to approve,</v> we wanna make sure those are correct. 'cause you'll be limited to whatever we approve. <v Speaker 7>Sure. So maybe we should take one last look, make</v> <v Speaker 5>Sure we get it right. I thought</v> <v Speaker 7>We got it right, but Okay. We, we,</v> <v Speaker 8>We did.</v> I'm just get my phone so I can bring it up. <v Speaker 5>So let's, there's one part</v> that requires a finding where you're just, you're not encroaching more on the setback. Is that, which part was that again? <v Speaker 7>I'm sorry.</v> <v Speaker 5>It sounded like you've got two sort</v> of distinct projects. <v Speaker 7>My understanding is that they're both findings,</v> but here's where I get a little confused. Okay. So, so yeah, let's, let's just start with a side setback maybe. So on the west, that's the side of the pre-existing non-conforming. And again, we, our floor plan, if you want to flip to the second page of, of the, a set of drawings, there's a yellow highlighted version and a, a text that says 12 foot setback. So what you see really is that all we're asking for is that corner of the living room. Just, just that one little corner. And we're not asking to go all the way out. We're only asking to go out a couple of feet. And then the rest is the extension of the screen porch. And a large part of this is not to take up too much time, but half the width of the existing house, if you think of the ridge of the existing house. So trying to match the existing house, and if you take half that dimension out, it puts us at 12 foot four. And so that's that point of geometry and we're asking for a little leniency there. And then that, that's basically a one story addition. Again, the further away from the ridge we get the lower, we can bring the eave line of the roof working towards the Cape Cod tile architecture. So that's the goal there. <v Speaker 5>Just check the Okay.</v> Building commissioner's letter. <v Speaker 7>Yeah. To be honest, the Mr.</v> Gini had one set of comments and then there was another set on the portal that did say something different and it confused me. One was asking for, like you said, a finding into the other, a variance. And I get a little confused on those. <v Speaker 5>Well, the, the reason why</v> <v Speaker 7>Doesn't change what I'm asking for. The</v> <v Speaker 5>Reason why we're getting a little wrapped up here is</v> because variances are a little bit different. Harder. <v Speaker 7>I understand that. Harder to get Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 5>And harder to grant. They're, they're a statute</v> or a creature of statute. And we have to find that due to factors relating to the soil, the, the lot shape soils or topography. You've got a unique situation on your lot that's not common to the neighborhood. In order to grant a variance, it has to be something unique to the lot shape soils or topography. Yeah. Okay. And it looks like it's, <v Speaker 9>That front yard setback on the zoning chart would lean</v> towards needing a variance. <v Speaker 5>Yeah. Right. Exactly.</v> And that's what the commissioner said. That's what <v Speaker 7>He's asking.</v> Okay. So that's about the foyer up front. Okay. That's not this side setback that we're talking about. Well, I think what we're talking about the side setback would be the finding. <v Speaker 9>Yeah. The finding, because you're on a side setback,</v> you're already non-conforming. That's right. And you're asking to continue that same non, that's <v Speaker 7>Nonconforming.</v> We're not making it worse, but we're asking that exactly. <v Speaker 5>We</v> <v Speaker 7>Yeah. Right,</v> <v Speaker 9>Right in the front, the current house is conforming</v> to create a new nonconformity. <v Speaker 7>That is correct. And</v> <v Speaker 9>Variance.</v> <v Speaker 7>Okay. So towards that variance, to be honest,</v> I was here 10 years ago for one of my neighbor's hearings where she got the same, it wasn't on the public records this time. We, or we couldn't find it anyway, but I believe she cited the stairs and the stair code possibly. And that's where we, we tried to ask some questions about previous projects that have been approved. So, so I get, maybe that would be my argument for the foyer would be the, the landing at the bottom of the stairs and the clearance. I mean, we're basically just looking to get a little room at the bottom of our stairs. Our stairs die down right at the front door. Yep. And I have an elderly father, I have trouble getting him in and pass the, you know, all that. So we're looking to just get a little, little access at the front door <v Speaker 5>In that, I think we're, we're a little bit limited by</v> what the building commissioner told us. Building commissioner said, you need a variance. Okay. <v Speaker 7>Yeah, yeah. I'm not contesting that.</v> I honestly don't know which one is which. <v Speaker 9>Yeah. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 5>And that is the,</v> I'm trying to see exactly what's new and what's old here in the farmer's porch. Is that the, <v Speaker 7>The farmer's porch?</v> Again, we've been asking questions, but my understanding is that by Right. We're allowed to build the farmer's porch. <v Speaker 5>So that's not existing. It</v> <v Speaker 7>Is not existing at the moment.</v> No. So my understanding was that we're not here for the farmer's porch because we meet all of the criteria in order to do the farmer's porch. So what we're here for is just that little entry part, bump out underneath, and other people have done it in the neighborhood. And so we were, we don't know if it was the size of such a thing is based on the concrete steps that were pulled out of there that were failing. And so we're trying to replace those failing concrete front steps, trying to, you know, provide new front steps. And this is new enclosure. And so we're asking, you know, other people seem to be allowed to do it. So I guess our question at the time was what dimensions would be allowed? But now that we're here, here's what we're proposing and for that reason, <v Speaker 9>So the open air commerce porch is allowed</v> to be within the setback. <v Speaker 5>Right. Right. So it's the, so I think the problem is</v> that it's got walls, it's enclosed. <v Speaker 9>Part of it is, yeah. Yeah. And that park,</v> <v Speaker 7>Well, I, we could not to interrupt, I'm sorry.</v> So if we posed it without the farmer's porch, is that one set of argument and with the farmer's porch a different argument? No, <v Speaker 9>The the farmer's porch is you don't need permit</v> special. Understood. <v Speaker 7>Yeah. So I understand that. So that you</v> <v Speaker 9>Wouldn't need to come here.</v> It's that enclosed portion, the entry that, that is within <v Speaker 7>The, I guess what I was saying is if I,</v> if I proposed a set of plans that didn't show the farmer's porch and only showed the foyer, would that simplify the question <v Speaker 9>Wrong?</v> <v Speaker 5>Flip it around. Flip it around.</v> <v Speaker 9>Okay. If you did just the farmer's</v> porch, you don't need to be here. That, that <v Speaker 7>Part I do understand. No,</v> <v Speaker 9>The foyer is the, the problem. But</v> <v Speaker 7>The reason for That's right, I'm complicating</v> matters is I'm gonna stop talking <v Speaker 9>What the site is.</v> I can't get You have the commissioner's letter there. No, they should be in there. <v Speaker 5>Yeah, it should be</v> <v Speaker 7>Which one's, which</v> <v Speaker 9>The right list with the numbers conservation.</v> I can't get into <v Speaker 5>Public works.</v> <v Speaker 9>If you're asking for variance to build that front,</v> <v Speaker 7>If that's what Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 9>The statute. Jason can read the criteria when you're,</v> when you're requesting a variance, the the need needs to be tied to the, the lot. Yeah. Not that, not the, you know, you need to create a hardship, not hardship being we really want it. Right. Or we have the elderly father. Right, right. Hardship needs to be, our lot is configured in a certain way that we can't build this project and conform to zoning. 'cause of the reasons Jason <v Speaker 5>Lot shape soils or topography.</v> So if it was a very odd shaped lot, you know, not a, not a rectangle like we see, or if it had a cliff, you know, that caused you to have to move into the setback because you couldn't blast into a cliff. Or if the soils were, you know, wetland and you couldn't build on the wetlands, so you had to move the house closer into the setback. Those would be justifications perhaps for a, for <v Speaker 7>Ance.</v> And, and what you're suggesting is this is going to be denied because it is not that <v Speaker 5>I, I'm not gonna suggest, oh, I'm sorry.</v> But that's a possibility. It's <v Speaker 7>A possibility. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 8>So if we, one of the, I,</v> I can't bring up the address right now, but the, the one that Seth was referring to did come before zoning and was approved. It was just so far back that the application itself is no longer on the portal. And it was a similar situation and I would think <v Speaker 7>It's the exact same house.</v> So if we mimicked their argument. <v Speaker 8>Yeah. So I guess I'm just trying to understand it.</v> You know, if it's already been done and there's precedence, <v Speaker 5>There's, there is no precedent at the zoning board that's,</v> we review every case. Got it. On a case by case basis, we try to apply the law, we try to apply the facts. Yep. If somebody granted some relief previous, I would like to think that there were unique circumstances. Maybe there was, maybe the lot was a little bit differently shaped. Maybe it did have some wetlands or some clips Sure. Or anything like that. But we kinda have to evaluate each one on its own. That's <v Speaker 7>Fair.</v> We'll cross that bridge. We're come to it, but that none of those were the case in my memory of that particular project. Yeah. <v Speaker 5>We, we don't, we don't consider</v> prior decisions really. Okay. <v Speaker 9>Yeah. Can you see if anyone's here?</v> <v Speaker 5>Yeah, we could open it up if there's anybody that wanted</v> to talk in favor or against or support nobody. Okay. Have you talked to any of the, your neighbors? <v Speaker 7>We have.</v> <v Speaker 8>Yep. We have.</v> <v Speaker 7>And we, we had one who had questions</v> and we invited him over and showed him what we're gonna do and Yeah. <v Speaker 8>And he's the one that's right</v> <v Speaker 7>Off the side. He would be the most affected.</v> <v Speaker 8>Yeah. At 34 MacArthur.</v> But we spoke with him and his wife and they understand what we're doing and they were fine. <v Speaker 7>They were just a little scared. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 5>They were, they were content enough not</v> to bother coming out here tonight. Correct. <v Speaker 8>Correct.</v> <v Speaker 7>Well, I mean we, you know,</v> we gave them the same kind of presentation we're giving you. Yeah. To be honest. <v Speaker 9>And could you make the argument that the, the location</v> of the house on the lot makes it that they can't put the, the front stairs anywhere else and therefore you need variance. <v Speaker 5>It's not really tied to the lot shape, size,</v> or topography. <v Speaker 7>What about existing structure?</v> The concrete landing and steps that were there previously? <v Speaker 5>Yeah. Where else are you gonna put a</v> landing but on the end of your structure? Right, right. Not gonna put it in the backyard. <v Speaker 7>Well, I didn't follow where you're going there,</v> but you sounded like you're supporting me. What steps for you on that one? <v Speaker 5>The front steps to your house</v> have to be in the front of your house. Yeah, that's <v Speaker 7>Correct. Right. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 5>Yeah. So that, that makes sense.</v> Is there anything that you can tell us that's, that's unique, specifically difficult about the lot? Is, is it sloped? Is that, <v Speaker 7>Well, it's the, the frontage you mentioned,</v> it's only 70 feet wide. It's a very narrow lot. It is long where it goes to the back. But you know, we're, we're a small house and we're not trying to do a lot, we're just trying to bump out a little here and there. It just happens that we're sitting right on the 30 foot, you know, I asked my surveyor, Hey, is it possible it's 29, 11 and a half? And he came back with it is 30.0. So here we are, you know, but so, so just putting that part aside, again, the priority is the side setback. Just my wife's looking for the kitchen, the front entry. Other people have it. We would, it would improve our plan. It would improve the safety of getting in our house. You know, all of the same arguments in, in years past. There was something said about light and air and a breezeway. So I'll throw those words in there, but that, that is sort sort of priority number two. So if that didn't go through, it wouldn't be, you know, I, I'm not gonna say we wouldn't fight it, but we'd, we'd maybe follow up on that part. Yeah, <v Speaker 9>I mean, I think the side setback is easy.</v> That's definitely not substantially detrimental. That's threshold for there, you know, I don't have a, I don't have a personal issue with that front, with the foyer. So I, I, I would like to find a way to <v Speaker 7>Thank you.</v> Prove it. Like I said, I, I have a good memory <v Speaker 9>Words from about the narrowness of the lot</v> and how maybe we, you know, you can't make an entry inside because the lot is narrow. Gimme some something to, to that extent. Not that there's something that's crumbling there. <v Speaker 7>You mean you want me to parrot that tonight?</v> <v Speaker 9>Keep talking. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 7>Yeah. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 9>That was there. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 7>So</v> <v Speaker 9>You guys said something else.</v> Looks like they might, Jason, do you have something else? <v Speaker 5>Well, I, I was just reminded by the</v> quiet chairman over here who's recused himself that the law actually reads, where was it? Here <v Speaker 9>I</v> <v Speaker 5>Owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions,</v> shape or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures, but not effectively affecting generally the general, the zoning district in which it's located. So I was forgetting that it mentions structures. So I think we could consider the location. If you <v Speaker 9>Were to say because of</v> the, of the structure. The lot is narrow. <v Speaker 7>Because the lot is narrow</v> <v Speaker 9>And</v> that your house is currently set forward of the lot towards the front <v Speaker 7>Of the lot.</v> And our house is set forward on the 30 foot setback. It is set to the front of the lot. Yes. <v Speaker 9>In order to to create a new</v> staircase, you can't go on the side <v Speaker 7>In order to create a new staircase.</v> We can't go on the side. So there's no place else to go but the front, we have to come into <v Speaker 9>The</v> <v Speaker 7>Front, therefore Yes, that is true.</v> All of that is true. <v Speaker 5>So would we need a separate vote for the finding</v> and the variance, Mr. Chair? Yes. Thank you. Alright, so I would take a motion if anyone wants to make one on part one, which is the section six finding for the, the side work side project. There <v Speaker 9>A motion.</v> And the variance is for the front. <v Speaker 5>Yes. I'm taking a motion on the finding for the, why</v> <v Speaker 9>Don't you do side setback.</v> I would propose that we approve the request for a section six finding for the side setback. Finding that the proposed addition is not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood and that as long as it is built in substantial conformance with the plan submitted and all the letters from the town departments. <v Speaker 5>Is there a second?</v> <v Speaker 7>Say</v> <v Speaker 5>Again.</v> Second. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All in favor. Now, part two variance. It sounds like we could potentially grant a variance if this board would find, and we have to have a, I think it's a super majority, right? Three outta five. Although that was unanimous. The last one anyway. So if there was another motion someone wanted to make to approve. Four. <v Speaker 9>Four outta five.</v> <v Speaker 5>Four to four to five, sorry. Yeah.</v> Four to five on the front porch. And we'll have to make a couple of findings there relating to the shape of the structure. So <v Speaker 1>Move that we find, excuse me,</v> I've lost my voice already today. Move that we find, do I find or do we, <v Speaker 5>We're gonna make a finding</v> <v Speaker 1>Yep.</v> Move that we approve the variance and find that <v Speaker 5>Due to factors,</v> <v Speaker 1>Due to factors particularly</v> <v Speaker 5>Relating</v> <v Speaker 1>To this, particularly to the size right.</v> Shape and topography of the lot. And structure. And <v Speaker 5>Structure and specifically, what about the</v> <v Speaker 1>Structure specifically that it's set forward on the lot</v> at the front and the front door has to be on the front of the building, should be under supreme court with this that <v Speaker 5>Do you find that?</v> <v Speaker 1>And we do find that is</v> <v Speaker 5>A literal enforcement of the provisions</v> of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship. <v Speaker 1>Literal enforcement of the ordinance will</v> involve substantial hardship. <v Speaker 5>And that desirable relief may be granted without</v> substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying a substantially ator from the intended purpose of the bylaw. <v Speaker 1>And that substantial relief will be, I</v> <v Speaker 5>Don't mean to put words in your mouth</v> <v Speaker 10>Or quickly.</v> <v Speaker 1>Or quickly. It will not derogate the,</v> <v Speaker 5>And that it, it does not,</v> the condition on the lot does not generally affect the <v Speaker 1>Neighborhood in the condition A lot does not affect</v> the condition of the neighborhood. <v Speaker 5>Alright, I think that's close enough. Yeah. Thank you.</v> Is there a second to Jeffrey's motion? Ari? Thank you. All in favor. That is five outta five. <v Speaker 1>That was the worst motion of all time. Time.</v> <v Speaker 10>No, it was the best. Thank you very much. Thank you all.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you. Good luck. We done a long time. Well done.</v> Well, well done folks. Proud memoriz. Next matter is 19 Longfellow Road, an application for Grant goo for refining for MGL L chapter 40 a section six natick zoning bylaws, sections four B and five A. The applicant proposes to construct an addition the on the pre-existing non-conforming ladder shown on the plan submitted. Hello. <v Speaker 11>Good evening.</v> <v Speaker 1>How are you?</v> <v Speaker 11>Good, how you doing?</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay, just fine. Thanks.</v> Let me just take a quick peek here. Okay. Okay. <v Speaker 10>Yeah,</v> yeah, <v Speaker 1>Yeah.</v> 1920. So we have your lot's Good. Your frontage is short, your depth is good. Your front's non-conforming but won't change your side is conforming will be reduced but will remain conforming. Your other side is nonconforming and won't change. I'm sorry. It's conforming. It will remain conforming. No change the rears good, good. The coverage is good will increase, but stay conforming the height's good will increase. But stay conforming. So this is the frontage, right? Just the frontage, right? Okay. <v Speaker 11>Exactly the, yeah, so looking</v> for the relief on the frontage. Yep. <v Speaker 1>Let's just take a quick peek at these plans.</v> Okay. Yep. <v Speaker 9>So it's a sec second story addition in the</v> exact footprint. <v Speaker 11>So it's, we're actually expanding</v> on the left side, increasing the, the one car garage to a two car garage. And then we're gonna build over that as well. Okay. And push the, push the second floor, the left side of the second floor all the way back. <v Speaker 1>Are there any elevations? Yeah, I</v> <v Speaker 9>Don't see any yet.</v> <v Speaker 11>I'm not too sure</v> <v Speaker 1>Necessarily.</v> While you're looking, while you're looking, I'll just find, let's find out who else is here. Is anybody here to talk about this project at 19 Longfellow Road <v Speaker 9>For elevations?</v> <v Speaker 1>Is that, is that a I No, I'm looking at</v> <v Speaker 12>25.</v> Is that being done today? <v Speaker 1>25 what? Euclid? Euclid?</v> No, no, that was the first one. That, that matter is being continued. <v Speaker 12>No one said anything.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah, that's how we started.</v> We started, that's being continued to February 24th. <v Speaker 12>Again,</v> <v Speaker 1>Again,</v> that was the first thing I said when I got here. Yeah. <v Speaker 12>But I, I saw it on the second on the list. That's why</v> <v Speaker 1>It was the second thing I said when I got here.</v> It's not being heard tonight. It's come, it's gonna be heard on February 24th. <v Speaker 11>I'm not sure.</v> <v Speaker 9>Hopefully.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. Perhaps</v> <v Speaker 11>We'll see.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay, so back to 19 Longfellow.</v> Is anybody here on 19 Longfellow? Okay. Nobody's here. It seems fairly benign but I don't see any elevations. <v Speaker 9>Not if we can't see it. Yeah. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 1>There's no way we can see what you're doing in,</v> in an elevation format <v Speaker 11>That might have been omitted if on the submission,</v> but if you don't see it, <v Speaker 1>I don't see it.</v> Does anybody else see it on, on any submission? <v Speaker 9>We have the architectural plans,</v> but it's all just floor plans. <v Speaker 11>Right.</v> <v Speaker 9>And the, for the main building,</v> are you demoing the first floor walls? <v Speaker 11>Just the left side, just so that it connects</v> to the additional building. <v Speaker 9>But the other one's the, the walls will stay kind</v> of new second <v Speaker 11>Floor.</v> Right. The right side and then the right side of the wall will stay. But the second floor, the, the roof will be raised. <v Speaker 9>Sure, yeah. Yeah. Okay.</v> But those, lemme see where those walls will stay. <v Speaker 11>The wall will stay</v> <v Speaker 13>New. Second floor, floor joists,</v> <v Speaker 1>Second floor walls, roof.</v> Right. Then there's something second floor district you can't see it. So do, do you think those plans exist and we just don't have 'em or they don't exist? <v Speaker 14>Exist? I</v> <v Speaker 1>See what I'm gonna do, this is, we, we're gonna have</v> to continue this matter to February 24th, but I can step it back. You, you can make a few phone calls if they were just omitted from the submission, someone could email them to you and you could show us the plans that we might be able to do it. You could save yourself a month. Okay. Otherwise I don't think there's any way we could, we could rule on it without at least seeing what's gonna happen. Right. Fair. Alright. Yeah, absolutely. So we'll keep this, this is still alive. I'm gonna step it back, have you go outside, do whatever you need to do to see if you can get those plans to us and we'll get you back around to you. Sure. Alright, thanks very much. <v Speaker 14>Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 1>Bet. Okay, the next matter is, we don't need</v> to vote on that, do we? <v Speaker 14>Nope. It's still open.</v> <v Speaker 1>Pause. Okay.</v> So next matter is 85 Cottage Street and application for Miles Walker finding for 48 6 and Nat zoning ballot is four B and five a applicant proposed to raise existing garage and it construct a new garage on the preexisting nine formula shown on the plan. Submitted. Hi there. 85 cottage? Yes. Okay, great. Let me take a look at what we have here and we'll get you going. While I'm doing this, can you just give me your name and address for the record? Yeah. <v Speaker 14>Miles Walker 85 Cottage Street.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. So you've got the lot, you've got the frontage</v> short on depth, your front's good. No nonconforming will remain. So your sides good and will remain. So your other side's good and remains so your rears good and good coverage is good and good. Your height is increasing, but good. And that's it. So this is depth, that's it. Just that <v Speaker 14>Yeah, the the existing house is like you said,</v> non-conforming in the front setback. So we are bumping out to the left side. Yep. About seven feet. But it, because of the location of the house, it's already non-conforming. Yep. But we have space to the side setback. <v Speaker 1>Yeah. So you're going, let's see,</v> so seven, seven feet to the east. <v Speaker 14>Yes.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay, but you have plenty of room there.</v> <v Speaker 14>Yes.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. Alright. So let's see. Take a peek.</v> And is the la is the lot relatively flat? Mike, can you see? I can't see. <v Speaker 9>No, it looks like it slopes down to,</v> <v Speaker 1>I have Is that 2 0 5 at the front</v> <v Speaker 9>Slopes in the direction?</v> They're, they're building from <v Speaker 1>Oh, right to left.</v> Oh, oh is that 5 0 5? 5 0 4. <v Speaker 9>Yeah. 5 0 5 in the front of the house.</v> 5 0 1 in the back of the house and then <v Speaker 1>5 0 2. Okay. Well</v> <v Speaker 9>Your whole thing's in the a hundred foot buffer.</v> Yeah. Have you got gone through 'em yet? Yeah, <v Speaker 14>It took a a while.</v> <v Speaker 9>I was gonna say. Yeah, that's and that's approved already.</v> We don't need their approval cause <v Speaker 14>But you're, yeah, it's approved through</v> <v Speaker 9>Them.</v> Okay. <v Speaker 1>And the, the did is there,</v> is there a height calculation on here? <v Speaker 14>I believe they have it at just under 32 feet.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah. The question is how do they derive that?</v> I cannot, I cannot see <v Speaker 10>On the second page of the section.</v> <v Speaker 1>Second. Okay. Let's see. A 10, a 30.</v> <v Speaker 10>30.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah. Out to, to see to the peak.</v> 31 31. Five and a half. Is that what it is? Yeah. I don't know if that is from, from mean grade or not. The ground is the elevation minus, so it's actually 32, 32 and a half. 'cause that, is that measured from top of concrete or something? <v Speaker 9>No, he's got it from, he's got it</v> from, oh yeah, you're right. It's adds one inch. They do have spot grades on the site plan. <v Speaker 1>Oh</v> <v Speaker 9>They do. But it's not, I don't see</v> how the two are tied together yet. It doesn't look like it'll be <v Speaker 1>An issue but not, not an issue.</v> 'cause it's max four, four feet. So that's plus or minus two feet. So they, they have a little bit of working room there. The the thing is with the grade with, because you're on a sloping spot. Yeah. You know, if you measure over here, you're gonna get one height. Sure. Measure over here, you're gonna get another height. Essentially you average those. Right. Okay. You go all the way around the outside, that gives you an average grade plane and then you measure to the top of the, of the peak from the average create plane not from the ground. Right. If you will. So, but it looks <v Speaker 9>Like also the, the the addition, the,</v> the main ridge of the house isn't changing. Right. We're just talking about the the garage. <v Speaker 14>So the garage</v> and the portion of the building right next to the garage, which on the architecturals the first floor is the office and family room that is raising as well. Oh yeah, <v Speaker 9>You do.</v> Oh yeah. <v Speaker 14>But the whole right side is staying the same.</v> <v Speaker 9>Okay. So the the new structure will be the highest</v> point on the Yes. On the building, right? Yeah. So we gotta maybe make sure this is right. <v Speaker 1>Alright. Did we already find out if there's nobody here</v> right on ninth? I don't know if you asked, let's see, maybe I didn't, let's see, this is, sorry. 85 cottage. Anyone here to talk about 85 cottage? Okay. Seeing no one. Well if we, without what we would do, if we were inclined to approve the project, we would hold you to the height that you're indicating on the plans. Right? Okay. So if it turned out that your average grade produced something different, you, you, you know, you might get jammed up a little bit, but I think you have a couple feet to play with there. Right? So how do we feel about that? <v Speaker 9>Say not to exceed something or</v> <v Speaker 1>Sure. Or Sure.</v> <v Speaker 9>I mean on our end it'd be, I'd be fine to say not</v> to exceed the 35 calls out here, but you'd wanna make sure you're okay with that. We <v Speaker 14>Can also just, yeah, I mean the only thing</v> that would change is I'm working on structural plans and making sure that the existing floor joists of the original 1840s house is two by eight. They're gonna make me increase those a bit, but I think not a ton. I guess <v Speaker 1>Another way to look at it is you're only going up six feet</v> according to to this. You're only going up six feet from the existing height. So so what if that's accurate? It doesn't really matter what the Well it it does. If it, if it, who <v Speaker 9>Knows what income for 32.</v> If the 32 is wrong <v Speaker 1>For the first Correct.</v> Any, the first provision of any decision that the board renders would, would require you to build it in substantial conformance with the plan submitted. Right. And the plan submitted or indicating a height of X, you'd be bound by that. You are allowed to make certain field changes in accordance with the requirements of the building code and the building department. Right. They don't make you run back down here for an inch here, an inch there. But if you were exceeding by three feet the plans that you're submitting that you'd end up having to come back here. Sure. But at the same time we, 'cause your lot is relatively flat. You know, if you're, if we're talking about like this, it's a five foot then, then average grade is, is substantial. Right. It changes. Right. I think you're gonna be in, in good shape, but you'll know that when you get out there, there's a requirement that you build it as you've indicated and that your height can't exceed the numbers on the plan. Right, right. <v Speaker 14>Good,</v> <v Speaker 1>Good. Okay. Alright.</v> Any questions here, the board questions over here? No. Okay. So we'll close the hearing and we'll, let's, let's hear a motion <v Speaker 5>Move to approve the project based on a finding</v> that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the pre-existing nonconforming use and structure provided. It's built in substantial conformance with a plan submitted and any requirements from the town departments Who submitted letters to the board tonight? <v Speaker 1>Second. Second. All those in favor? You're all set.</v> Good luck. Thank you. Alright, the next matter is 25 Euclid, an application for Silva Development for a finding under 40 a section six native ex zoning bylaw four B and five a applicant proposed to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the previously non-conforming audit shown on the plan submitted. Council, <v Speaker 15>Happy New Year guys.</v> <v Speaker 1>Oh yeah, sure. Hang on one sec.</v> <v Speaker 16>We're here for five star sale.</v> We're just wondering if that's <v Speaker 1>Gonna Oh, okay.</v> Hold on a second. Let me help you there. Yeah, so that one was, first we called it are you, are you the applicant? No. <v Speaker 16>So we're the builder. So the applicant is here. Okay.</v> I mean, yes, we're the one that applies for that. <v Speaker 1>We've</v> <v Speaker 16>Kind of been going back and forth like</v> <v Speaker 1>Are you gonna present?</v> <v Speaker 16>Yeah. So we have everything. We were just</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay, so you weren't here at the very beginning?</v> <v Speaker 16>No, I don't think so.</v> <v Speaker 1>So instead of denying it,</v> we just kicked it to the end. Are you representing 'em? No, <v Speaker 15>No, but this can hop on. No, no,</v> <v Speaker 1>No, you're just, you're now at the back.</v> We'll get to you though. Sorry. Problem. You do 25 Euclid. That's good. Yep. Let me take a peek zoning with Euclid in it. What's that? Should appeal to the lawyers here. Was that the original attorney something? No. The or No, the original. One of the original zoning cases. Oh, oh, Euclid, Ohio, right. Oh see I'm, <v Speaker 15>Ah, yes.</v> <v Speaker 1>Ah,</v> <v Speaker 15>I try to get these over quick.</v> I don't wanna go to a whole history front. <v Speaker 1>Okay, here we go. I think that's it.</v> So your, your lot's short. Yes. Your front is is short, your depth is good. Your front is good. Side's good. Other side. Good rear, good coverage, good height, good lot frontage. Lot <v Speaker 15>And frontage. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 10>Alright,</v> <v Speaker 1>Let's see. Euclid.</v> Okay, so moving it a little to the left and expanding it, moving it back. <v Speaker 15>Yeah. Most of it's the pushback.</v> That's where the size comes from and height is measured from grade on. Those architecturals are in there and I did confirm it's been one that's come up a few times. It's not gonna be any trees removed, just part of the construction. <v Speaker 1>Alright. Alright. Anybody here on 25? Euclid?</v> How do you like that? Okay, I, I have no questions. Anybody have any questions here? <v Speaker 10>Let's see.</v> <v Speaker 5>It's a flat lot. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 15>Pretty flat lot. Yeah and,</v> and it backs up to Harwood where there's been some new construction around there too. So it does, I believe fit with the neighborhood as it as it's changing over. We have all the letters from the boards too that my client's reviewed and he's aware of how he has to approach those. <v Speaker 1>Anybody else? Good? No.</v> Good motion Move <v Speaker 5>To approve project based on a finding</v> that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming use structure provided its built and substantial conformance of plan submitted and any requirements from town departments has, has been the letters to the board tonight. Second. <v Speaker 1>Second. Alright, all those in favor? You're all set.</v> <v Speaker 15>I have a history lesson about No,</v> <v Speaker 17>Have a good</v> <v Speaker 5>Night.</v> Euclid versus gambler next month. <v Speaker 10>Oh,</v> <v Speaker 5>You wanted</v> to give us a history lesson on Euclid. Oh, <v Speaker 1>Nice.</v> Okay. Next matter up is 83 Kendall Lane, an application of Arthur for Arthur Fine Homes for a finding for MGL. Chapter 48, section six, the zoning bylaws four B and five A. The applicant proposed to raise the existing single family dwelling construct a new two family dwelling on the preexisting non formula shown on the plan submitted. So this is raised the existing single and put up a two. <v Speaker 18>Yes. And we just wanted to note</v> that on the site plan it says RSA, but it's residential general in fact. <v Speaker 1>Okay. Two is allowed. Yeah, two. Two is in allowed use.</v> Yes. Alright, let me take a look. The lot's good. The front is not, the depth is good. The front's good and getting better and getting much better side is not, but will re will become conforming. The other side is good. Three years good coverage, good height. Okay, good. So we have the die calculation on there. <v Speaker 17>The what calculation? I'm sorry? Height. Height. I do.</v> Okay. If you look at the proposed foundation section in the middle of the site plan, it shows a proposed average grade and then if you go over to page seven of the architecturals, it shows a building height calculation from the proposed grade, which in this case is actually the preexisting grade as well because there's not any grade change. <v Speaker 1>Perfect.</v> <v Speaker 17>And there's a small discrepancy of one inch</v> actually from the architecturals. It shows a average grade of, where am I here on the site plan it says 0.6 on the architecturals it says 0.7. So it's a one inch discrepancy I believe. Leave. <v Speaker 1>Okay. So we also have a</v> uniquely a letter here between, it looks like it's to the board from Brian Car OSA and Brian Kennedy of 79 Kendall indicating that they have an agreement with you. They do. All right. I'm sure you've seen this, but I'm gonna put this on the record. We've mutually greeted the following with Mr. Arthur. The wooden stockade fence separating 79 Kendall and 83 Kendall, which is owned by 79. Kendall will remain undisturbed and intact. The demolition excavation and construction 83 Kendall will not require cutting or disturbance of the root zones of any of our trees. That would be the trees on 79, including the sugar maple and Norway Maple located just north of the fence line on the 79 Kendall Lane property. And three, the line of mature green arborvitaes located along the 83 Kendall Lane side of a fence, which provides significant privacy screening for the residents of both properties will remain undisturbed and intact. We would also like to request that Mr. Arthur take care not to damage block or interfere with the functionality and operation of the fire hydrant located on or near the property line between 83 Kendall Lane and eight five Kendall Lane. We appreciate Mr. Arthur's responsiveness to our outreach willingness to meet and correspond with us via email and assurances regarding the issues outlined above. Signed by Brian and Brian. Okay, so we have that. Now <v Speaker 10>Let's</v> <v Speaker 1>Take a look here.</v> I love it when the plans are complete. You've done everything and according to the book, it makes our job a lot easier and you met with the neighbors, which is, which is good. This is the way the process is supposed to work. So thank you first. Does the board have any questions here? While you're thinking about that, is anybody here to talk about this project at 83 Kendall Lane? Yes sir. I'm gonna have you come up here to the podium and just give your name and address for the record. Sure. <v Speaker 19>Speaking to the mic please.</v> Yeah, so my name is Mozzie Erti and I'm here representing the Erti Family Trust at three Stillman Circle, which is the property to the rear of the proposed development. Yep. We have not received any outreach from the developers, very little in the way from the outgoing residents. I have a, a statement that I've typed out just to keep things concise and cogent, which I'd like to say now and then email to the board afterwards. Sure. Okay. I live in the property adjacent to the rear IE west of 83 Kendall Lane. I'm speaking for the Burr Family Trust, who, which owns the lot identified as parcel 56 11 A in the town of Natick property records. We have grave concerns about our privacy and the privacy of the eventual occupants of residence two of 83 Kendall Lane because of the placement of the structure being so much to the rear of parcel 56 12 while the structure is listed as having a 25 foot rear setback from the property line, the structure's patio, I say that in quotes because I imagine that it'll look the way it's in the plans sticks out approximately 15 feet, leaving less than 10 feet reserved for the resident's non-existent backyard. The proposed building plan put before the zoning board does not correctly represent the placement of our home, which is less than 10 feet away from the property line. Our living and dining room window looked directly east. Our neighborhood is no stranger to single family homes being replaced by two family residences in the last five years. Two buildings in the 56 parcel were replaced by a total of three, two family homes. Thus two homes became six residences. These new developments have a front setback off Kendall Lane of approximately 25 to 30 feet, but the proposed development has a front setback of 77 feet. This is more than twice, which was approved only two lots away. It is important to residents like us who have been living in this neighborhood for over 25 years and living in West Natick for almost double that, that the quality of life in West Natick remains pleasant through smart planning. Building a residence at 83 Kendall Lane, so near its rear border, will leave our two buildings too close to each other. This will cause problems relating to noise and compromise and compromises in privacy due to unavoidable sight lines. We would like a condition to be placed on your approval for the development to be in keeping with the look and character of the neighborhood by being brought for the development to be brought near to Kendall Lane. And for the development to have both a front and backyard. We would like a condition to be placed on the approval of building 83 Kendall Lane residences that it be placed in the center of the parcel and thus have a front yard and a backyard of approximately 50 feet in length. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you. What I,</v> what can I have you stay there just for a moment? Sure. Just in case we have any back and forth here, I want to just do two things. One, I I just wanna see, I know we've defined this in the past, the setback is to be measured to the what? The, any part of the structure. Let's just double check that. May <v Speaker 9>We've, we've confirmed that patios aren't</v> <v Speaker 1>Part of the, not measured to the patio.</v> Is that what Right? Is that what you're It's <v Speaker 9>Gotta be enclosed like building structure.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 9>Just things like that.</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright, so just to respond to that, that issue,</v> you're right, the, the, the measurement is accurate in accordance with the requirements of the code. I know it seems <v Speaker 19>I'm not disagreeing with that. No,</v> <v Speaker 1>I I'm and I'm not, this is not meant to be,</v> I'm not being argumentative. I just wanna make sure that we're talking about the same thing. Its impact may be what you're describing, but its compliance is what we're seeing. Right. Okay. So that said, have you considered sneaking this whole thing forward a bit? <v Speaker 17>We did consider that</v> and we don't often get the ability to keep a house so far back off the road. And one of the, I won't say complaints, but feedback we get often is about massing and how close things are to the road and the, and the house to the right at 79, Kendall is already set back quite a ways. So we didn't think that this was something that was completely out of the ordinary. <v Speaker 19>Well that, that particular property has more acreage than</v> any other property in that 56 parcel. I'd counted it probably plus two acres. Everything else is sub one acres. <v Speaker 1>This is the simple here.</v> Yeah, that one there Don't sit back. Yeah. <v Speaker 17>The acreage is certainly, oh sorry. Sorry, please.</v> <v Speaker 19>No,</v> <v Speaker 17>I was going</v> to say the acreage is certainly different. I was mainly referring to just the distance from the road. Sure. <v Speaker 19>I just wanna mention the, as I say the,</v> the West Natick has, it's a thickly or perhaps extremely thickly settled area and it's near a, the West Natick commuter rail line, which, and it's also near Natick Village, which is zoned different. We are zoned as the rest of Natick is proportionally mostly. So we're not, we don't have a problem with the one residence becoming two because this is the future of development here. I just find the placement of the property to be somewhat arbitrary and it's only gonna lead to consternation and problems between residents because there is no backyard there. So the enjoyment, the outside enjoyment will be relegated to a patio that juts out 15 feet. So what's there today in terms of plant matter fencing, yardage will likely change over time and we'll we're, we'll have to live with it. Developer will be long and gone, long gone. And the residents, whoever lives there and where we live, we'll have to live with it. <v Speaker 1>So let me just see what the rear yard setback the</v> to 25 foot requirement for in that and, and you said you, you're building 10 feet off the line. <v Speaker 19>We're probably less than 10 feet.</v> I mean you see the, we moved into it after it was developed and it was subdivided. So the lots that are on Kendall Lane are somewhat rectilinear. They're, they look like rectangles. Once you get around the corner of Harding Lane and Stillman circle, the lots are figured somewhat peculiarly. Ours is somewhat peculiar. So we have a main square parcel and then we have jutting out a peninsula and this developed area will be tucked into that nook between the square area where our residence is. So I'm speaking primarily about the distance from our east wall. Yeah. To the property is exceedingly close, which <v Speaker 9>Is your side yard, right?</v> <v Speaker 19>Yeah. Side yard. It's more like a passageway.</v> Yeah, I mean, because the, our yard is our side yard, if you can see it is actually a peninsula that sticks out. It's like this behind, I think it's lot. Are you looking at street addresses or lot numbers? Because I have, if you look at lot 56, 10 56 9 A and B behind 56 10 is where our side yard is. So we're just talking about where my property is as opposed to the the yard, which we won't even call it a yard, we'll call it just a strip of land. <v Speaker 1>Are you, the numbers you're calling out,</v> are they from the assessor's map? Is that what you're <v Speaker 19>Yeah, it's what we had that we, it's basically the map</v> that we had after we clicked enough links to take us to a map from the agenda for tonight. So I figured that's what you were using. <v Speaker 1>Yeah, no, your house is one with a boulder</v> underneath the pine tree. Is that Yeah, <v Speaker 19>There's a few boulders.</v> There's a new boulder that was placed on the corner of Stillman party with <v Speaker 1>The scalloped wood fence. Like with a, yeah.</v> <v Speaker 19>Okay. Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 1>That's us.</v> Just make sure I'm, I'm on street view trying to Yeah, <v Speaker 19>It's, it's a brownish home.</v> Yes. And the scalloped fence is right. That's where, in terms of just the semantics, our side yard is behind the right side of that. Yeah. But there is no yard where our home is Right <v Speaker 9>Side yard from a zoning standpoint.</v> <v Speaker 19>Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 9>A side yard, which is a, you know,</v> 12 foot requirement. You're maybe, <v Speaker 19>Maybe it's 12 feet, but we, you know,</v> we have a Yeah, sorry, butts <v Speaker 9>Up there rear yard.</v> <v Speaker 19>Well, you know, the thing is this, we,</v> we ha we can't move our home and short of their selling us more land to go around and build and just to have a buffer zone. I think the only thing that's in our control is to have some sort of placement of the structure and a not only a, a placement that affords us privacy, the new residents privacy and also gives the new residents a backyard. If you look at the plan, there is no backyard there, but also conforms to the front setback of the new developments. All of these, as I say, six two resident structures that were built in the last five years, they're not setback. 77 feet, they're setback. <v Speaker 1>That's just an existing condition. I mean that</v> <v Speaker 19>Well they're brand new</v> buildings though, is what I'm saying. It's, <v Speaker 1>It's what they choose to do.</v> What happened elsewhere is not like in the last hearing, not relevant to what's happening here. <v Speaker 19>Okay. If,</v> <v Speaker 17>If I may quickly, one of the,</v> we didn't not take privacy into consideration when we considered pushing it back that far again, we don't usually have that ability, but there are currently, and I'm estimating here, I would say 20 foot AEs along that back line. So I thought that there was an immense amount of privacy there and so I didn't think privacy was going to be an issue by pushing it back. <v Speaker 1>Is there a fence there?</v> <v Speaker 17>There is,</v> it doesn't provide much privacy. I believe it's chain link. Oh, <v Speaker 19>Okay.</v> Yeah, it's a chain link chicken wire fence that's about four feet high. That was mostly for the last tenant's dogs. Okay. And the developer is correct that there is plant matter there, but that's hardly permanent. I mean, one drought prone summer and we'll have brown things separating me from him, but we're hoping that we can place the, the building in a place that is sensible so we can have yards separating us. So West Natick looks like West Natick as opposed to downtown Natick. Just the character of it and the privacy that that character of the neighborhood affords us. <v Speaker 1>Okay. Folks. Thoughts?</v> <v Speaker 9>I mean, I, I would have a, I would've a tough time,</v> you know, requiring the applicant to, to move it forward. The, the town has designated our yard setbacks where, where we're allowed to put buildings and they're in compliance with that. I would ask the applicant if, if, if it was all the same to you, if you'd be open to moving it forward, fine. But I don't think, in my mind I don't feel that as proposed it's substantially more detrimental. So I'm fine with it as it is, <v Speaker 1>Jeff.</v> I kind of agree it, I don't see much harm in pulling it forward even 15, 20 feet. Yeah, but that's not the, the, the backyard is not, the setback is not the issue that we're voting on either. <v Speaker 9>But we could probably do</v> that somehow without making you come to another meeting. If you're at all interested if you say this is, you know, I would <v Speaker 17>Say my preference would be to keep it where it is.</v> I do think there is much more privacy there than what's being described. That would be my preference. <v Speaker 1>Ari. Would it,</v> <v Speaker 17>I guess my question would be, is it, what is the benefit</v> to having it so far back Yeah. Versus pulling it forward. I if you were to say, you know, it would be not that difficult to pull it 10 feet, 15 feet forward, what's the harm as, as someone who does build and sell houses? I think the feedback that we always get is it's close to the road and that is a main cut through. So one of the things we're really trying to take into consideration is yard size. That front unit I see as being a premier unit with a really big front yard there and the back unit is far away from the road as possible. So <v Speaker 1>Alan, oh, so I</v> <v Speaker 20>Kinda share area's concern as well.</v> You do have a neighbor who's expressing, like, wanting to like work with you on moving a little bit more the space building a little bit more forward so they can have that extra space. I have heard there no backyard a couple of times and I would be, I would be interested in, you know, discussing that <v Speaker 1>Jason,</v> <v Speaker 5>I, I wouldn't deny this.</v> I I think it's not substantially more detrimental. <v Speaker 1>Yeah. And I don't think anyone's asking</v> to pull it from 30 feet to 15 feet, for example. It's from 10 feet, 75 feet to 60 feet. I'm throwing numbers out. But I mean that's the, I think it's still A-A-A-A-A pretty useful and I think it kind of, it's a, it'd be a nice gesture and it would help, help <v Speaker 17>Would 10 feet help? It would help,</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah.</v> It would help me. Yeah. Yeah, <v Speaker 17>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 1>I'll tell you what I, I don't know</v> how everyone's gonna vote here, but in the spirit of, of compromise, if you're willing to pull it forward 10 feet because that's an e that's easily established on this plan. In other words, we don't need you to leave redraft the plans to come back in February because you're willing to, to, to, to, to compromise. We can make it a condition of an approval that the rear setback be 35.8 and that everything else be substantial as, as indicated on the plan. Beg Yeah. <v Speaker 19>Yes. Any little bit help?</v> Just to answer your question, I, I'm not speaking out of turn here, just to this point, I, things are going The answer. Yes. It helps <v Speaker 1>Continue.</v> Well, first rule of meetings. <v Speaker 19>No, he was making eye contact saying, does it help?</v> So I figured I'd just speak up to say yes. Thank you. It helps. <v Speaker 1>Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So</v> <v Speaker 17>Yes, that's fine.</v> It's not an egregious ask. <v Speaker 1>Does anybody else here have anything on 83 Kendall Lane?</v> Okay. Alright. We're gonna have you grab a seat then, but thank you. <v Speaker 19>Thank you gentlemen. Appreciate it.</v> Thank you all. Appreciate, appreciate it. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you. Again.</v> I, I'm, I'm gonna say this for the record because, you know, these is very cogent points raised by in a butter. We have a willingness by a developer to listen and amend and make adjustments. This works, right? And there's not, there's no vitriol. It's done in a spirit of congeniality and compromise. And it's, it's, it's done in, in a non-emotional way. These things have meaning to people and we figured it out. Right? And you're gonna be able to build your, your development and he's gonna have a little more privacy than he had coming in. So the system works. All that said, fiving each other. Yeah. Yeah. How we slap each other on the back. Something. Okay. Motion. <v Speaker 5>I move that we close the hearing</v> and approve the project based on a finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming use and structure provided it's filled and substantial conformance with the plan submitted with the condition additional that the rear setback is going to be not as indicated on the plan, but is going to be rather 20, 35 0.8 feet from the back affecting the, the, the entire structure sliding forward to the street and also the condition. I just wanted to, yeah, the, the zoning board takes notice of the letter submitted by the abutter. <v Speaker 1>No, not just takes notice of I think We'll there,</v> go condition it on those. I think that that's a fair. <v Speaker 5>There we go. Yeah.</v> We've got a letter from Roza and Kennedy dated January 19th, 2025 with three bullet points and a request. And it seems like those are going to be added as conditions to the decision. <v Speaker 1>Yeah. So just put it on the record as amended.</v> Wooden stockade fence separating 79 83 will remain undisturbed and intact. The demolition excavation of 83 will not require the cutting and disturbance of the root zones of any of the trees on 79, including the sugar maple and Norway Maple located just north the fence line on 79 and the mature green arbor, giant arbor is located on 83 Kendall side of the fence, which forget the, which provide will remain underserved and intact. That's it. One, two, and three will be further conditioned and I'll just mention it for the record not to damage block or interfere with the function and operation of the fire hydrant. We don't have a jurisdiction over the fire hydrant, so that's not gonna be a condition of the agreement. <v Speaker 5>We don't like parking tickets, but it's,</v> <v Speaker 1>It is the building code.</v> Right? You're gonna file the dictates of the building code work with fire department. So again, not conditioned on that. So the motion as amended. As amended second. Alright. Okay. All those in favor? Yep. You're all set. Oh, and you know what? Just do 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Okay, thanks. <v Speaker 18>Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 1>The next matter up is 83 Felch Road, an application</v> for ccp, CCP G two realty trusts for a finding under 40 a six and NA zoning bylaws four B and five a applicant proposed to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling. The preexisting nonconforming audit storm plan submitted. Hello counsel. <v Speaker 21>Good evening. How are you?</v> Maybe two more meetings. Good, how are you? <v Speaker 10>They want to push to next. Oh,</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay.</v> Oh, did you want to kick it over? Yeah. Okay. Stay right there. We're gonna hold 83 felts for just a moment. That was <v Speaker 10>19 fels.</v> <v Speaker 1>19 longfeld. I'm gonna recall. 19 Longfellow for a moment.</v> An application for Grant goo under 40 a six is a request to continue it to February 24th. Yes, please. Okay, second. <v Speaker 21>Second.</v> <v Speaker 1>We got Alan over here. All those in favor?</v> Okay. We'll see you on February 24th. And you know what you have to do, right? Yes. Okay. Alright. Good enough. We'll just access. Yeah, good enough. We'll see you on the 24th. Alright. Thank you. Take care. Alright, for the record, we're back on 83 Felch Road, CPG two Realty Trust. Hi, <v Speaker 21>Good evening for the record.</v> George Richards from South Native Law and I'll let you guys look at the application, but I'd be happy to quickly review it if you'd like me to. <v Speaker 1>Okay. Hold on one second.</v> So the lot's small, the frontage is not there. The depth is there. The front's good. The side's good. The other side's good. The rears good. Coverage is good. The height's good. We got a height calculation. <v Speaker 21>We do is a high calculation, like I said, the plans</v> of 28, 6 and a half. Oh, <v Speaker 1>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 21>But we're happy to condition it under 32.</v> The, the plan that the engineer filled out had a height of 32. Thus that's what I used. But Justin can confirm. <v Speaker 1>Alright, but so you, you, you have a little, a little,</v> a little wiggle room is added, <v Speaker 21>But I want to say 32 feet at grade.</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright.</v> <v Speaker 21>At average grade.</v> <v Speaker 22>Yeah. The house is only 28.</v> <v Speaker 10>Okay.</v> On the journey at 32. Introduce <v Speaker 22>Yourself.</v> Yeah, sorry. Justin Deri with JBJ Construction. <v Speaker 1>Scott Wiseman. J BJ Construction.</v> <v Speaker 10>Alright,</v> <v Speaker 1>Let's take a peek here.</v> <v Speaker 10>That's</v> <v Speaker 1>Good. You, it's relatively clear.</v> I, George, I don't think I need anything from you just yet, but unless there's anything particular you wanna tell me, we can see it. <v Speaker 21>N no, obviously if there are people</v> here, we're gonna find out. That will be the ultimate decision making criteria. <v Speaker 1>Anybody here on 83 Felch? We got a bunch of hands.</v> I knew they were here for something. Okay. Alright. So anybody who'd like go first come up. If you can just stand at the podium and give your name and address for the record. And, and again, I know you've heard us say this already 'cause you've seen a whole bunch of 'em. What this board is trying to determine is what's being proposed is it substantially more detrimental than what's there today? Okay. So that's the criteria. Tell us what you want. I, <v Speaker 23>David Lerner, I'm at 81 Fel Road, the next door neighbor.</v> I'm delighted there's a new home going up. You ought to see what's there now. So this is great. Without having any idea how this works, I just wanted to voice my concerns that I hope these guys re you know, respect the, the property line and that the structure doesn't come any closer than zoning laws dictate. It's that side of the house is, it's a narrow lot for me. I can't gauge from the plan how close that would come to the property line, but I just wanted to voice my concern about that and hope that <v Speaker 1>Can I, can I have you just come up here and take a peek?</v> I, I, I actually do want you to see it. Yeah. So you're 81, right? <v Speaker 21>Yes. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 1>So to the right</v> or the left, here's the house that's being proposed straight here. <v Speaker 21>Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 1>I'm sorry. Straight there. Can I pee too?</v> <v Speaker 21>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 23>This is my wife Liz.</v> <v Speaker 1>Oh, hello. Hello. So there it is right there.</v> 29.7 property <v Speaker 21>Line right there.</v> <v Speaker 1>Right.</v> <v Speaker 21>Okay. That's the new Okay.</v> From the, from the lot line. It was, oh, this <v Speaker 1>Is the road. So</v> <v Speaker 21>83 50.</v> This is 30. Yeah, this is that to the right is coming closer by, still, still conforms. Okay, <v Speaker 1>Hold on a second.</v> This is it right here. That's, that's today. This is what it looks like today. 29 7. Okay. <v Speaker 21>You got your setbacks.</v> <v Speaker 1>29. See you can go to 12. It's today. It's that.</v> It's gonna go to this. Right. So this is what it looks like today. This is what it'll look like if it's approved. 12 5 5. <v Speaker 21>So</v> <v Speaker 24>It's gonna go on about 17 feet. Is that, that's not,</v> <v Speaker 1>It's gonna go from 29.</v> So yeah, 17 feet. So about 17 feet. Yeah. <v Speaker 21>Closer to us. Correct. Closer to us. That's,</v> <v Speaker 1>This is you right here.</v> <v Speaker 10>We get little fence.</v> <v Speaker 1>I'm not sure if</v> that's probably the outline of your house right there. <v Speaker 21>The only reason. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 1>And this is what it's gonna look like</v> <v Speaker 10>On</v> <v Speaker 1>The, this is the front of the house.</v> That's the left side. That's the right side. Right. <v Speaker 23>I've seen that. It's beautiful design guys. Thank</v> <v Speaker 21>You. But</v> <v Speaker 23>Yeah, again, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't,</v> <v Speaker 24>I think it's really, I think it's tighter than that.</v> I can't imagine. I <v Speaker 23>30 feet.</v> So the house, this side comes 17 feet closer to us. <v Speaker 1>That's correct. Yep.</v> <v Speaker 23>So that's about</v> <v Speaker 7>Current, the current house is right here ish. Right.</v> <v Speaker 24>So that moves over.</v> So I'm gonna guess and that's, I'm gonna guess that would leave probably only about 20 feet, 22 feet between the two houses is, <v Speaker 1>Well it's 12 and a half feet to the lot line</v> and then the distance between the lot line at your structure. <v Speaker 9>So if your house is conforming like</v> where it's supposed to be, then there'd be <v Speaker 1>24, 24, 24 and a half.</v> <v Speaker 24>There isn't between. Oh it isn't. So yours is</v> <v Speaker 1>Non-conforming two.</v> <v Speaker 24>Ours is probably too close.</v> Yeah, we bought it that way, but yeah, it wasn't I do it. Yeah. <v Speaker 1>Yeah. So that, that'll give you some sense.</v> But, and they're putting a fence here. You see this green line right here? Oh, they're <v Speaker 24>Putting a fence,</v> <v Speaker 1>Fence.</v> Oh no, no. Hold on, hold on. That's an existing fence. So <v Speaker 24>The fence would be similar to the</v> <v Speaker 1>I'm fence.</v> I'm sorry I take it back. That's an existing fence. Are you putting a fence in? <v Speaker 21>Not, not playing, but we're happy to put up some type</v> of fence or buffer to help if that, <v Speaker 24>Sorry,</v> <v Speaker 1>I'm gonna have you go back there now.</v> Sure. Okay. And then, and we'll continue the conversation. But that, that just gives you a sense of what you're looking at. Alright, so we're not gonna make any promises yet 'cause this is one of 'em, a number of hands that went up. Is there anything else that you wanted to tell us? <v Speaker 23>Sure. The fence would be great.</v> You know, it's, it's, it's a kind of a narrow part of the yard there, so, fair enough. Anything they could do for privacy would be <v Speaker 1>Appreciated.</v> Alright, thanks very much. Yeah. Alright. Who else put their hand up? Come on up. <v Speaker 25>Why don't you go first? You're, you're on the other side.</v> Go ahead. Go ahead. Go. <v Speaker 1>Hi there. Hello. Fine.</v> Can you just give us your name and address for the record? <v Speaker 26>Sure. I'm three tendon. That's right.</v> And my property is located to the right of the proposed property on 63 Pine Street. I mean, first off, I am really excited about this new project. I think it really needed work and we are very excited about it and I think the entire, the plan that I'm seeing, it looks beautiful. So I'm, I'm really glad about that. My only concern is, I think my side of the property is the only one where the distance between the property line and the proposed structure is under the setback, I believe, which is 12 feet. It's, I think a little under, and I'm not too, too concerned because my property is a little far behind, but I'm concerned because I just cr where she created just a few years ago. I, I personally did a lot of work on the property. Also constructed a brand new wall and a lot of plant work. Avid and a lot of other trees. It being so close to the construction site, I'm just concerned that there should be no harm to the, to the wall and the, and the plant work, et cetera. <v Speaker 1>You were on the corner? No,</v> <v Speaker 26>I'm on the right side of the proposed property. Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 22>The, the corner. Okay. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah. Is it 6 63 Pine, right? Correct.</v> So right now it's 10.9 feet off the lot line and the proposed is 16.47. <v Speaker 22>I I think she's looking at, there's like a,</v> a small retaining wall that's kind of retaining the grades. That's <v Speaker 1>Oh, but then we're not measuring into that.</v> <v Speaker 22>No, but I think that's what she's looking at. Oh, they're</v> <v Speaker 1>Gonna have to dig for that.</v> Oh yeah. Oh, okay. You're talking about she has a, you're talking about just disturbance. <v Speaker 21>Yeah, we're not gonna disturb that wall.</v> It's part of the reason we're moving the, the building south is because of that retaining <v Speaker 1>Wall.</v> So the whole thing is it's moving away from you actually. Okay. Yeah. The building's moving away from you and then the, and they can't touch your whatever's on your side of the lot line they can't touch anyways. Right. Yeah, that sounds great <v Speaker 26>To me. Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah. Okay. Congratulations. Thank you.</v> Who else would like to be heard? Come on up, sneeze. Sure, bless you. Thank you. <v Speaker 11>My name is Rick. Fine. I am directly across the street at</v> 64 Felch. I agree with everybody else. It's a beautiful building that's going to go up. My one concern is we have a lot of cut through traffic and I'd like these guys to be advised that they need to be careful where they're parking over there because for some reason there is an awful lot of traffic that goes through the neighborhood both early in the morning and late at night. And depending on when they're working their trucks and our house in particular being directly across the street would be very difficult to get in and out of the driveways. So that's my main concern. Not about the structure itself. <v Speaker 1>The board doesn't really have jurisdiction out on the</v> public way, but these guys are frequent flyers here. <v Speaker 11>I understand that. They</v> <v Speaker 1>Know and they know how to, to,</v> to make nice, I think. And they'll, my experience, they'll do what they can to accommodate the neighbors and to the extent that they can, they'll park away from your driveway. I'm not gonna speak for them, but Go ahead. <v Speaker 22>Yeah, the, I mean the workers are gonna park</v> on that side of the street. If they can park on the lot, they will. We, we don't really have many subs there at the same time, so it's usually one or two guys in and out and that's it. So. <v Speaker 1>Okay. But we, but I, I'm sure I'm speaking for them from,</v> I appreciate they, they appreciate you letting them know about the particular condition that they may see. <v Speaker 11>Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright, thank you.</v> Anybody else wish to be heard? Okay. Seeing none board any thoughts here? Motion <v Speaker 5>Move to prove the project based on a finding</v> that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming use and structure provided it's built and substantial performance with plan submitted and any requirements from the town departments. Suspended letters to the board tonight. Second <v Speaker 1>Ari?</v> All those in favor? You're all set. <v Speaker 4>Thank you. Thank you very much.</v> Appreciate your time. You bet. <v Speaker 1>Okay, we're back around to scar Scarsdale five,</v> Scarsdale road and application for five scale road realty trust for a finding and variance per MGL chapter 48, section six and 10 NA zoning bylaws, section four B and five A. The applicant proposed to construct a two car garage on the preexisting nonconforming lot shown the plan submitted. Folks, can I just, George George, George, <v Speaker 4>Counselor?</v> Yes. I'm sorry. Can you guys scram <v Speaker 5>Scram</v> <v Speaker 4>Cra</v> <v Speaker 1>Scram.</v> Alright. All right. All right. Mr. Chair, this is a continuation. I was not here for that. Oh, okay. I was not here as well. Okay, hold on a second then. Who was here? <v Speaker 15>I think it was like two people.</v> <v Speaker 1>We have some minor administration,</v> <v Speaker 4>So it sounds like, what are we, Scarsdale</v> in October 1st time or November? <v Speaker 27>November I think. November,</v> <v Speaker 15>December.</v> I think so. Yeah. I think it's been like three or four meetings that we've done and it's just kind of we're moving as we're going. <v Speaker 27>Yeah. The last one I think,</v> <v Speaker 1>Well, we did, what we need to do is we need</v> to figure out who was here. Yeah. And, and, and who can vote. <v Speaker 15>Okay. I don't remember when the first time</v> it was. I it could <v Speaker 27>Have been October. Yeah, it was November,</v> <v Speaker 15>October, November. The</v> <v Speaker 4>First time was in October. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 1>Oh, so it might have been here.</v> <v Speaker 4>And</v> <v Speaker 15>Because I think the first time we came,</v> it was a situation where the building commissioner had not put in the variance request or something, or it wasn't advertised correctly. Oh. So we had to wait and then I think at that time we might have missed that, that one November and then December. <v Speaker 27>December was not enough</v> <v Speaker 15>And none people</v> <v Speaker 4>In October there was our bad You are bad then.</v> Our bad kind of, <v Speaker 15>Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 4>The chair, Mr.</v> Koski, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Enright is not here. Mr. Gottlieb, Mr. Lynch and Mr. <v Speaker 1>Oh no, we're good. We're good. We're good. Alright.</v> So that's good. Now, so when, when you, or as if it is been readvertised for a variance and let's find out why. So you're, you don't have enough lot, you don't, frontage is, you know, your frontage is good. <v Speaker 15>The only thing we're asking in regards to the variance,</v> it's the side variance, which is on the, <v Speaker 1>Well I'm gonna stop you there just for a second.</v> Okay. Yeah. The lot depth one 50 is you don't have depth. So you, you don't have area, you don't have depth. Your front is non-conforming but won't change. Right. Your side is non-conforming and won't change. Your other side is conforming and will become non-conforming. There it is. Okay. And the rear is conforming. It will remain. So the coverage is not indicated and neither is the height. So we need to figure out what your building coverage is. The percentage of building coverage, it's not there for existing and it's not there for proposed. And the height is not there for existing and it's not there for proposed. <v Speaker 4>So they did update.</v> <v Speaker 1>Is there a new chart?</v> <v Speaker 4>Yes, there's a new chart. So the building height</v> and the new chart, it says existing is nine feet and proposed is nine feet. <v Speaker 15>Yeah. And this is for the garage specifically? Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. Okay. I see. Alright.</v> <v Speaker 9>I, I see it on the elevations, but the, ah, shit,</v> <v Speaker 1>What</v> <v Speaker 9>About the nine feet's just to the top of the wall?</v> <v Speaker 15>Yes. Yeah, the, the roof.</v> I, I think we're keeping the same pitch for the front. The only thing, just because we're extending the garage back slightly is going to be a little bit less pitch. Yeah. Less pitch. Right. But it's gonna be the same high. Yeah, same height from the, from the ridge. Yep. <v Speaker 1>So</v> <v Speaker 4>Building said you need a variance</v> for the right side set back and a section six finding for the front yard setback, <v Speaker 15>Which I don't know if that one looks, I don't</v> <v Speaker 1>See that on the chart, but let's see if we see it on the</v> plan front setback requirement is 40 feet and the existing is 26.5 and the garage is deeper than that. <v Speaker 5>So could just be a section six finding.</v> <v Speaker 9>Just because the existing structure is not for</v> <v Speaker 5>Or is is the lot.</v> So you guys the in <v Speaker 4>October that they needed a variance</v> and a section six finance. Well the why we had to go back and re <v Speaker 1>Yeah, well the variance is clear.</v> Yeah. That's as to the side setback. Both. That's the section six and, and no, that's the variance. I'm sorry. And the section six, it's not to the front setback. Not that I see, but Well I get maybe it is as to Yeah, as to the lot area. Yeah's the lot area depth. That's a lot. Area depth. But what about the building coverage? Well, they're, they're, <v Speaker 5>It's not on the chart is it?</v> <v Speaker 1>No, it's not. So</v> Well the, the building commissioner didn't see it as an issue. Right. So I guess we'll, we'll pass. But how does that happen? Why, why do you think it's an issue? I don't, but it's not filled. The chart's not filled out. Not an issue. Alright. Not an issue. Okay. Peg? Yeah. These things should be filled out. <v Speaker 4>He submitted a second one and that's not a,</v> <v Speaker 15>I tried to fill that out as best as I could. I'm sorry.</v> <v Speaker 5>Coverage T accepted. It's not full. Right.</v> <v Speaker 4>I must not have added it to your</v> <v Speaker 1>Notebook.</v> Alright. Okay. But the coverage is good. You see the coverage is good. It's below, below 20%. <v Speaker 4>The existing and proposed isn't filled out.</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright, well I'm sure</v> that if Dave thought it was an issue, Dave would've marked it up. But this, this is not an enforcement board. This is side yard variance is gonna be the problem anyway. Well, so let, so let, let's, let's go, let's, let's do that. So you guys, you weren't, I don't know if you were here for the other variance, were you Yeah, <v Speaker 15>We were here for that. Did</v> <v Speaker 1>You hear that?</v> Yes. About the owing to the, to the <v Speaker 15>Soil conditions.</v> To the soil. The shape and the the shape. <v Speaker 1>Yeah. Of the lot or structure. Yes. Right. Or structure.</v> So you guys, can you string that together for us? <v Speaker 15>We'll do our best. So pretty much the, the reasoning</v> for the two car garage and what we're kind of just going based off, I guess it's news to us in regards to the fold description. 'cause before we were just kind of like, okay, what does he mean by shape and everything? So we were just going off like it's fairly narrow for what we're trying to propose. And I think based off the minimum is 20 feet, if I'm not mistaken from the side variance, which ours is obviously gonna be 18.1. So what we were just trying to do is pretty much just keep it in line, if not even a little bit less than the existing two car garage or two car driveway driveway. So we wouldn't be adding onto that. We wouldn't be doing anything additional to that. It would just pretty much be a, a rectangle in that sense. But we're happy to get general feedback and just see what we can work with together. <v Speaker 1>Well said</v> Jason, Mr. Chairman, that's not the response. There's nobody here opposing it. So that's something. But there's a, you know there's a sort of intellectual honesty as well here that we're up against. So these variance is, are creatures of statute. Right? This is where these, these elements are not as squishy and subjective as not substantially detri more detrimental. But that's a fairly easy thing to find if there's nobody opposed, right. The board typically doesn't substitute its judgment for people who just aren't here to say that we don't like it. But variances are not that way. Then we have to find these various elements and find that each one exists and that there's a causal relationship between the lot, the shape, the topography and what you're running up against here. And Jason's examples were you got legend in the back, you can't blast that. You move the house forward, you run to the front setback, boom. That's the paradigm. And so we have to look at this and say what's going on here? We have a perfectly rectangular lot. It's no more narrow or less narrow than any other lot in the neighborhood. You're trying to squeeze more building onto the narrow lot than the zoning would otherwise allow. But is there something else afoot? Jason, <v Speaker 5>Is there any wetlands, ledge</v> or soil conditions that cause you to, <v Speaker 15>Not to my knowledge.</v> Knowledge, unfortunately. <v Speaker 5>No,</v> <v Speaker 10>No.</v> Just trying to think. <v Speaker 5>I mean, you know the last one we talked about was someone</v> wanted a front entryway, a foyer and it closed to protect the door as you walk out the front door. Because that's where the front door is here. There's there there's no need to put, they want a two car instead of a ho car. Yeah. I don't, I don't see <v Speaker 1>How you can, I even thought about</v> can you move is the location of the house, but the location of the house is already up against the left right Setback. <v Speaker 15>Yeah. If we can copy and paste it over</v> <v Speaker 5>And then he's probably already let see</v> how we get there on this side. <v Speaker 1>11.5. Sorry,</v> <v Speaker 5>Approaching that.</v> Yeah. Say move the house over. It's already, <v Speaker 1>Well</v> <v Speaker 5>I'm not,</v> not seeing it clearly. <v Speaker 1>Clearly you we're putting a finer point on the</v> requirements of this variance for you here. My very strong sense is that if it went to a vote right now you don't have the elements. Okay. But at the same time, you're hearing more than you've heard before. You seem like you're learning more than you have before. We can let it go to a vote or just in one last ditch effort. If you wanted to take this back with all the feedback you've heard tonight and talk to some people, maybe a lawyer and get creative and try to come back here and sling an argument together, the board will listen or we will vote. <v Speaker 15>So</v> <v Speaker 28>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 15>Yeah. I think at this point we'd probably just go</v> with a vote just because after talking to the <v Speaker 1>Done</v> <v Speaker 9>Or you could withdraw.</v> <v Speaker 1>Oh yeah. So which</v> <v Speaker 9>Is probably</v> <v Speaker 1>A better idea if it goes to a vote.</v> You can't come back here for two years. Oh, <v Speaker 9>Okay.</v> Okay. With a similar project. <v Speaker 1>Yeah. It would've to be substantially different than this.</v> So, or if you withdrew it, you can come back tomorrow. I mean not come back tomorrow. You can, you can re reapply tomorrow <v Speaker 15>And, and at that point the reapply would just,</v> <v Speaker 1>You'd start from scratch. Yeah. But yeah.</v> <v Speaker 15>But it'd be the same situation of no, you</v> <v Speaker 1>Now trying</v> <v Speaker 9>A better package</v> <v Speaker 1>Smarter than you were</v> <v Speaker 9>Benefit of getting a no vote.</v> Okay. As opposed to a withdrawal in my opinion. Right. <v Speaker 1>No, there's not. Yeah, there's not.</v> Okay. There's not benefit to <v Speaker 9>Withdrawing as opposed to a no vote.</v> <v Speaker 1>You wanna withdraw? Yeah, I think that,</v> so do we have to vote on the withdrawal? Accept the withdrawal. Accept. <v Speaker 5>I think we accept. Yeah. Thanks.</v> I would move that we accept the applicant's request to withdraw. <v Speaker 1>Exactly. Alright. Okay. Accept it. All favor.</v> Five. Thank you. <v Speaker 28>Alright, thank you very</v> <v Speaker 15>Much. Sorry.</v> No, no, you're good. Thank you very much. Have a good night. Alright, thanks <v Speaker 1>Guys.</v> Thanks. Good to see you. <v Speaker 15>You to see you too.</v> <v Speaker 9>Bad reasons.</v> <v Speaker 1>Any business with you? Peg</v> <v Speaker 4>I, minutes.</v> I <v Speaker 1>Oh oh that's right.</v> Yeah. Yep. All look good to me. <v Speaker 29>I second that motion.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. Okay. So motion it.</v> <v Speaker 29>Minutes</v> <v Speaker 1>Second,</v> <v Speaker 9>Second. Second,</v> <v Speaker 1>Jeff.</v> Okay. All those in favor? Yep. Okay. Meeting minutes approved. Anything else? No. Oh, hold on a second. I, this is not public. Alright. The meeting. So a motion to adjourn? Motion <v Speaker 9>A adjourn.</v> <v Speaker 1>Adjourn. Second. Second. Ari. All those in favor? Yes.</v> Adjourned. Okay. I.