Speaker 1: Okay, shall we? Good. Good evening everybody. Before we get started, we have, there's a public speak section of the agenda or any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda and it'll be taken under advisement by the board. There will be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. This section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes in any individual. Addressing the board during this section of the agenda should be limited to five minutes. Does anybody wish to raise something that's not on the agenda tonight? Okay. Hearing now, we'll get started with the first matter, which is the continued public hearing for 14 Mills Street
for John Christopher for a special permit from the Aquifer Protection District bylaw as per section three A five. The next zoning bylaws, the applicant proposes to modify an existing CVA decision, modify increase of level of non-conforming, use, self storage and to modify the preexisting non-conforming structure. So on the plan submitted, so we were waiting on the fire department right. Who I understand has now, Speaker 2: So they weigh in, they say native fire department. Okay. With the gate set up as shown on the plan submitted to the zoning board, the existing lockbox will remain on
the left side of the building. The new lockbox will be installed at the proposed office location on the right side of the building. The code for the automatic slide gate will be placed in both lock boxes. The slide gate will have a battery backed up for operations and power logs. The chain link gate will have a padlock with a key in the lock box. And they also said the fire department review plans for proposal fence slash gate and performed a site visit, no opposition to new fence gate. Speaker 1: Say that part at the end there again, Speaker 2: The fire department has reviewed the plans, Speaker 1: Not the, just the last part. Speaker 2: They performed a site visit, no opposition
to new fence slash gate. Speaker 1: Oh, no opposition. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Good. Okay. So we're going to just incorporate the, that decision. I'm sorry, we're gonna incorporate that by reference. Yeah. You guys have no problem with that, right? Speaker 3: Not at all. That was the whole intention here to get them to approve that. Speaker 1: And what am I looking at here? Speaker 2: That is from when the advisor. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. So just can you refresh everybody's memory again about exactly where the, the plan that was submitted to the fire department showed the gate.
Where Speaker 2: Do you want that from? Speaker 3: Me or Mr. I believe it's uploaded in the file. Yes. Speaker 1: Alright, Speaker 3: Well if you want to take a look at it. Okay. The gate is proposed two gates Yeah. That are shown on that, on that plan. Speaker 1: Right. So gate one is shown on the left front corner of the building, correct? Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 1: And gate two is shown in the, on the same side of the building, but in the back rear. Correct? Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 1: Okay. And that's what you showed us
and that's what you showed the fire department? Speaker 3: Correct. And that's what you asked for to show it on a plan and have the fire department review it? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Good. Okay. And so, and that was discussed here in front of e everybody. And now someone's got a question about the location of that fence. And this is, this is, this essentially is what they've submitted, is that correct? Yes. This hand drawn plan. Okay. Plugged in the Speaker 2: Portal and also be a handout, so, Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Is Mr. Whitney here? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Come on up, Mr. Chair. Yes sir. Speaker 3: I apologize for interrupting.
Just wanna raise one issue in terms of who can vote last time we were limited and I just wanna make sure we have sufficient Yeah, it's, Speaker 1: It's no better voting Speaker 3: Capacity. Speaker 1: So last time we were here, it was the, the, the available voting members were Jason, Andy, Ari, and Allen. But Andy's not here. Right. But you only need three out of five for the special permit. So you still have Andy, Ari, and Allen. So Speaker 3: I just wanna check, I know Rob would participated, I think I'm in two meetings, Speaker 1: Ari and Allen. Speaker 3: And if he watched the Speaker 1: Andy could vote, but
Speaker 3: No, Rob, I was mentioning, oh, Speaker 1: Hold please not here last week. Hold. Speaker 3: He wasn't here at the last meeting, but I believe he was here at the prior that Speaker 1: Two meetings done here? Yes. Okay. Speaker 2: But I have not, we would have to do a mo and roll first thing tomorrow morning if Mr. Beck goes home tonight and watches the previous meeting to confirm that he I did not. Speaker 1: Okay. But, but, but, but ho hold on. Because right now we have three, we, we have three voters and, and I'm, and I'm not gonna hold, I'm not gonna,
we're not gonna play surprise here. We, we could take a straw poll. If the three people are in favor of the vote, then we can, we can dispense with the need that Speaker 3: That would be great. Just, I don't want to, you know, I'm not trying compromise my client's rights by going down to three Three. Speaker 1: Gotcha. Yeah. So, okay. Okay. So let, let's, let's just wanna raise that. Thank you. Go on up Mr. Whitney and just identify yourself again for the record, even though I'm calling you by name. Yeah, John Whitney to Victoria Circle. Alright, good enough. So, so let me, you, you're trying to move that gate over to the side from here.
And the purpose of that would be, well, part of the conditions Speaker 4: Is there's no parking after hours on the eastern side. My concern is that when you put up a gate and a fence, it's going to appear like, oh, you can park behind the gate, that's fine. After hours. We've already seen that because the conditions currently don't allow for parking on the site. So if we move the gate to the southern side of billing d it would make all of the off,
off hour parking down in the sunken area, which the neighbors can't see. Speaker 1: Okay. Do, I'm not sure about the psychological impact of where the fence is either there's no overnight parking or there's overnight parking. So if we make a rule, there's no overnight parking and there's overnight parking, then that the, then the, the building commissioner has the authority to do something about it. Like he did in this particular case before it got to us, the building commissioner came and said there's, there was essentially a cease and desist right Speaker 4: At my request. Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah.
At your request. So I mean, it, it only comes to the fore when people who care say something, you care, they're here, they see you here, they know you're, you're right there. And so if you see overnight parking, you're going to immediately tell the building commissioner, and I expect the building commissioner's gonna immediately do what he did before they got here, which was this issue a season desist. So Speaker 4: I just don't understand the purpose of those spaces being behind the gate. Speaker 1: Here's what, here's that gate was in that location when we came here last month and we told them, put on the plan
go before the fire department. Speaker 4: No, that's not what happened. He showed the gate at the southern end of building DI Speaker 1: Have it drawn on my plan here. Speaker 4: I don't think we, Speaker 3: We didn't show it anywhere on a plan. Speaker 4: He pointed to it. Speaker 1: Right. Drew, I drew it on the plan where it was indicated it was going, which is precisely correct, shown here. So he, here, here's my, my reluctance to, to, to put it, to go back to the drawing board on the location of the gate is, I don't feel it's very meaningful, number one. And then number two is it's gonna have to go back before the fire department,
which means they have to come back before us. And that's another month. And we were all here and, and nobody said the fence is better here versus over here. It just wasn't Speaker 4: Because we didn't have a gate plan. Yeah. Speaker 1: I I I don't, I'm, I'm, I'm unmoved by, of course I'm not voting, but I'm unmoved by the argument that the location here versus here has some impact on enforceability of parking. I just, Speaker 4: We just have a history with this applicant. Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. Well I let you know, I I, we can just go to the voting members here and,
and say, you know, if it's meaningful to them since they're voting, then it will be meaningful to the board. And just So for the record, that's gonna be Jason Speaker 5: It for Speaker 1: The b ari and Allen. So you, you, you guys, you know where we're at here, right? For this in terms of the gate location. Why don't you guys, if you have, if you have anything that you want to add, please do just on that issue alone and more, more, more importantly on whether or not it should be moved. Speaker 5: Could I see Mr. Chair, could I see the drawing in your Yeah. Your binder? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
So this was here, right. Which is here and he wants it moved to here. Okay. And again, I think the reason for over here is 'cause it doesn't block this parking in and, but there's just simply no overnight parking in this whole area. Yeah. So whether the gate is here or here in my mind has zero impact on the allowability, if you will, of parking here. Speaker 5: And the concern, yeah, they could still park there. Even if the gate was there, they could still park. Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 5: Yeah. Right. So,
Speaker 1: Sure. I mean actually, I mean after this gate's up certainly couldn't pull in there. So, but but go ahead. You know, I I I'm just, I'm talking about from an administrative standpoint, not, not in terms of voting, you know, so you have any thoughts about whether you think it should be moved then? I mean, we're gonna, we're gonna have up having to continue it because, because that wouldn't be fair to these guys. Speaker 5: Yeah, I would, I think that gate shouldn't be Speaker 1: Moved. Should or should not. Should not be. And you should not. And Jason should or should not,
Speaker 5: Should or should not. What moved Speaker 1: Do we have to do we have to move the gate? Speaker 5: I, I, I would, I could vote in favor of this with the gate as shown. Okay, Speaker 6: Mr. Chair, I just have one question. The drawings you have I don't have in front of me are, I just have one question. Are all the documents we're looking at tonight, are they all stamped certified? Are they all professional, traditionally, professionally produced drawings looking, looking Speaker 1: At the one that was uploaded. I got Speaker 5: That here. Speaker 3: I don't, that's from the portal. I don't believe that Speaker 5: That Speaker 1: Was what he, he, he,
Speaker 5: He Oh, way I can ever get up to work. Speaker 1: So did Oh, oh, I'm, I'm sorry. Is that, did he take theirs and then just looks like it? Mark it up. Yeah. This is what's been submitted. Yeah. Okay. Gale. Okay. And so your, your question is, is it certified? The answer is no. Speaker 3: No. But it's sufficient for the fire department and obviously when we file for building permit, Speaker 1: Obviously Yeah. I mean the, the gates will have to be where they are on the plan, Speaker 4: So. Correct. Speaker 1: And that's, that's not a concern of Speaker 4: Mine, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Could, could the wording then be a little more restrictive such as no overnight parking on the eastern side of the property,
including the south side of the gate? Speaker 1: Absolutely. Absolutely. Speaker 3: So, Mr. Chair, yeah, this was just a question. I dunno if anybody on their notes, but I had something about seven days. The old decisions had no permanent parking on the east side is what the, the prior decision said. Speaker 1: Let me just see what we were talking about in terms of last time conditions. Yeah. Speaker 7: I had permanent parking and I just scratched in overnight. Speaker 1: Yeah, I I think we were, I don't see seven days here. Speaker 7: And then we were talking about transient less, greater than 30 days. Nothing greater than 30 days Speaker 3: In that's in the rear, correct.
Right. Okay. It's the rear, the parking front. Speaker 1: I, Speaker 7: I had transient, I had the word transient for east Speaker 1: In, in the front. And, and, and just so we're clear, this is the front, right? This is the front, Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 1: And this is the east, correct? No, Speaker 4: No, the Speaker 3: East. I can't see from me. This Speaker 4: To the left. As you're looking at the building from this is, that's what they're calling the Speaker 3: East side. The east from the street. This is the east? Speaker 1: Yeah, Speaker 8: Another one went south. Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. There's no parking in the front Speaker 7: Along, Speaker 1: Along Eastern? Speaker 3: No, along the street. There's no, that's Speaker 1: Not, this is Mill Street right here?
Yeah, yeah. Oh, I see. It's like, like this, the left side of the building. There's no over, there's no overnight parking here. Speaker 3: Right. Okay. Okay. Yep. Speaker 4: Fine. So the wording can be including south of the gate? Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 8: Well, south of the gate David might go like, Nope. Now that's go, that, that's south of the gate, Speaker 1: This area here, Speaker 3: Southeast side. We Speaker 8: Include the other section as well. Speaker 3: The southeast side. Speaker 1: Yes. I want you Mr. Whitney, just come up here. 'cause I, I just wanna make sure I, 'cause I don't see a compass on here.
Yeah. But we're considering Speaker 4: Mill Street North. Speaker 1: There's no overnight parking in this area. That's right. Okay. And Speaker 4: The gates here. So nothing south Speaker 1: And here too, right? Correct. And then isn't exactly. And then this is south of the, of the gate here. Yes. And then anywhere else on here would, yeah, because Speaker 4: What happens is this drops way down Speaker 1: 20 feet. But what, what about in here? Alright. Yeah, that's fine too. No problem. Alright, fine. So it's going to be no parking along
the east side of the building, Speaker 3: East side perimeter of the property here, Speaker 1: Including south of the gate. Just for, for for sake of clarity. Okay. Alright. Alright, good. And was there anything, okay, we gotcha. Alright. Anybody else wish to be heard on this project before we close the public hearing? Okay. So again, in fairness to the applicant again, because we're, we're down down to three and he needs 'em all. Ari is, do you have any reservations? I I'm really asking you to tip your hand for the benefit of these guys here, because I, i, if anyone here, Jason, Ari,
or Allen is, is, is going to vote No, I want you to tip your hand now so that he, they have an opportunity to convince Andy to vote yes to counteract the no vote. It's, it's the only fair way to play this in my opinion. Yeah. So, and but we don't, it's not, there's no secret. So if you're, if you're not inclined to vote yes with the conditions that, that Jason's gonna mention in his, in his motion, I want you to tip your hand now. Okay. Speaker 5: I feel comfortable with the conditions Speaker 7: Expressed Speaker 1: In the motion. You're good Jason. You're good. Good. Okay, go ahead and rip it closed and go.
Speaker 7: This is for a special permit. So I would move that we approve the project application for a special permit to allow the project as proposed. I think certain conditions include that it be built in substantial conformance with the plan submitted. We were talking about reissuing the 2018 decision and that all conditions in the 28 decision are still in effect except to the extent specifically changed or modified by this decision tonight. Another condition is that there will be a, a gate installed in I think two locations as shown on the plan submitted tonight that was approved
by the, or that the fire department had no objection to that. There would be no overnight parking on the east side of the property. No overnight parking did you say? No, overnight parking. Okay. On the east side of the property, including south of the proposed gate, there will be no outdoor storage of boats, trucks or equipment other than cars for I think it was greater than 30 days that all vehicles must be registered and insured while they're parked on site and there will be no work on vehicles on the site.
Those were the conditions I had written down from our last hearing. And this one, Speaker 2: Just for clarification, cars must be in use, registered insured and offerable. Yeah, that's what I have. Speaker 7: Yep. I will take that modification. Yes. Speaker 1: Let me just, okay, lemme just do here. Oh then can we add, incorporate the municipal board municipal Speaker 7: Departments. Oh. And also to be built and run in conformance with any recommendations requirements from town departments have submitted any input to the, to the zoning board tonight
Speaker 1: Specifically, but not limited to the fire Speaker 7: Department, specifically the fire department, but not limited. Was there anything else for, Speaker 9: I just wanna look here. Speaker 7: Yeah. Special permits. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 3: Mr. Chair. Yep. I had written down. No light trespassing, no rooftop ac Thank Speaker 1: You very much. No Speaker 7: Light trespass and no rooftop air conditioning units. Speaker 1: Excellent. Thank you very much. And I think that should do it, but before we, let me just do one more thing
Speaker 9: Here. Speaker 1: Hold, I want to just get some language in there from 48 section nine, which is not in the, okay. So here, why don't we just incorporate that, this right here. Speaker 7: Okay. That this is also based on our finding that the intent uses are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance of bylaw. And shall be subject to the general or specific provisions set forth therein and such. Permits may also impose conditions, safeguards, and limitations on time use. Yep. Speaker 1: I think that should do it. Just, just look down in
that paragraph if there's any other tricked language we should have. I'm good. Speaker 9: Yep. Speaker 1: Good. Okay. Alright. Second. Speaker 9: Second. Speaker 1: Yes, Ari. And then all those in favor, which is the three of you? Yes. Okay. So good. You're all set. Thanks very much. Thank Speaker 3: You very much for working with us on the numbers. Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, good thanks. Appreciate it. Okay, the next matter is continue public hearing for 26 Oak Street for Kevin Griffin for a finding for mass general law. Chapter 48, section six, zoning bylaw section four B.
The applicant proposed to raise these since single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting nonconform allowed as shown the plaintiff submitted. And so we have shaft, Jeff, David, it was Andy, but he's not here. I Speaker 9: Take this. Yes. Yeah. Yes. Speaker 1: Oh, wait a minute. No, wait a minute. It's Mr. Speaker 9: Chair, you can have all your Speaker 1: File. Oh yeah. Members, because Speaker 9: We haven't discussed this project. Speaker 1: Oh. Oh Speaker 9: Wait, we did, Speaker 1: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Oh no, no, I'm sorry. It says G but that's Gail, not Jeff, so, oh, that's right.
Yeah. My bad. So it's David Gale. You Speaker 9: Didn't think it was a J did you? Yeah, like Speaker 1: Gale, Rob, Jason, not Speaker 9: Me. Speaker 1: Yeah. Rob, you're on this. Speaker 9: He wasn't at the last meeting. Speaker 1: It says Rs, Speaker 9: It, it was two meetings ago where we started this one. Oh, alright. Speaker 5: I think we initially it was, it was withdrawn in the first meeting because of this. Speaker 1: Okay, so we have, so it's David, Jason, Rob, Gail, and Andy. And Andy's not here,
so it's gonna be four. Am I wrong? Speaker 9: No. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright, here we go. Just gimme one second. Speaker 6: I'm sorry. Can you just repeat for me who is voting? Yeah, we could skip the ones who aren't. Speaker 1: It goes David, Jason, Rob, and you. Speaker 6: Okay, thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright, let, let me just take a look at this for a second. All right, here we go. So we got, you need the lot area, the frontage and the depth are all off. Speaker 10: No, we have frontage. We have 198 feet.
Speaker 1: This just indicates that I'm on the wrong, I'm on the wrong one. Okay. Oops. Thank you for that Speaker 10: Area in depth. Speaker 1: This one shows 75, so that's the wrong one. Let's see, Speaker 6: Peg, just to be clear, what, what's the date on the update? The new drawing? Speaker 1: I, I don't even have the plan in front of me. 14th? Speaker 9: Yep. Speaker 6: 14th. Because I have like four pages now and I wanna make sure I'm looking at the right one too. Speaker 9: That's Baker. It should be, Speaker 10: I need to the first page. Ga Speaker 9: Look here. Speaker 1: Yep. This one. Okay, here we, sorry.
Alright, so we, you need, you don't have the area, you have, you've got the frontage, you don't have the depth you need. Okay, so you're on a corner, right? So two fronts, two sides. You're you, this 34 pages, you're gonna be, you're fine on the fronts. 26 Speaker 9: Oak. 26 Speaker 10: Oak. Speaker 1: You're fine on the fronts. You're sides are good. Both sides are good too rear, you don't have, the coverage is good, the height is good.
Okay. Alright. So it's just the lot, the area and the depth. Right? Okay. So let's take a peek. Now there's the house. Alright. Alright. Okay, so show average height, average. Okay, you weren't here, right? Someone else was here in your place. Yeah. Yeah. Show the average height on the plan and make it smaller and show it. That was what we said. So has anything changed about the plan be between last month and this month?
Speaker 10: The last plan doesn't exist anymore. Doesn't Speaker 1: Exist, okay. Speaker 10: There's a new plan. Speaker 1: New plan altogether. Yep. Alright. And that, this, this one was submitted. Well it's, I'm gonna make sure we're looking at the right plans. What's the date of the plans we should be looking at of? Speaker 9: Yeah, Speaker 10: I show a date of on the plan, mine's tiny but it says nine, five, maybe 25, something like that. It's nine, nine project Speaker 9: Here. Speaker 10: Does it say nine five? Speaker 5: I think it's nine. Nine? Yeah.
Close. It's hard with small print. Speaker 9: These one Speaker 10: Maybe 10 years ago. I read that Speaker 5: Long Gone for me. Speaker 1: Is there, is there an elevation here? Speaker 9: Yep. Speaker 10: Yeah, last two pages there Speaker 1: Is. Speaker 10: Okay. Show the height. Speaker 1: Oh but, okay. Oh, is there a revision? So this, this one says 7 31. I'm not looking at the, Speaker 9: The architectural elevation. Speaker 1: Yeah. Is that the right? It says 7 31. Speaker 9: So with athletic and Speaker 1: Well let's make sure we're,
we're all looking at this with the right plan. That that one, Speaker 10: Yes. Speaker 1: 7 31. Speaker 10: See, but well maybe, maybe what? I don't know what that is, but that's the revision. Speaker 1: Oh, revision date. Okay. Got it. Reason revision. Yeah, no problem. Geez, I, I can't even see that. Okay, great. Alright, so we got a revision date of sometimes I'm looking at the right thing. Alright, so is there anything you'd like to tell us before we, Speaker 10: So we Speaker 1: Ask the board and the, Speaker 10: We listened to the neighbors. I have communicated to all of the neighbors who came to the meeting, either in person, text message, phone call,
email, tried to address all of their concerns, did reach out to all of them, sent this to all of them and seemed to have had a consensus that they felt that I addressed the concerns. That was the consensus I felt I got Speaker 1: From them. Okay. Alright, great. Well then that's what we asked for. Let's, let's find out if everyone agrees. Before we do that, we're gonna just look at the height. I just wanna see where that is on here. That's shown. Speaker 10: So a 2.1? Yep. Section A, we have the height, then we have,
we show the center of grade elevations on the center of the two streets at 1 0 4 0.9. Fantastic. Fantastic. 3.3. Speaker 1: Excellent. Okay. Alright, so before we, does anyone here have any questions before we see what the Speaker 8: Neighbor Yeah, sort of a very basic one. Yeah, go ahead. Front elevation, is that on Eisenhower or O Speaker 10: Eisenhower? Speaker 8: Front elevation is on Speaker 10: Eisenhower. Eisenhower, the current homes Speaker 8: And Speaker 10: An driveway is on Eisenhower as well.
So we left the driveway on Eisenhower. Speaker 1: Alright, let's see. Anybody here wish to be heard on this project? 26 Oak Street? Looks like you did what you did what you needed to do. So there's nobody here objecting to it. So, and they were here last time, so that's great. Does anybody here Go ahead. Yeah, Speaker 6: Yeah. I still am not seeing part of the application, which would be the elevation for the basement level and the attic level. Speaker 10: There is no attic. It's, it's a gare style house. Okay. So, so there's, it's like physically impossible to live up there.
It's gonna be for mechanicals only. Okay. And we have the realtor told us based on our sale point, that unless someone comes in and wants to buy it, we're not finishing the basement. So we didn't prepare a Speaker 6: Basement. So I just need the gross floor area and that means I need the basement so it doesn't matter if it's finished or not. Speaker 10: So Speaker 6: The reason I'm being a stickler about this is because some applicants come in with all of that information provided and we look at their total square footage and we need to be comparing apples to apples. So that is why I've been asking people
for those other elevations. They are required literally on this checklist, Speaker 10: Building floor, Speaker 8: Gross area. All four Speaker 1: Elevations are here. Gail Speaker 8: And, and Gail, there is a gross floor area on the zoning chart. 34 81. Speaker 6: Yes, but I, I'm not seeing, wait, okay, so maybe I've missed something when I went back into the file. I'm trying to find the total elevation, total square footage for the basement level Speaker 8: There. I think there is no basement, is that what you just Speaker 10: Said? Well, there is a basement, but it's unfinished. Oh, Speaker 6: I see. It's got windows walk-in doors. It's nine foot, eight foot ceilings.
Speaker 10: I believe they're nine foot based on the way the grad of Speaker 6: The property is. Yeah, so that's, that's why is because it's not fair for us to be judging gross floor area for other applications. To be fair when they include that information. Speaker 10: To be fair, when I submit a building permit, if I'm not finishing a basement, I do not include that square footage. So I wouldn't know Speaker 1: That you're not gonna get held up over that issue. I mean, ga it might, it might prevent Gail from voting in favor, but it's not a requirement because I mean it could be an an element of Gail's interpretation of, of
what is substantial detriment. But we don't have a floor area ratio here in Natick. And so the total square footage against the total square footage a lot is not applicable. Your footprint is for coverage. But, so I'm not gonna, you're not gonna get held up over that issue. That doesn't mean it's not meaningful to her, but it is not a requirement that the board insists upon. Speaker 10: I I would say if someone were to finish it, you probably have a around a thousand square feet
of finishable space. Speaker 1: The total square footage of the interior of a structure is not a dimensional measure for this board, for this project. Again, everything's on the table when it comes to the determination of detriment. And so I'm not gonna tell Gail she can't consider it. If that's part of the calculus that she makes, it's part of the calculus that she makes. It is not, it, it it's not gonna hold you up for me.
Anybody else have anything? Anybody anything else? Nothing else? Okay, well, we'll close it Jason. Speaker 7: I would make a motion that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the pre-existing nonconforming use and structure provided it's built and substantial conformance with a plan submitted and with any requirements from the town departments who submitted letters to the board. Speaker 1: Second, just so again, so we have it, it's David, Jason, Rob, and Gail. Speaker 8: I'll second. Speaker 1: Okay. And all those in favor?
Okay. So three and all those against. Okay, so three one and it passes. You're all set. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 1: The next matter is continue public hearing for 98 West Central Street for Britain, Bradford for a finding per mass general law. Chapter 48, section six, ending zoning bylaws. Section four B the applicant proposes to raise the existing single family dwelling. We construct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting nonconform that is shown on the plan submitted. And here I have David, Jason, Rob, Jeff, and Gail. Okay.
And now this is the one I was looking at before. So it, it's I think, yes. Okay. And have we, hi have we have we have we talked about this one? No, we have not. Okay. Alright. So you went before historical, right? Yes sir. And they determined that what you were taking down was not meaningful, right? Speaker 11: Yeah. In in part. So before the last hearing, right before a few days before my client received notice that may be something
that the historical commission has to approve from a demolition standpoint, which is why we continued the hearing because obviously we didn't want to mess up the chronology if it was something we were gonna have to do. So he met with historical, they established that it was not historically significant, but they did have some thoughts on the plan. And my client where this is located, obviously it's on 1 35. So he met with historical to get comments. He made substantial changes to his plans based on the recommendations of the historical commission, including repointing changing the scale, some things
with Windows garage. Yeah. Speaker 1: And that's what we're looking at tonight. Yes sir. Speaker 11: Yes. Yeah. And the historical is sent a letter. Speaker 1: That's what I'm looking at too. That's, yeah. So I, I'm September 25th. The above referenced house is subject to review via Article 76 demo and alterations bylaw. The historical commission does not find the existing house to be historically significant. The proposed new construction and alteration of the property has been revised relative to our comments and is acceptable as it is respectful of its neighborhood context and character drawings attached. Signed Steve Evers a i a co-chair.
Yes sir. Sorry, can you just Speaker 9: Identify yourself? Speaker 11: Record, I'm sorry. I'm Peter Harran, I'm working with the applicant. Sorry about Speaker 1: That. Brett and Bradford, the applicant. Alright, so now what we're looking at here again is a set of plans dated, no, I can't read this Speaker 9: Book. Speaker 1: Let's see. Alright, here we go now. Okay, here we go. So now this is the one, you don't have enough lot air, you don't have enough frontage, you don't have enough depth, your front's good. Your side is non-conforming and will remain so, but improve slightly. The other side is conforming
and will become more conforming. The rear is good and good. The coverage is good. The height is, there's no existing measurement for the height. Do we know what the existing is? I do not sir. Okay. Alright. So 35. That's, that's accurate. Speaker 12: We're at 30 for, for the proposed. Proposed, yeah. Yes. Yeah. So we have a, in your packet sir, you should see the bowler engineering plan which clearly outlines the, the building height measurement given the
directive from the building commissioner. Yep. Mr. Gini. Yep. Speaker 1: Okay, Speaker 12: So the 31 9 is from top of top, that's from the top of foundation. Yes, correct. So the engineering plan that takes into grade for account is per Mr. Gus's guidance Speaker 11: And he, we have an email from Dave to that effect too. Speaker 6: So I have my notes on this file that I'm not sure which page it was, but I got somewhere 34.96 feet. Speaker 12: That is the correct elevation that is
proposed on the stamped baller engineering plan. Okay. Yes ma'am. Speaker 6: This close. Speaker 12: I know I don't like those. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. Anybody here have any questions while we're formulating those? Let's find out if there's, anybody here wants to talk about it. 98 West Central Street. Is anybody here to be heard about that? Okay. Seeing none. Any other questions by the board? Speaker 6: I have a question. I was looking, now this may have something to do with a site update. I don't know, but I was trying to find the revised elevations 'cause I You changed them
from two months ago, right? Yes ma'am. So revised architectural elevations, I was looking at five 30 and I didn't see the elevation or the plots for the attic level and the basement level. Speaker 12: So for the plan that was provided specifically for the, are you, I guess are you questioning the height, the overall height Speaker 1: Of bridge height? Hold on one second. Just so I wanna make sure we're talking about the same thing. Yes sir. So you said the elevations, you mean the floor plans Speaker 6: Or same? Yeah, a plot plan is, yeah, floor Speaker 1: Plans. Yeah, the floor plans. Floors. Speaker 12: The floor plans, okay. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Not the elevations. I'm sorry to Speaker 6: Requestion, sorry, I didn't mean the side elevations show us Speaker 11: The height of the base, the height of the basement, the Speaker 6: Height, well the, the usable space, the usable space inside the basement and if there is any usable space. So Speaker 12: There is in the at level. So there is usable space inside of the basement. And the reason why is because with the direction of the historical commission, they wanted a garage that did not have a front facing elevation to be congruent with Central Street. So part of those, part of those in depth conversations was can we do a tuck under which sort of hides the garage off
as you drive down central for west to east or vice versa to tuck that under. So yes, there is basement because now you do have to enter this home through, you know, your garage is in the basement. So you do have to enter through there, there is usable space in the basement to get egress up to the first floor. Yes. Speaker 13: How much did that tuck under influence your height? Speaker 12: Quite a bit. If you look at the, if you look at the height, the overall height, which is 31 and eight and change, if you were to be able to grade that flat all the way around as determined by build, it's,
you know, it's 30 33 and change maybe tops. That tuck under really hurt us on. So now we, we actually had to change the roof height. We brought the roof height down. If you look at the last plan versus this plan, we went from 30, 34 to 31 and two inches or something. 31, I'm sorry, 31 and eight inches. So we had to, we had to drop the roof lines drastically in order to get the tuck under to work. It didn't work in our favor, but I actually, I like, I like the end product here. I think it's, I think it's good. Speaker 6: So is there usable space on in the top level?
Speaker 12: No, it's, if you look at the, if you look at the plan it's, I think it's seven, it's like seven feet. Is it technically usable? Speaker 6: Yes. Like above five feet Speaker 12: From Yeah, sure. Anybody could finish that. Right. Speaker 6: So Speaker 12: We at the end of the Speaker 6: Day And does it have a staircase leading up? Speaker 12: No, not, not as proposed on Speaker 6: A plane. Just a alley hall. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 6: See that's the thing, I wouldn't have to ask you these questions if I just had the drawings. Understood, understood. It would help. Speaker 12: Understood. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 8: I'm not mistaken, I'm looking at exactly what you just said. A two car garage, a basement, a mudroom.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 12: Yes sir. Speaker 1: Any other questions? Speaker 8: I like the mudroom Speaker 1: We're not taking off here. Hold on in touch. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Put you in touch with it alone. Okay, we'll close the hearing. Jason. Speaker 7: I would move that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting non-conforming structure provided it built and substantial conformance for the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submitted letters to this board. Speaker 1: Again for the record, the chair, because Speaker 13: I wasn't here, but I don't want, I'm trying to avoid a situation
Speaker 1: Since we, this is the first. Yeah, this is the heard first substance. Yeah. Jason, Jeff, I'm sorry. David. Jason, Rob, Jeff and Gail. Second by Rob. All those in favor? Okay. For all those against. Okay. Four one. It passes. You're all set Members Speaker 14: The board, I appreciate your time. Thank Speaker 1: You. Okay, good luck. The next matter up is a public hearing for 34 Bacon Street for Matthew Stevens for refining per chapter 40 a section six, the native D zoning bylaws, section four B.
The applicant proposes to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting nonconforming audit shown on the plan. Submitted. Hello? Hello. If we could just get your name for the record. Names for the record. Speaker 14: Ben Stevens and Claire Stevens. Speaker 1: Okay, so again, it's gonna be Dave, Jason, Rob, Jeff and Gail. Steve and then not here. Present. Present. And let me take a, I Speaker 14: Already, the other one Speaker 1: Existing plan, Speaker 9: Let's see. Speaker 6: I'm sorry. It's the same as last time, right? Speaker 1: Same. Speaker 6: Sorry. Yeah, thank you. Same. Sorry,
Speaker 14: Just on the site plan. I wanna make sure you're looking at September 25th. Speaker 1: That's what I got. All right. So we got the lot small. The frontage is small, the depth is there, the front is there, the side is good, the other side is good, the rear is good, the coverage is good, the height is good. That's good. Okay, so it's the lot area and frontage. And I'll take a peek. Speaker 13: You existing in the first the existing conditions plan X,
which I wf house slash FI don't recognize that on a plan. More professional curiosity. Oh that needs Speaker 14: Wood frame. Wood frame. Speaker 13: Thank you. Speaker 9: Alright, Speaker 6: Just a, a question about when the revisions were submitted. Am I correct in thinking that the revisions were submitted today? Speaker 14: Yes. The only revision is the, at a request of a neighbor, we actually moved the house back eight feet. So the original house, the, if you look at the plan,
the house now is back 39 feet from the frontage and due to a suggestion from our engineer and discussions with a neighbor and at 42 inch oak is sort of, we're trying to work around the 42 inch oak. So we Yeah, Speaker 6: I noticed the oak. Speaker 14: Yeah, that's probably the most significant thing about the site is the two trees. So, Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. So alright, so the plan is showing 39. Speaker 14: Correct. Speaker 1: Okay. And you're but the chart is still showing 30 30, yeah, 34 3 the only.
Right. So we're gonna change it to 39. Speaker 14: Thank you. Okay. Speaker 1: But the, but the elevations and these, let's see the architectural, these are all, these are all the same. Speaker 14: Nothing changed. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Okay. 'cause the, 'cause the date on these is Okay. Alright, good. Alright. So all the dimensions and Yeah, the house is the same. It's just been Speaker 9: The 39 feet. Alright, let's Speaker 6: See. So, so another point here. This is a new, this is a new one, right?
It does not count as a continued case. Correct? Speaker 1: This is the first hearing. Speaker 6: So doesn't that mean there was a deadline last week or two weeks ago for submitting drawings? Speaker 9: We don't have deadlines like that. Speaker 6: That's how, okay. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. So while we're formulating some thoughts on this, we're gonna find out if there's, anybody here wants to talk about it. Anybody here on 34 Bacon Street? If you, we can have you come up and just give your name and address for the record. We'll, we'll ha we'll hear you. Speaker 15: Thank Speaker 1: You. Speaker 15: Hello. Hi, my name's Gary Gil,
OLI live at 32 Bacon Street. Directly next to the, the, the site. I've had several discussions with Matt statements. I'm sorry he wasn't here today. He's been very, very cooperative. Very in, in some instances gracious, in terms of responding to my, my concerns, I'm, one thing that is brand new to me is the notion that this has been moved back at all, which, which I'll get to in the last of the items I want to raise.
Matt and I have discussed that the two trees in the front of the house will remain. I I wanted to make sure that that is the case. We've also discussed the fence between our two properties. That nothing new will be built, nothing new will be put in place there. I'll also just mention one of the things that I talked to Matt and my, my wife is trying to make our garden a little nicer. Matt's agreed to give us the plants that are right in front of the bushes, right in front of the house right now. Really appreciate that. But the final thing is, and the most important thing to us is light.
And we are concerned that the side of our house abutting the proposed project is going to be significantly blacked out. And if it's moved further back based on the sun as I know it, moving in the sky, it will be further darkened. Speaker 1: I think it goes the other way. Am I wrong Speaker 14: That we both face due north? So our rear yards are pretty much full sun in the back? You No, I'm sorry. You're on a corner, right? Nope. No. And Speaker 1: But, but the sun doesn't the sun rise on your,
on your side, you're gonna cast shadows on their house, not the other way around. Speaker 15: No, no, it's not the case. Talk about that. I mean, yes, in the morning, but not, certainly not in the afternoon. And Speaker 1: Oh, and by the time the sun sets, let, Speaker 15: Can I may ask a question of the applicant? Yeah. Matt sent me a sun study. Yeah. Was that for the new, new location? Speaker 14: Correct. Yeah. That was to examine for your solar panels if, if there was any effect. But because we're both sort of due south, there really is no shading on the solar panels. On
Speaker 15: The panels. Okay. That I understand. Okay. And I, I'm glad to hear that it's true with the change. I i I do not know what the board's jurisdiction here as it were and how it can influence things. I just wanted to raise for the board the concerns that we have about the light Yeah. And, and, and what will happen to our house. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 15: So Speaker 1: I think in most cases, people who are on the west side are of, there's concern because the sun rises
and passes through the southern sky and the entire day, essentially they're in shadow. They could potentially be in shadow until the end of the day. And this, I think it's the opposite, that you are gonna enjoy all of the sun from morning until perhaps the late afternoon. I mean, I haven't seen the sun study, but if, if the conclusion is that your, your solar panels aren't gonna be affected, that's one thing that I think that doesn't necessarily mean there won't be any shadows late in the day. But, you know, I, how how much of the day are you trying
to protect in terms of Speaker 15: I I can, I can't tell you that I'm sufficiently educated to have worked with the sun study that was sent. Oh, Matt had a comment in, in the email that he sent to me with that attached and he said, yes, there will be some impact later in the day, as you say, on that side of the house. I, but if the, I I, I can't, I, all I know is I pull my shades down in the afternoon, mid-afternoon now you won't have to in, in order
to to, to block the sun. Okay. And my wife who's works in, in the room next to mine would be even more impacted 'cause she has a corner room that has two windows. Yeah. Facing that direction. Sure, Speaker 1: Sure. So, okay. Fair enough. Thanks very much. May, may Speaker 15: I ask one? Yeah. Final one thing. Sure. My, we knew the, the lady that lived there for a long, long time, quite well. My wife officiated at her funeral, which wasn't that very long ago. Sorry to hear that. And, and,
and we got to know a lot of her kids. She raised nine kids there. We urged the family but with no expectations that they tried to sell it. And I guess all all I am sell it to a private individual. All I wanted to say just, just for the boards, for the board to have to hear is that we would like to see more houses kept at for the market at a lower price where people could afford to move into them. That would be, and, and in this particular neighborhood it
would be more consistent with what's on the street. Thank you for taking the time to listen. Thank Speaker 1: You. Appreciate, thank you. Yes sir. Speaker 16: Good evening. My name's Dana Arthur. I'm the Abutter at 36 Bacon Street. Good to meet you sir. I just had a couple of questions. I had a question about the, the 42 inch oak as well. I personally would like to see it taken down. It over, it's over my driveway and it drops acorns the size of golf balls on my cars. So if I had my choice, I'd take it down. There's some dead limbs on it. I don't know if it's safe or not,
but if you can have a tree guy look at it, it would be helpful. Speaker 1: I think that, I think what we just heard was that tree staying there is, is Speaker 14: Well considering, you know, is a view from the school and there it's 42 inch oak. We don't have a lot of 42 inch oak in Natick anymore. So it's big. I I'm happy to clean it up on any dead limbs and, and anything that looks precarious, we'll certainly do that. But we actually, we actually brought it in from the side yard setback. So our new house is almost 20 feet where the setback is 12 at the garage just to try
to get the pavement off the root system a little bit. Speaker 16: Yeah. And I actually appreciate the house moving a little bit because the, or the existing house didn't meet the setbacks, the existing garage. Right. Didn't meet it. Yeah. I haven't seen any plans that show the building height. I could only see the site plan. So I was curious about that. And I am, do have some concerns about the sun because it, I do get, I'm on the west side of the house so I, in the morning I get sun pretty much in my backyard all morning and through most of the day except for when the trees shade it.
So I don't know if moving it back eight feet if you want to, I don't know if you can move it back like half that or something. So it doesn't go quite so far back into the backyard as a consideration. But just, just that was just something I off the top of my head. And I did want to mention, I know you've got some guys doing some work cleaning, taking out some materials outta the building. They did encroach on my property a couple times and I did mention it to the man in the field because my fence is like a foot, foot and a half back from the property line and they put the dumpster like right against the fence.
Speaker 14: So I apologize. Yeah, we're real tight there. So I think we're, Speaker 16: It's a real tight space and Speaker 14: When the new house goes in, we'll we'll have a lot more room there. We'll go from eight feet to 20 feet. Yeah. On your side. So Speaker 16: Yeah, so it's, it's a lot more room there but I just wanted to mention it just to Speaker 14: Understood, you Speaker 16: Know, just to mention it to your guys and, and maybe they can tidy it up at the end when you guys are all done. Okay. 'cause there's some like track marks and stuff in the yard and that's really all the concerns that I had and look forward to seeing what you guys put there.
I think it's, it's gonna be fine. I didn't know how big the house is gonna be other than the footprint. The footprint looks kind of consistent with what everybody else is doing. Speaker 1: Okay, thanks very much. I saw one more hand. I thought I saw one more hand. No, I did not see one more hand. Okay. Does the board have any questions, thoughts, comments, concerns? Speaker 13: So when I'm looking at the elevations in the roof plan, the gable ends are on the sides east and west. Speaker 14: So Speaker 13: That, so the ridge line runs
Speaker 14: Long Correct. Which is what the other houses run, which should Speaker 13: Help with the sun and the massing as you as seen from the side a little bit. I mean all within reason of course. Okay. I keep looking at this getting thrown off 'cause it's twisted 180 degrees. You do have the compass on there, so it's, that's on you. There's no question in there. Just more of a statement. Thank you. Speaker 1: Anybody else? Speaker 6: Yes, go ahead. I have a question. So the current, the existing home has a one car garage.
Correct. And from my site visit, I was estimating that the current driveway is about 10, 10 to 12 feet wide. You're putting in a two car garage. Correct. So the curb cut for this new driveway is going to be how wide? Speaker 14: It's on the plan. It's 17 and a half feet. Speaker 6: 17 and Speaker 14: It we're removing off the theo about three feet of pavement and sort of shifting it over to line up. There's no granite curbing out there, but I believe there's a little bituminous. So
Speaker 6: Yeah, Speaker 14: It's a, I'm sure the neighbors will attest. It's a tough street to back out on. So we have to, Speaker 6: I I used to have a friend who lived next door or two houses from this house. So I, I know what you're talking about. You Speaker 1: Have the little turnaround though. Speaker 14: Cut it. That's why we did the turnaround that's kind of led to this eight foot shift. The engineer was saying we're really jamming up on the tree, you're never gonna be able to back out. And my he, so we said it made a lot more sense. Just go back a little bit. Sure. So, Speaker 6: Yep. So I know you have a lot of space to the rear of the lot, so I'm not as concerned about those giant pines
that are at the rear lot line, but I noticed the neighbors to the left, as you're facing the house, have a lot of trees, medium sized trees next to or on the lot line. And the walls that you're planning to build are approximately 13 feet away from the prop, that property line. Is that correct? Speaker 14: Correct. Speaker 6: So, so is it reasonable to assume that the excavation is going to go at least east six, eight feet further than the finished wall
and the basement foundation wall? Speaker 14: Actually the, yeah, the, the old house was 10, 10.7. We're gonna be at 15 with the new house. So where the old house abuts it, it's already dug to that el essentially dug to our basement elevation and there'll be a little bit more digging towards the back. But I think, but that digging is actually five feet in, or probably three and a half feet closer into the middle of the property than from the tree. So if there's trees at that point between the two houses,
they, they're adjusting around the foundation that's there now and we should be able to be safe with those. So you shouldn't have to disturb them at all. Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 15: Can you ask a question Speaker 1: Too? Yeah, but do do it at the mic. Yeah. So Speaker 15: What possible impact could we have on these trees and what, what if there was an issue, what would you do? Speaker 14: I don't recall any significantly large trees that close to the property. Speaker 15: They, they're not significantly large. Speaker 14: Okay. Yeah. I mean if we lose a small Speaker 15: But since it was raised, IIII need to ask, Speaker 14: I don't, he would've located,
my engine would've located if there's anything on the property. So we're probably and we're, we're actually moving that wall away from your house. So where the house is now and the chimney is now is about 10.7 feet. We're moving it over to 15 feet. So, Speaker 15: Well, when I understood the question from the board member to be was construction may have an impact. Speaker 14: So, well Speaker 15: What, what if that should happen? What, what are we, what are you gonna do Speaker 14: Legally I have no requirement to do anything because if the roots are on my property I can cut them.
However, as you can tell from the way we operate, if there's a tree or two that makes some sense that between the two properties, we're happy to put 'em back in for you. It's, you know, if there's a, if that's something that gives a 'cause, I may wanna do some trees. You and I may wanna talk about positioning a couple of trees sort of window to window or for privacy and that sort of thing. Okay. Which we could do after the fact. I Speaker 15: Appreciate it. Thank you. So thank you. Speaker 1: Anybody else have any questions, comments, thoughts? Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Jason, Speaker 7: Would you like me to make a motion? Please Speaker 1: Do that Voodoo.
Speaker 7: I would move that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming structure provided it's built in substantial conformance for the plan submitted and any requirements from the town departments have submitted letters to the board. Speaker 1: I, I think I'm just gonna amend it by saying that the fence between the property to the east and this property will remain Speaker 7: As amended. Speaker 1: Second and Speaker 13: Limb up the oak, the 42 inch oak Speaker 7: Clear up. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. So what is that we're gonna say? Where is the fence? Speaker 14: It's actually my neighbor's.
They're all my neighbor's fences. So we never intended to touch them. So Speaker 1: Now it's a condition. Yeah. And then in terms of that, that's what, is that for safety? Is that the whole idea here? I think so is what you, you agreed to do it but it's it. You're gonna remove dead and Speaker 14: Damaged. Speaker 1: Dead damaged limbs off the 40 42 Speaker 7: Inch Speaker 1: Oak. The 42 4 2 inch choke, the 42 inch oak. Okay. As amended and ream amended Second. I'll second Jeff. And all those in favor and all those opposed?
Okay, you're all set. Good luck. Okay, the next matter up for hearing is a public hearing for 87 Glen Street for Ken Solder home for fin for MGL chapter 48, section six and then eight zoning bylaws section four B. The project is for the demolition of the existing two car garage construction of a new two car garage. Hi there. Hey, can we just get your name for Speaker 17: The record? Ken Soder Home 87 Glen Street. One typo on that. The existing garage is a one car garage. Okay. Speaker 1: Just to thank you Speaker 17: Very much. Just to be clear, Speaker 1: Existing existing one car garage
and construction of a new two car garage. Alright, let's take a look here. Speaker 17: So if I might, while you're looking Yep. I bought the house in 2014. There's like a before and an after and contrary. Interesting what the guy said before. My neighbors were very happy that I didn't tear the house down. Yeah. To build a new house and yeah, that looks good. But I ran a little low on funds by the time I finished because it was proverb the worst house in a nice neighborhood. Okay. So I never got to the garage, which is really actually kind of in danger of falling in the ridge is sagging.
I can't even put a car in it. So I finally have decided I, I really do want to have a garage that I can fit a car in. Speaker 1: Okay. So let me just go over the numbers here real quick. You're just short on lot area, you're short on frontage, you got massive depth. Speaker 17: Yeah, it goes way back Speaker 1: The side. I'm sorry, the front is, is not changing but is non-conforming. The the other side is also, I'm sorry, the side is non-conforming and is not changing. The other side is, so let me see, the house is not changing. The garage is two feet now and it's gonna be improved to six feet, correct?
Speaker 17: Well it's actually one foot actually and it's gonna go to five feet. What I was hoping is, so my neighbors and I have a letter from them in the file. They also had to go through this about 10 or 15 years ago 'cause their garage was falling down and they were, this is what they were approved for. So I was thinking if I could pull mine back to the same distance off the property line as they did. So that would give four more feet to the property line. But then that would give me just enough room to fit in the two car garage before I encroached on the, I need to leave some space
to get by it to the yard. Speaker 1: Let me just see your, you, you, I think we're, the coverage is not indicated I think you've given us the, this 26 80 figure. You have it as both the lot area, the floor area, and the coverage. So one of those is not correct. So let's just take, well, if he's adding Speaker 17: 700 square feet of coverage, he's got the houses. Speaker 1: I'm looking here, he's got a building. It's not a percentage, it's, it is just a raw number. Right. Yeah. Speaker 17: So the existing house is 1960. Speaker 1: Is that your square footage or, yeah. Yeah.
So this is footprint. Speaker 17: Yeah. Speaker 1: Oh, there it is. 1960, is that what you said? Okay. So hold on a minute. Is it a one, is it a one story house? Speaker 17: No, it's a se has a second story. Speaker 1: Okay. But 1960 indicated as the footprint. Right. And then the garage is 700 feet. You say seven 20. So do that. Speaker 17: It's actually gonna be a little less, but Speaker 1: It's 26 80. Okay. As six 80 divided Speaker 17: By 32,000. There Speaker 1: You go. Speaker 17: 5 48. Okay. Speaker 1: A nonis issue. Yeah. Okay. So we don't have a problem there. And then, okay, so that's that. So we're talking, let's see, lot area frontage, side,
side and rear. Rear. No, no, just the side. Just the sides. Oh no. And let's see, sorry, the side west, the side east and the You have Speaker 17: Rear, Speaker 1: Oh no, that's the rear. Okay. Just the sides and the front. Okay. Okay. So the house doesn't change. 32 there, one foot there. The existing garage is shown Speaker 17: Where? Speaker 1: Oh, I see it. Yeah. 24 next to the right there. Okay. And it's really tucked up close. Okay.
So you're going a little farther away. Speaker 17: Where's the existing garage? On the flat? Speaker 1: If, if you look, if you look at right here, Speaker 17: It's line right there. You see? Oh, I see. Yep. This is, so you're moving it back. This kind of shows you how close they are together. Yeah. Speaker 7: And he's five feet onto his property. Speaker 17: Yeah. Yeah. So Speaker 7: You're right up on the line. Speaker 17: One foot. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Alright, so you're gonna move it away there for a little bit and make a little bit more turn. Speaker 1: Alright, let, let's see, Speaker 17: Let's see. And just into the office, his Speaker 1: 87 Glen Street. Anybody here on 87 Glen? No. Speaker 17: Okay. Speaker 1: So
Speaker 7: Mr. Chairman, there was one letter from an abutter. Speaker 1: Alright. Can you get, Speaker 17: That's the Abutter whose garage we're talking about, right? Speaker 1: I don't see that, but I probably think here's somewhere Speaker 17: We've Speaker 7: Got something dated May 28th from Joan Barth representing Joan and, and Kermit Baker from 83 Glen saying that we are in, we are writing in full support of Ken Saar's proposal to remove the existing garage at 87 Glen and replace it with a new structurally sound and attractive garage. It will be an improvement to the property, very similar design and placement to our garage, which we also, which was also replaced
an older structure approximately 20 years ago. It'll be enhancement to our budding properties. Ken's an excellent neighbor. He's done a wonderful job remodeling his, his home and honoring the feeling and scale of the neighborhood homes. We feel certain the new garage will be consistent with his previous improvements. Speaker 1: Okay, great. Well that's nice. Who else has questions? Speaker 6: I have question. So I, when I checked the file, it looked like we still didn't have stamped drawings for the structure. We have a handwritten Speaker 17: Yeah, I had spoke to the building. I'm a builder. Speaker 6: Yeah, I figured that. I spoke to the Speaker 17: Building inspector and I guess I have a homeowner's
exemption to be able to submit those. I did have a stamped engineer. Okay. Submit a, Speaker 6: I mean I know it's just a garage, right? Speaker 17: But I did know, but I did, there's gonna be a beam in there and header. So I actually had an engineer stamped that for the billing inspector to show that it was, those were sized properly. Okay. Otherwise it's a pretty basic, he, he didn't have a problem with that. It's being as that one be doing it myself. Speaker 6: Okay. By the way, you, you have a beautiful house. I love that you left it there and you know it doesn't have the highest ceilings does it? No, it does not. And although the one kudos to you,
Speaker 17: One family room in the back to the deck actually does have sort of a cathedral ceiling there. Speaker 6: So you get a break, but it's lower Speaker 17: Than the rest of the house. So it's Right. Speaker 6: So the trees that I, I can't, can't tell from the street if they're on your side of the line or your neighbor's or the Barts, are they aware that, did the, there's gonna be an impact on those two giant or those hemlocks or some other touching Speaker 17: Those. That's why it's not going back. But I mean any further than the existing Oh, it's coming forward. Speaker 6: You're not gonna have to cut off any of the lower limbs that are on your side of the line. Speaker 17: I'm might have to just trim a couple of really low ones. But Speaker 6: I mean, 'cause I know legally you're entitled.
But you know, I was wondering if, if your neighbors are aware I'm protecting Speaker 17: A lot of money protecting those. I have. Speaker 6: Yeah, I bet you have. Have Speaker 17: 'em all be treating them for will, will, will the Aldi it and stuff. Speaker 6: Yes. Yes. I was impressed to see. Thank you. I was impressed to see how good they are. Yes. Okay. I have nothing further. Okay. Speaker 1: Thanks very much. Okay. Anybody else have anything here? Okay, we're gonna close the public hearing. Jason. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Thank you Alan. It's David, Jason, Rob, Jeff, and Gail. Which for the record, we have to do, unless someone else, someone's not here unavailable,
then we slot in an associate. But of course anybody is, is welcome to add whatever input that they deem appropriate. Jason, Speaker 7: I move that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the pre-existing non-conforming use and structure provided. It's spilled substantial conformance with the plan submitted and any requirements from the town departments who've submitted letters to the board. Speaker 1: Second. Speaker 17: I'll Speaker 1: Second. All second is Jeff And all those in favor? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Okay, so five. Oh, you're all set. Good luck. Thank you. Speaker 17: Thanks Speaker 1: So much. Next matter is a public hearing
for four Curtis Road for Silva development for fin per Mgl L chapter 48, section six. And then he's zoning bylaws sections four B. The applicant propose to raise these single family dwelling, construct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting Nonconform law Charlotte plan submitted. Okay. And let's see here. Four Curtis. And then we'll just have you, Peter, just give your name for the record. Speaker 11: I'm Peter Harrans, I'm here for the applicant. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. So you need, you got the lot, you, I mean, you don't have the area, you don't have the frontage.
The depth is not indicated. Speaker 11: I note that based on the plot plan, it's either it has sufficient depth based on the lines and I can include that as an update. What, Speaker 1: What, what's the, what's the requirement? Speaker 11: I believe it's 125 and we have 141 or it might be Speaker 1: A hundred one forty one. In any case, it's, it's okay. The front's good. The west is good, the east is good. The rear is good. The coverage is good, the height is good.
Okay. So it's, that's okay. So it's just lot area in frontage and, okay. You, you, you we're good. You don't need to tell Speaker 11: Standard. Yeah, I, I didn't know if anyone's gonna be here. My, my client's been sort of canvassing the neighborhood to see if there's any response Speaker 1: Here much. Let's find out. Are you here on this one? I'm not, not Speaker 11: Here on this. I played guess who before I know you. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. So I mean, the good news is there's no one here on yours. And the good news Sure. If there's no one here on yours except for you. That's good. Okay. Does anybody have any questions here?
Speaker 6: Yes, sure. Go ahead. So you are putting in a basement? Speaker 11: I believe so, yeah, Speaker 6: Because I see, I saw from the letters that this re this does require major storm water permit. You'll need to put an infiltration, but I didn't see a basement plot plan. I also didn't see any of the drawings for the storm water. Speaker 11: The storm water infiltration. So the storm water typically is, my client does, he's a, a number of these. We don't draw that until it's approved. 'cause we don't know what we're planning for until we get the approval here. But we obviously we can't start without any with all those things. Well,
Speaker 6: There are other applicants who provide that at this stage. So no, just saying we Speaker 1: Do, we do see it a lot of times, but in any case we'll condition it on inclusion of that, that infiltration and so. Right. Speaker 6: And so the, according to the health department, the water starts five feet down. Correct. The estimated high, Speaker 11: If that's what the water department is storm, that's what, Speaker 6: Yeah. And how high are the basement ceilings? Speaker 11: I'm not sure how high they are.
Speaker 6: They're probably at least eight feet. Speaker 11: I, I'm not sure I can get that information. I just, as far as, as far as this went, we typically, I'm not sure that they have that measured on the architecturals. They may, I just, I don't have it right off the top. Speaker 1: Okay. That's not gonna hold you up tonight. Speaker 11: I I mean it's, it's seven or eight feet I would think, but I'm not sure if they're planning to finish it as livable area, what they're gonna do with it. Speaker 1: Anybody else have any questions? Speaker 11: Mm, Speaker 1: Comments You'll have to go through water and Speaker 11: Silver water. Oh yeah, absolutely. We have, we have letters from all the departments
and he's, this is Silva development. And again, not to, but he's done a number of 'em in town. So he knows the procedure as far as getting his building permit. So as does the town. Yes, absolutely. Speaker 1: It's right there in the engineering letter. The applicant shall provide an appropriately sized storm water infiltration facility and on the lot to mitigate storm water impacts, et cetera. So Speaker 6: I just have to ask Sorry, ask a question about that though, because if groundwater is at a little over five feet and the foundation is lower than that,
I thought that, that it wasn't sufficient to have an infiltration system because that only handles the water that is coming down being rerouted from the roofs. It does not handle groundwater. And my understanding is you can still end up needing sump pumps if you have a foundation slab that's lower than the groundwater. Is that not correct? Speaker 1: I, I don't know. I'm not a contractor. I I just know that according to the Board of Health and Engineering, they did not indicate that for whatever reason it was a non,
non buildable for a basement. It, I'm looking here. Soil and dust were witnessed to determine the estimated seasonal groundwater to provide a minimum of two feet of separation from the foundation slab floor and eliminate the need for a sump pump indication of estimated seasonal high groundwater was observed approximately 5.4 feet below grade at the time of soil test. Either will or won't comply with the requirements of the building code and the board of health. But that's not really for us. Speaker 11: Yeah. If we can't create a system that's satisfactory. The fact that this is approved tonight,
there's just an approval tonight. We can't get a, a permit without it. So there, there is like another rail there with a number of these portions too. Speaker 1: Thank Speaker 8: You. And the grade is not changing, Speaker 11: Correct? No, no, we know that. Yeah. That's the Speaker 13: Height. That's that is a question whether you're Speaker 11: Building up. Absolutely. And and he's aware that if he does, if that does change experience is time, we gotta come back in here. This condition Speaker 8: Approval on Speaker 1: Yeah. Interestingly, existing grade, the word word is that, that Dave's proposition is that you, you get the benefit of, of an increase in the grade Now doesn't mean you get the benefit of the board
that that's the issue. Right. I mean, you could get away from the groundwater by, by bringing in fill, right? Yes. And then you change the average grade plane and then you, you, you, you're, you know, seemingly good to go both as to height and this issue of the groundwater. The difference is, is that you're now effectively higher than the height would otherwise indicate. And that could of, and that can impact what happens here. Right? So the it
Speaker 13: Has impacted Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Speaker 11: I didn't wanna Speaker 1: Say, but, but what's interesting is that that is, you can do that and, and still comply dimensionally with the code, but you might throw off the substantial, substantial detriment. Speaker 11: Yeah. No calculus of detriment without remembering specifically. I have had clients that did both. And after the building department came out, after the neighbor, this is a while ago, this isn't, this client said, this looks higher.
And it turned out that they should have come back in because when they started building, the grade changed and it was higher than what was approved, essentially. So that wasn't Speaker 1: That crazy one with the Speaker 11: Wall. No, I helped him too, but that was a different thing. You, Speaker 13: The wall guy. I thought we agreed. Speaker 11: He came to me a couple meetings. Wait, we don't need to talk about that one either. I don't want to talk to you. So, Speaker 13: So rhetorical question, if I may right. Of, of, of an attorney, it comes back and you cannot put a basement in because of the groundwater. Do they have to come back or is it a, is it the big that's just a foundation system?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I, at that Speaker 13: Point, i, if it doesn't change the exterior of the building. Yeah, Speaker 1: I mean I I I think it's, it's a, it's a close question. You know, the board strike that. The building commissioner has the ability to make a determination of di minimis changes, field changes. I suspect that is not one that is, Speaker 13: I think adding a basement would not be a di minimi change. Speaker 1: Take one away, that's for sure. Take taking one away Might be, I mean, I I mean ultimately what you're saying is it has zero impact on i I suppose. Yeah. It has zero impact on what you can see.
The dimensions don't change. It's now on a slab. I think it's just entirely up to the billing commissioner. My guess is he sends it back, but I don't Speaker 11: Know. I I think he would at this point. I think it's come up a couple times. Yeah. I, again, I don't want to rehash I, but it has come up a Speaker 1: Couple times. It's, it's, it's, it's a interesting question. But anybody else have anything here before we mo we close it? Okay. Hearing none Jason closed. Jason, you wanna do that? Speaker 7: Yeah, I move that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the pre-existing non-conforming use and structure provided. Building substantial conformance of plan submitted
and any requirements from town departments who submitted letters to the board, including specifically that the applicant will install a stormwater infiltration system as, as approved or required by the engineering department and or board of health. And that there are be no changes to the existing grade Speaker 1: On the lot. Second, Speaker 9: Second, Speaker 1: Rob, all those in favor? All those opposed. Okay. Four to one. You're all set. Good luck. Good night. You too. Okay, next matter is seven Pleasant View Road for Daniel P on me.
I'm sorry if I didn't get that right. For REPM Pleasant pond, LLC for fin for MGL, chapter 48, section six. And then he zoning bylaws section four B. The project is for the demolition of the existing single family dwelling and construction of a new single family dwelling on the non-conforming lot. Hello there. Hi. Can you just give us your name for the record? Speaker 18: Sure thing. Daniel BME with Royal Estates Property Management. Speaker 1: Okay. Let me just take a peek here. Okay. So it's a very small lot, very little frontage and not enough depth. The front's non-conforming but will remain.
So the side's good. Oh, okay. Wait a minute. NANA you have the east setback. Speaker 18: So the lot itself, the entire parcel is actually split between Natick and Wellesley. Huh? So it's, yeah, the Natick side is tiny, but the inclusive of the Wellesley side, it's around 13,500 square feet. Speaker 1: Wow. Okay. Hold on a minute. Now let's see here. Oh Speaker 9: Boy. Speaker 1: I do that. Do you have to go there too? Speaker 18: So by right. I can build in
Wellesley based on what I'm doing. Speaker 1: Wow, okay. Wow. I Do you like that, that Speaker 9: Close to the pond? Speaker 18: Yeah, so we we're actually about, we're more than a hundred feet away from the pond. Right. And we're actually, you know, high, much higher elevation. It's a steep slope. It is, yes. Yeah. But we stayed out of the a hundred foot buffer as well, and it was an important part of what we're doing. Speaker 1: So I'm looking at the plan here. It says existing one and a half story dwelling and then proposed addition. Is that accurate? Speaker 18: So it's, it's actually ex existing one and a half stories. That's the current footprint.
The footprint itself is remaining the same. It's what na calls a standing tear down. The foundation's not going, it's just tearing it down back to the top of the foundation, which is in good shape. Okay. And then two and a half stories from Speaker 1: There. But it's all gonna be leveled. The whole thing's going down the Speaker 18: Home itself. Yes. Okay. And there is an addition. So the footprint does increase. Yes. Correct. Yeah, Speaker 6: It's more than double. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 18: So the existing house, the Speaker 6: With the addition the Speaker 1: Footprint, Speaker 6: Yeah, with the addition. Speaker 18: So depends on which part of the addition you're looking at. Not the, so I, it's hard to kind of say if you're looking at everything including the
Wellesley side or if you're looking at it just including the Natick side. Speaker 1: That's a good question. So right now the numbers we're looking at are just everything to the west, native, west of the line. Speaker 18: Yeah, yeah. See that property Speaker 1: Then? Yeah. So timeline do Speaker 6: That. So maybe I should throw this in now. The Conservation Commission says that this application needs an Article 79 a review due to the excavation being so large. And where are we with that review?
Speaker 1: What's 79 a? I Speaker 6: Don't even know. I don't know either. She, Speaker 18: I, I spoke to Claire several times. She said what we needed was the storm water permit. So I do have an engineer that's engaged on the, for the stormwater over there. You good? The Conservation Commission. Speaker 6: Well, it's the first time. Speaker 1: Yeah. So they must have acquired this line. Are you going Natick or Wellesley or Yes, Speaker 18: We're going, we're going on Natick. Natick actually has a more strict requirement on the water side. That's weird. Speaker 1: Storm water management and erosion control. Yeah. Speaker 6: So that's the first time I've seen an application
where the conservation commission recommended an additional study like this additional review. So I think it's, I'm concerned about the, think it's Speaker 1: A hundred feet of the pond. It's Speaker 6: Wet, he's outside the a hundred foot buffer. Yeah. But it's a very steep slope and it's a big excavation. Speaker 1: Yeah. Again, that, that I think that's gonna be for them. I'm gonna take a look at that letter for a moment here. Speaker 6: So I'll ask while he's doing that. Yeah, go ahead. Speaker 1: Please go ahead. Speaker 6: Please go ahead. There's a lot of trees on that lot and it looks like they're kind of holding the hill together
and you are gonna have to cut down a half of them or more Speaker 18: In Natick. There's only one tree coming down. It's actually an invasive species. Speaker 6: Wellesley gets the cut Wellesley, Speaker 18: There are I think three or four trees coming down in Wellesley. And part of the, part of the process for us was we actually brought on a, a consultant for the trees. They went through everything. It's not a requirement in Natick, but it wasn't Wellesley. So there was a consultant that looked over what we were doing and confirmed that it's an invasive species. The tree that's coming down in Natick, Speaker 13: Norway. Maple Speaker 18: It? No, the, it's the tree of heaven.
Speaker 6: Tree of heaven. Lanis. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 13: Is that a retaining wall? Speaker 18: There is a, there's a, which has been permitted already on the Natick side. So there is a replacement natick retaining walls. So Speaker 13: It's a, it's, there's one there in your Speaker 18: Removing the one that's there and putting in an engineered wall. Speaker 6: And the maximum height of the new retaining wall is what Speaker 18: Is 10 feet at its max height. Speaker 6: 10 10 feet tall. Retaining wall facing the pond. Correct. The downhill side. Yes. Speaker 18: And that, that has been permitted as well in Natick already.
Speaker 19: What's there today? Is there a retaining wall today? Speaker 18: Did you say? There is a retaining wall. It's more of a kind of blocks of concrete, just kind of thrown at the hill. Yeah. So definitely not safe or it's reached the end of its useful life. But there is an engineered wall that's been permitted. Speaker 6: Have you talked to any of the neighbors and what have the neighbors been saying? Yeah, Speaker 18: I spoke to my neighbor. My, I guess, I guess I could say the, the neighbor to the west of me, the n neighbor. I spoke to him. He was on board. He in fact was encouraging me to cut down another tree, which I'm not doing that.
And if anything, I'm actually going to help that tree. There's a driveway along that west side. We're removing that driveway that's gonna be all grassed in now. So give the trees roots a little bit more access. And there is a garage also being taken down at the backside of the lot. And, and he was actually okay with it staying. But to make our building coverage numbers work, we have to take that down. Speaker 6: So that's the abutter to the right as you're looking at the property, correct? Speaker 18: Or, or Well, to the west. I, yeah. Speaker 6: Yeah. 'cause I, I got a little disoriented when I was there about which way was north. So, but the other direct abutters.
So are they aware of what's been proposed here? Have you gotten feedback from them? Speaker 18: So the only other neighbor I spoke to, which, which would be my neighbor to the Easty Wellesley neighbor. And you know, at the time they were just, you know, happy to see something happening. I don't know if they had gotten to look at the plans or anything like that specifically, but at the time he was happy to see something happening with the property. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 13: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? Yeah. When something hits here and you send out to Abutters, is it only Natick neighbors? Speaker 2: No, we inform the Wellesley neighbors as well. Speaker 13: Okay. So they they were informed of tonight?
Speaker 2: Yes, we're required by law with, to send out postcards within 300 feet of the project Speaker 13: No matter what the municipality, no matter what the I like that. Speaker 6: And were there any bounce back cards? Not that you're aware of? Not that you're aware of. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, Speaker 13: So, Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 13: What do I mean, what do we look at here? Speaker 1: You know, I mean, dimensionally let, let, let's assume we can, we can't look in, we can't include the Wellesley land. We don't look at the Wellesley, the line that goes into Wellesley. Speaker 13: So, but where is, I assume the setback is from the street,
not from the Townline, Speaker 1: It's from the street. Speaker 13: Is that, I mean, that's a, I don't think I, yeah, I I haven't seen one of these before. Despite, Speaker 8: We had one in Wellesley, remember where the, well, there, there was one, the guy had, there was a water distance restrictions. So he tried to like, shove everything up in the Natick. And Speaker 1: I don't remember Speaker 8: That specifically. The setbacks from water and Wellesley. It was, it was pretty wild. Speaker 1: Let, let me Speaker 8: Forget that. It was years and years ago. Speaker 1: Look, th this thing is Speaker 13: Interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah. To say it, to say the least. But if you look at this chart, alright, the chart just drawn as if the entire property and entire structure was in Natick, essentially. Speaker 7: Well, except for the not applicable I thought. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 7: That goes into Wellesley. Speaker 1: Yeah, it goes, it goes in, it goes into, into, well that, that's out of our jurisdiction. Right, right, right. So again, there's nobody here saying that what's being proposed is substantially more detrimental. He's got, you know, the lot's not big enough. Nobody's here. The frontage isn't big enough, but it kind of is.
And nobody's here. The, the lot depth is not there. That one's real kind of, there's nobody here. And the rest of the stuff is basically conforming in all manner and respects ish. But again, there's nobody here. And so it'd be hard for me to look at this plan and say it's substantially more detrimental when there's not a soul here suggesting there's any detriment of any type, kinder nature. And thus I don't see that there is.
Okay. Anybody else have anything before we, I just wanna get caught in the weeds here. Anybody, anybody closed? Jason? Speaker 7: I would 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 structure provided its built and substantial conformance with the plan submitted. And any requirements from the Natick town departments who've submitted letters to this board, was there anything specific from those, the additional review by the conservation commission perhaps? Speaker 1: Yeah, sure. To the extent necessary. Speaker 6: A review. Speaker 1: Yeah. Right. Again, to their jurisdiction.
Yep. Okay. Seconded as amended. All second Jeff. All those in favor? All those opposed? And then just I think for the record, I'm just gonna ask, so I just, I'm getting a, just so I have a sense the voters are robbed. You see no substantial detriment. Is that, is that your finding? Not on the natick side. Okay. Jason? No substantial detriment. I can't, it's Speaker 7: Not substantially more detrimental than, Speaker 1: Yeah, I seen it's not substantially more detrimental, Jeff? Same. And you see substantial detriment. Yes. Can you describe it though for me? One thing
Speaker 6: Is a very large project and that does affect the Natick side and the fact that we don't have any neighbors here. Oh, sorry. The fact that we don't have any neighbors here does not positively prove that they are not concerned about if they understood how to read it, if they actually did read it, that's why having talked to the neighbors would've made some difference to me. But the 10 foot retaining wall is a major concern to me. Even though we supposedly don't set precedent on this board, it seems as if some things that get approved do somehow do that anyway.
Speaker 1: Okay. For the record, nothing we do here sets a precedent. Yes. Period. Okay. So you're all set. It's been voted in favor. You're, thank you. Good luck. Appreciate you all. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any business for you? Speaker 20: Yes, sir. The minutes from the August three 15 Speaker 6: Meeting, please. Speaker 1: Does anybody have any changes before we vote? Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 6: First of all, I'd just like to know what, did anybody read it and have changes so that I don't have to go through it? Or did anybody already discuss anything? And I just am not aware. Nobody Speaker 1: Discusses anything outside of the public hearing. Speaker 6: Yeah, that's what I keep hearing.
Speaker 1: I don't get it. Speaker 6: So no idea. Speaker 1: What's the question? Speaker 6: Okay, so hold Speaker 1: On a second. Just 'cause you said that's what you keep hearing. I said we don't discuss it outside the public hearing. And you said that's what I keep hearing? Yes. Can you just, can you just explain that to me so I understand? Speaker 6: Oh, no, I, I'm confused. I I I just think sometimes it must be tricky to not discuss things outside of hearings. As long as it's not directly a no Speaker 1: Case. We, we don't, Mr. Chairman, Speaker 21: Point of order. We are on the minutes, we believe. Can we, no. Can we
Speaker 1: Proceed? Good enough. Thank you. Go ahead. Speaker 6: Okay, so the, I'll skip that one. 26 Oak. The vote tally is written as 6 0 0. Allen is listed twice. So that's the 26 oak one. There's a typo for five La Grange Street. It, it, the street is referred to as 26 Oak instead of La Grange Street. That's, you know, just a type up in the vote tally section 98 West Central Alan is mentioned. Hold on one second. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Speaker 22: Thank you.
98 West Central Speaker 6: Alan is mentioned as voting and it's a tally of six again as opposed to five. Speaker 22: Okay. Speaker 6: Nine Stonebridge Circle. Andrew's name is misspelled. It's just a typo. Says Andrew. I think that one doesn't matter. Oh, there is a content issue. I'm not sure how important it is, but to Westlake Road. Peter Beamus did not say that the tree had to be removed due to DPW requirements. He said if DPW thought they would have to move it, they, he would remove it.
But he said he had accommodated that tree. So just to give him credit for that. As it were. Also one of the people who spoke, her first name is wrong. It says Olivia Schafer at nine Richard. Her first name is actually Lydia. What, Speaker 22: What address are you talking Speaker 6: About? Oh, that's still under the Westlake road testimony. So it's just Lydia Schafer, that's all. I'll skip that. Skip that. Oh yeah. Alan is listed twice again for 34 bacon and yeah, that's enough. Speaker 22: It's so awesome. He gets it twice. The seat or something needs to be approved. Dangerous.
I don't know, but I'm sure that clerical staff can take care of. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we have a motion to, motion to adjourn. Thank I need Oh, move to approve the minute, second. Amend BYD as as amended. Second. Second. Close the question, Jeff. All those in favor? Yep. Okay. 5 0 7. Oh, move to second. This one. All vote. All those in favor? Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank.