Speaker 1: We're gonna call the meeting to order. It's six 30. We're missing a couple members, but we have a quorum so we can get started. We've got a long agenda tonight. First thing in our agenda is every month we have a public speak section. So any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda. It'll be taken under advisement by the board. There's no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. The section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes and any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. Anyone wanna speak on anything that's not on the agenda? Okay. Going to our first hearing. This was continued from last month.
It is 47 high Street application for Robert Mary Zko for a finding under 40 a section six and Natick zoning four B and five A proposing to raise the existing single family dwelling construct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting nonconforming lot. We opened the hearing last month and we continued it to this month and the applicant has requested continuing again to June 23rd. I noticed there's somebody in the audience that wanted to say a, a short word about this one before we continue. Speaker 2: Yes. Hi Glen Glader, 28 Reynolds Avenue.
The neighbors met with the development team. The development team seemed to be under the impression that you were going, you collectively were going to require them to make the project as conforming as possible, including moving the building back to create a conforming front yard setback that would actually cause it to be a missing tooth along the street. No other street, no other house along that area has a conforming front yard setback. And so I would in, in a different time. I would encourage you to allow that I'm, if
that is something that you think that you would allow, maybe Ms. Walters can, can let the developer know that their plans can move forward with the building up at the level where the current building is. So that, Speaker 1: So just to be clear, your preference is to align it with the other existing houses rather than try and achieve more compliance. Correct. Speaker 2: In that part From that particular manner, yes. Okay. Speaker 1: Did you, are you not able to come June 23rd or, well, Speaker 2: I'm planning on being here June 23rd. I just, my expectation is that they're gonna come
with a single plan and it's going to say, here's what we're gonna do. And if it, that single plan, I've, I've constantly encouraged them to create multiple options. But if they come with a single plan and it has the building set back, then it would be a disservice to them to send them away again and say, come back with another plan that brings the building up forward. We expressed our opinion to them while they were there, but they told me they didn't think you would accept that. And I'm hopeful that you will accept that and that that information can be relayed to them.
Speaker 1: Alright. We'll see what we can do about getting that word to them before the next meeting. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Is there a motion to continue this one to June 23rd? We Speaker 3: Continue 47 High Street hearing until June 23rd. Speaker 1: Second. Second. Thank you. All in favor. Who are we doing? We're all here tonight so we can all vote anyway. One, two, we gotta have the real members one act full members. Mike, Jason, Rob, Aaron, and yes. So we'll go that way. That's five, right? Okay.
Continued. Next up we have another one continued from last month. We have a hearing for eight Liberty Street application for eight, Liberty Street, LLC for finding under 40 a section 6 5, 4 B, and five a proposing to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family on a police nine 20 lot as shown on the plan submitted. Hello. Speaker 4: Good evening. Welcome back. Attorney Van O'Brien and Richard Pete Peter Levo here. Also at the last meeting, there were three issues. One that several neighbors raised.
Just prior to coming into the meeting, we had put up construction fencing and we had put up a green cloth barrier to protect the site or make it less obnoxious looking during construction. And several of the neighbors were concerned that that impacted their sight line and requested that we remove it. So we remove that the next day. The other two issues, one that the chair raised was there, it's kind of a odd lot. One of the sideline setbacks wasn't shown on the plan. That's the side lighting setback from sixth Liberty Street, I believe.
And we, we've shown that on the plan. That wasn't on the prior plan. We meet, we don't meet the area, but we meet all the sideline setbacks. But the third issue that came up was, even though on site we meet the height requirement, the chair brought it to my attention. That's, it's a con lot. We have to meet the height from the center line of the, the abutting streets. We've amended the plan accordingly to address that. And I have the engineer to discuss any further details in that regard. Speaker 1: Okay. I just, I think this is the old version that had 33 feet, three and a quarter inches height.
Is that the old or the nude, do you know? Speaker 4: That's probably the old. Speaker 1: Okay. And so I didn't get an updated Okay. Plan. Can we hear what the new height will be based on the measurements from the center line of the two intersecting streets? Yeah, Speaker 4: On this, on this, on the site itself, it's 33 9. From the center line of the street, it's 34 11. It's very tight. So Speaker 1: Very close to the 35. Right. Speaker 4: And the engineer will explain what we'll do during construction to address that. Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 5: Okay. So during construction what we normally do is we stake out the foundation and we set the grade on the foundation.
Well this is really a slab. So we would set that elevation on the slab and then they would dig for the footing and we would verify the footing elevation before they port it. And then at the end we locate and we certify the height of, of that foundation. So we would, there are three, there are three different times that we will verify the elevation of that, that foundation or slab. Speaker 4: And, and this is a house we're built in town a couple of times, so we're, we're framed it the same way each time.
Speaker 1: Okay. Remind me, is this, are you putting a new slab or a new foundation on it or are you building off the existing slab? Speaker 4: New New Speaker 5: Slab. New Speaker 1: Slab, but same elevation. Speaker 5: It's gonna be lower. Speaker 4: We're gonna bring the elevation down a little bit. Be Speaker 5: Lower. Yeah, we brought the foundation, we regraded the site and we lowered the site around a foot. Speaker 1: Okay. That answered my concern. My main concern was making sure you measure the height correctly under the bylaw. Correct. Not at the four corners of the structure, but based Speaker 4: On from the centerline Speaker 1: On the center lines of the two streets. And it sounds like that's Speaker 5: What we did. We did do that,
Speaker 1: Yes. And you come up with 34 11. 34 11. Speaker 5: Okay. Yes. Speaker 1: I think that was all of our concerns. Was there anything else that we were asking for? Four Speaker 3: Decided much better than the original. Speaker 1: Yeah. Anyone in the audience wanted to comment on? Eight Liberty please. Speaker 6: Good evening. I'm Barbara Iby. I'm six Liberty Street butter on the west side. Again, I appreciate folks getting rid of the cloth barrier so we can see when we get out of the driveway. Again, there's nothing specific we can do about what's going
on with this, but I did wanna make note that if the eventual owner wants to put a fence between six Liberty and eight liberty, there might still be a sight line issue. Because if you put a fence all the way to the sidewalk, it's hard for us to see coming outta the driveway to go around the corner. So I just wanna make a note of that. Depending on what kind of fence it is. And again, I know that there's is, there's times that one con construction can go on, whether it's seven to five or 7 35, just realize that our bedroom side is facing towards the construction site and we do get up relatively early.
But again, anything you can do to mitigate the noise, knowing that there will be some, would be appreciated. So thank you. Great. Speaker 1: Thanks. I don't see a proposed fence on the plan. Is there one right now proposed? No, it Speaker 6: May be later. Speaker 4: That type of thing. Right? Yeah, we would, we have a similar issue with the neighbor and not with site, but just location of the fence. And we're gonna create sort of a, a boilerplate fence agreement between neighbors. But we won't put up a fence unless they're in agreement on it. Speaker 1: And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe the DPW or town engineer has to Speaker 4: That I would imagine with this sight line,
they're probably gonna have to take a look at it. Speaker 1: 'cause it'll, would it be end up being in the right of way? Partially, Speaker 4: It wouldn't be in the right of way. But if you look at the way this is to see around that corner, you need a lot of sight line. And if you put a fence there, you're not gonna have that sight line. You, you know, you're gonna want, you know, 150 feet of sight line and that's somewhere right around there. So. Okay. It, I don't think a fence is a really good idea right there. And I don't think it's needed the way the houses are situated. Right. Speaker 1: Okay. Anyone else in the audience wanted to talk about eight Liberty? See, none board members. Speaker 3: One question on that height, which I was not fully aware
was originally 33 and a half feet Speaker 1: Measured on the corners of the building. Right. Speaker 3: What is it? From the midpoint of the, the Speaker 1: Engineers telling us 34 foot 11. Speaker 4: Yeah. On site. Yeah. Speaker 5: 34 11 inches. Speaker 3: 1134 feet. 11. Speaker 4: Yeah, it's close on onsite. It's, it's 33 9 from the center line of the street. It's 34 11. That's why we brought the grade down. Speaker 1: Was that a new change from the last month? Yes. Bring the grade down. Yes. Speaker 4: We brought the grade down to make that height. Okay. Speaker 1: And it is on a bit of a hill and there's a slope it looks like a little Speaker 4: Bit not much Speaker 1: Down to the street.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it goes from the existing grades 1 45 down to 1 42. The center line we're gonna bring, our average grade will be 1 43 plus minus. Okay. Speaker 7: Mr. Chair. So as far as the latest plans, I see March 17th, maybe you have more recent, have the plans been updated? Yeah, Speaker 5: Should you should have a date of May. May 2nd is the last revision that we have. Speaker 3: March 17th also Speaker 8: There's nothing new in Speaker 5: The portal? No, no. Speaker 7: So Speaker 5: I mean, I do have copies, hard copies with me. Speaker 8: Well, I mean if you can upload 'em to the
Speaker 1: Portal. Speaker 4: Yep. We can do that tonight. Yeah, Speaker 5: We can do that tonight. Okay. I can update Speaker 8: The zoning checklist. Speaker 1: Okay. Andy, do you wanna take a look at 'em quick before we approve this or if, or take a vote on this? We should, Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 1: Can we take a look? Were there any other changes besides the grading? Just the grading. Speaker 4: Just the grading removal of the fence, putting in that sideline setback from right six and those are the only changes. Speaker 7: So I guess my question too is, is on the elevations, the building elevations themselves, what do they, do they then not match or are they not changed, I guess is
Speaker 4: What you're saying? They, they match, we, we match the elevations to, to the engineering. That's why we had to bring the whole site down. Speaker 7: So the house, Speaker 4: The house Speaker 7: Didn't conform when you checked the Speaker 5: You. Speaker 4: Right. So we had to come down a foot to make it met. Speaker 7: Okay. One inch. So the building elevations eight inch show that essentially, what is the whole, the height of the building did not change, but it just Speaker 4: Yeah, they just showed top of foundation to the height of the building. Okay. They don't show the actual elevation on site. Yeah, Speaker 5: The site plan shows the elevations. Okay. So that's, Speaker 3: So you do, you're digging move down about two feet of this? Speaker 5: Yeah, around that. Yeah. What
Speaker 3: Do you mean by water? Speaker 5: Well, we're able to get the water away from the backyard. 'cause the backyard had to, because the front yard drops off to the street, like, like the chairman had mentioned, it is up high. So getting the water out of the back yard, I had to bring in some swale. So I kind lowered the backyard to, so if my average grade was 1 1 43 in change Speaker 3: The backyard like the opposite of liberty or the opposite of Speaker 5: Bradford, the backyard is opposite of liberty. So it, you can see the contours, if you look at the
property line 1 45, 44, 1 43. Yeah. So that's coming down. That's coming down. Correct. And then you, I kind of have a swale. If you look down the page, you can see a contour that wraps around at 1 43. So the backyard is at 1 43 5. Then you have a swale that comes up at 1 43. I mean, you're really not gonna get a lot of water. It's just a very small grass area. The soil out there is all sandy. So any, any runoff that hits the grass, it's just gonna go into the ground. It really, it's not really a big drainage area in the
Speaker 4: Back. And we're billing on slab. Speaker 7: It's Speaker 9: I order please. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 10: Thank you. Gail, Western Roberts 26 Western Avenue. What may I ask, what time were these new documents, these new elevations submitted? I guess this is a question for peg Speaker 9: Right here at the public hearing. Speaker 10: Okay. So there's nothing in the portal, there's nothing available to the public. There is simply these paper documents that presented here and only the board can see these. So no one else has a, an, an opportunity to evaluate them
or comment on them. Speaker 1: Well, that's not true. Any member of the public can come take a look if they want right now. Speaker 4: And, and I also, I sent, I did send copies of the prior plan to the, all the neighbors. Okay. They were on a, on an email chain and I asked if they had any questions, they could contact me. So we've been in communication with the direct neighbors. Okay. Maybe five or six of them. I don't remember any With Speaker 5: The new plans you said, Speaker 4: I know I gave 'em the old plan and I asked 'em if they need any upgrade. I would get them. I don't recall if I sent the new plan, but I said if you have any questions, get in touch with me. I didn't have one email address. He called me, I sent it to him two days later.
Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 10: I'd just like this noted for the record. 'cause this is an ongoing problem of access by the public. Thank you. Thank you Speaker 11: Mr. Chair. The, the plans updated per this were distributed is 5 19 25, Speaker 7: Which is today. Speaker 1: Today, right? Yeah. It just hasn't, there Speaker 5: Was a, there was a typo in the title block, so I, that's the only change that was on the plan. But the latest revision with the grades and all that was May 2nd. But when I was going, when I was preparing for tonight's meeting, I saw a, an error in the title block itself.
So I just changed that. But I added the, the revision date to it. There was no, no other changes. It was just the title block. Okay. The scale was wrong on the title block. That's what I changed. Speaker 1: I, my opinion, I think these changes are minor enough and they actually lower the height of the house. I think we could accept these today. I don't think that there's any deadline where they have to submit them 48 or 24 hours before the hearing. They can submit whatever they want at the hearing. Right, right. Speaker 7: We strongly encourage them to Speaker 4: Send, we usually do.
I'm sorry about that. We do. That's okay. Yeah. Speaker 1: But certainly if it was a more, more involved change, if there was a lot more changes to the plans, I think we would have hesitation. I don't have much hesitation with this. You've responded to the three issues that we raised last time. Correct. One of them resulted in the house being lowered a couple of feet. I don't see that as being a worse impact to the neighborhood that would cause any additional concern. But Speaker 3: I, I do have one question. You were asking about the architectural plans or the plot plan. Speaker 7: I was talking about the, the architectural elevations. And my understanding is what you guys said is that essentially the, the,
Speaker 4: The architectural goes from top of concrete. It just, it doesn't talk about the grade per se. I'm sorry. Is that what the question was? Speaker 7: Yeah, so, so sorry. You're the lawyer or the architect? I'm the lawyer. Oh, okay. That's why. Yeah. So the elevation views that come, the floor plans, the elevation views, have those changed the height of the actual house? Has it changed? Speaker 4: They, I believe they just show from the top of concrete to the top of the house and we got those numbers to match. So the height of the building, Speaker 7: Essentially same, same height, just the elevation Speaker 4: Came down. Correct. Speaker 5: And that's all that the, does
Speaker 7: That answer your question? Yeah. Yeah. That was Speaker 4: Mine. Yeah. And the and the elevation is not anything else Speaker 3: Change in the architectural Speaker 4: Plan? Nothing changed in the architectural. Speaker 7: Okay, great. Thank you to your question before Mr. Chairman, anybody from the public that wants to take a look at these? The site plan? Yeah. Come on up. Yeah. Good. Sure. Oh, okay. Speaker 12: Marjorie WA 16 Richard Road. I just had a question about landscaping. Is that part of this plan and what is, what's gonna happen with that?
And also when you, that's corner, when you're on Bradford Road and you wanna take a left and the house is there is this is a much larger house, is that gonna block so that it'll be more difficult to see around the corner? Speaker 4: We're actually moving the house more away from the corner. Right. We're squaring it off against the lot. The current house is at an angle closer to the corner. We're squaring in and bringing it in further from, from the, from the, so, and it's not as long, it's more square. So it, it increases the sight line if you look at the plan.
Speaker 7: Right. I think I see that on the plans here. Speaker 4: Yeah. There, there is, there is a big tree in the corner we're taking out. I don't know if that impacts sight line, but basically we just gonna loam and seed. Speaker 7: Okay. I do have one more just so the, the overall square footage, I think you do list it in the new zoning chart at something over 4,000. Is that correct? Speaker 4: I believe so, yes. Okay. Speaker 7: And I haven't brought the plans up yet, but I could as well. Does that include a finished basement or finished attic? Speaker 4: No, finished basement, finished attic. Oh Speaker 7: 'cause it's a slab, right? Speaker 4: No finished basement. Speaker 7: Okay.
And any finished attic space or was that Speaker 4: A, a portion of the attic will be finished? Yes. Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah, time And Dave was out. Was there a groundwater test then? Speaker 5: Yes, there was two. Speaker 3: And what is the depth? Speaker 5: Five feet. Yeah, because Speaker 3: You weren't here for the first one. That's, Speaker 5: That's not shown on the plan. Speaker 3: Yeah, the engineering, Speaker 5: I, we, we did apply I think for, I mean I know I did a storm water report already and we've already talked to Claire at the conservation and we've made changes to the plan through, so the plan that you have does have some erosion control
and some additional details that she wanted on the plan trees that were remaining. So I had to show detail on that. And then the, the storm water has been completed and submitted to, to conservation. I think she has signed off on it. Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's the board of health letter I'm looking at that indicates high groundwater at two and a half to three feet below grade. Are you aware of that? Speaker 5: I was at the, the testing. I didn't think it was that high.
Speaker 3: I'm just going by what the board Speaker 5: Of Health. No, that's fine. This is, so we are above, above groundwater. There will be no ground, there'll be no basement. So there is no groundwater. A little more than a foot. If you look at the Speaker 13: How much, Speaker 11: How many feet different between, between the, the groundwater and like Speaker 13: The slab? Speaker 5: A slab? I would say a foot and a half. So a foot and a half? Yes. Yep. Speaker 3: So is this gonna go back to port of health? Any chance? Who's gonna look at that? Speaker 1: The infiltration system? Speaker 5: No, Speaker 3: There's a port of health says two
and a half to three feet below grade, three, Speaker 5: Two feet off Speaker 13: The seasonal high groundwater is a couple of feet below grade at the time of the test, which I don't know when that was, but looks like April, march. And they need a couple, two feet separation for the foundation, for the Speaker 1: Slab. Any idea how that might affect the It Speaker 5: Shouldn't affect, 'cause we have to put a perimeter drain around, around the slab anyways for any groundwater. Speaker 1: I think he's talking about the Board of Health's letter says groundwater is what, two to three feet? Speaker 13: Two, two and a half to three feet below grade.
Speaker 1: Below grade. And you're lowering a Speaker 13: Two feet of separation by, Speaker 1: By a foot or more from Speaker 13: Foundation slab. Speaker 5: Right. So you, if you look, if you look at the soil testing, the, the one that was was lower was the one a lord along Bradford Road because that's a lower elevation. So that that one over the grade down there is, is lower. So groundwater would be closer to the surface. The one in the back where the, the grade is higher that the groundwater is, is You know, is deeper in the back.
So that's how the two stormwater systems were designed. They weren't, you know, that's why we did soil testing in both locations to ensure that, you know, we're gonna be two feet above the reach charge area along Bradford and then two feet along. And that's how they were designed. I used my soil testing that I had done with the board of health being out there. So if you're, if you are at where the foundation is, you are much higher. So now you have more separation. 'cause the type of soil out there, groundwater's at an elevation, it's a sandy material.
So you can have groundwater at two feet at one location, but that it's at an elevation. And then if your foundation is higher, wherever that elevation follows through, you have, if it's at the highest point where this slab is, groundwater is much lower at the highest point because we're in a sanding material. So that's why I did soil testing on both sides of the lot so I could figure if it was gonna be at an elevation. And that's how it was determined because they were at different depth in the ground.
So that elevation carried all the way through the lot. So I was able to determine that groundwater is that, say elevation, you know, 100 and my slab is up at 1 0 3. You know what I mean? That's how that was determined. Does that make sense? Speaker 1: But you, at the end of the day, the board of Health would have to confirm Speaker 5: That at the end day we would have to get board of health had would have to sign off and Claire must have talked to the board of health. 'cause she reviewed the storm stormwater report and she approved it. So she, you know, she, I guess they, Mike agreed that elev
that groundwater was at an elevation even though it was only two feet down in one location and three feet down in another location. Speaker 14: I guess the, the, the main thing we would, where why everyone's asking so much about this is if if on site you do, the board of health comes out during your excavation, it determines groundwater to be higher than you have at the plan here. We just don't want the, that same house to be built. Speaker 4: We have to come back to you guys at Speaker 14: A, at a, hold on let, lemme just finish what I'm saying here. Sorry. We don't want the house to be set at that groundwater height and build that same exact house
and then just raise the grade all around it so that you meet your height requirement. 'cause we run into that a lot. So if, if your slab has to be at a higher elevation than proposed, you would need to adjust that roof. Right, Speaker 4: Because because in this particular site, even fail wouldn't matter because it's not measured from the site. It's measured from the center line of the street. Yeah. So Speaker 14: Correct. So we have a static point to Right. Speaker 4: We we're stuck at the center line of the street. So it would have to come back or change the design or either probably come back, any of that change the design. Speaker 14: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 13: But if you have to raise for whatever reason 'cause of the groundwater,
Speaker 5: We would have to come back. Speaker 4: Right. And that would impact the living area on the third floor. Speaker 1: All we can do is look at the plans that are before us and either approve it or take other action. But once we, if we do approve it, these will be your plans. You have to build to these. Speaker 4: Unless we have to amend them, we come back. Exactly right. Right. I understand. Yep. Speaker 1: Anything else from the board? Mike reminded me he was not here last month so he's gonna miss the, he's not gonna be voting on the first few. So we'll go this way. Aaron, rob me a motion. Oh sorry. 3, 4, 5. There we go.
Speaker 13: Okay. Yeah, I move that we approve the application for section six finding at eight Liberty Street. I'm seeing as the house is not substantially more detrimental than the existing structure subject to the plan in, in accordance with the plan submitted, including the site plan with the adjusted grade, keeping the height at 35 feet, 11 inches because
of the reduced grade. And then subject to the Speaker 1: 34 34 34, Speaker 13: Sorry, 34 11 subject to the reduced grade and subject to the letters from the board of health regarding seasonal high groundwater and the separation required between the foundation and that high water and the site drainage plan mandated by the Board of Health and Conservation and any other of the letters submitted by the town Speaker 1: Before I get a well we could second that.
Anybody wanna second? Thank you. One point I think we should list the new plans by date. So it's whatever is May, May 19th. 19th. Yes. Just so we're referring to the Speaker 13: Site plan being May 19th. Correct. Speaker 1: So as amended motion. Seconded. All those in favor? All those against. Okay. It's four to one. You're approved. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you for your time gentlemen. Thank you. We'll get that to you tonight. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Sorry about that. Speaker 1: We should have at least have one for the record. Yeah, he actually,
Speaker 15: They they to the Speaker 1: Portal. Oh, between the time we started the meeting? Yeah. Speaker 13: Wow. That's nice Speaker 16: Builder put while we were talking. Speaker 17: Oh, that's Speaker 1: Alright. Next up we've got a continued public hearing for 16 Westfield Road application for Hanken for a finding under section 40 a, section six 40 A and the NA zoning bylaw four B and five A proposing to raise the existing structure, single family dwelling and constructing new single dwelling family dwelling on the pre 69 formula as shown on the plan submitted.
Welcome. Speaker 18: Hi, good evening. My name is Caroline vna. I was here last month and I'm here on behalf of Hank Ian regarding the proposed project at 16 Westfield World in och. We had reviewed the project based on the comments and requests on our first CBA meeting and we are seeking approval for the new construction single family home on a pre-existing non-conforming lot. The project, the proposed project includes two story residence that the first proposal was 4,788 square feet of gross floor area.
And now we have 4,185 square feet. So we deduct 14% of the area, including a three car garage. And the lot coverage area is 2246. The layout includes living space and guest bedroom on the first floor, four bedrooms on the second floor in a office area because the lot has a water table lever that it's very high. We cannot have a basement and we had to accommodate some storage in the first and the second floor. The project has been carefully designed
to meet all the applicable codes and regulations and all the zoning compliance as well. So the structural respect, the required front side and here setbacks as per attached engineers plan. And also I have today here Patty is one of the engineers from SRU Home Engineering and he has, he can clarify questions about the site plan too. So the proposing building height is approximately 32 feet, five inches well within the typical 35 foot limit. And it's almost a foot lower
than the original design presented last month. We, we also made some roof slope changes to accomplish that. And the only variance requested at this time is the lot size that is required of 50 th 15,000 square feet. And we have 11,647 square feet. We have made every effort to redesign a home that feeds the character of the neighborhood and in case the valley and aesthetics are the surrounding area. So we respectfully request the board support and they're available to answer questions if you may have
about the design construction methods or zoning compliance. Speaker 1: All right, thanks. Members of the board, I think what we had last week was we asked them to redesign it and make it smaller. We didn't give them a whole lot of guidance, but we said it, it appeared to us that it was a little too large and it sounds like they've done that. So what do we think? Speaker 13: I'm trying to find the documents and I'm, Speaker 7: I see the new, the bottom way, the bottom the new site plan and the new, yeah. Is there a new zoning chart though filled out? That's what I was looking for. Okay.
Speaker 18: It is on the page one of the site plan. Page Speaker 7: One, page one of the site plan. Okay. Speaker 18: It was also updated, the building height. Speaker 19: The building heights actually don't match. I I forgot to fix the zoning legend, but the building height on the scale Speaker 7: Kate here, sorry. Oh, I just know if your mic is on. Speaker 18: I think it's off. Yeah. Speaker 1: Oh, now there we go. Yeah. Speaker 19: And the zoning legend is actually wrong. I forgot to update the zoning legend, but the, the elevation on the profile is correct. Speaker 9: So is the, so is the entire zoning legend incorrect or is there Speaker 19: No, just the building height. Speaker 9: And what is the height supposed Speaker 19: To be?
The building height is 32.543 Speaker 9: 2.54. Okay. Speaker 13: And why does it say 34.6? Speaker 19: That was the previous one. I, I didn't update the, the legend Speaker 13: Did. And what else in the legend changed? I'm sorry. Speaker 19: Nothing. Not just I mi mr building height in the legend Speaker 13: Now what else changed from the last submission? Speaker 19: Nothing. Speaker 13: Nothing. So it's all the dimensions are the same as last month? Yeah, Speaker 1: I thought we heard it was a smaller footprint or smaller square footage. We Speaker 18: Deducted about 14 per percent of the square footage of the project. And if you see here, this is the proposed profile
that will lower the building height as well. So this is updated, just not the legend on the first, on the first page. Speaker 13: So we have no new updated legend. We have no new updated dimensional sheets. No. Speaker 1: So Right. We don't know what the, we don't know actual setbacks are gonna be at the end of the day. Speaker 18: No, the, the setbacks here are updated. If you see they're in red. Speaker 1: I don't have a red Oh, oh, written on the plan. Okay. Yeah. On Speaker 18: A plan. I'm not sure if you have it in call. Speaker 1: So that's dated. I've got April 9th, 2025 on these plans.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's the one. Okay. Speaker 13: Was that before the last hearing? Speaker 19: I think so, yeah. I, I didn't know I wouldn't have updated the date. That's my bad. Speaker 13: So we're supposed to be looking at the May 12th. Speaker 18: So the May 12th is for the architectural plans. It was updated on the May 12th, but they just forgot to update their revision here on the title block. But the, the, the one that was uploaded on the 12 is the right current one. Speaker 7: Well I think what we're struggling was, I'm struggling to figure out is that, so they're dated. Okay. The second page is dated the 29th, April 29th.
I'm looking at the site plans, but then the first, yeah, correct. It's just the first page. That was April 9th? Speaker 19: Yeah, that's correct. Speaker 7: Okay. So then are the, so have, has anything on this page been updated? I'm sorry, I don't understand. Yes. First page been changed or not? Yes. Speaker 19: The profile has been changed. Speaker 7: Profile, what is that? I'm not, I'm not Speaker 19: Bottom left. The, the height profile. Speaker 18: It's right here where the, we have like the building height sample. Speaker 7: So that's been updated. Yeah. Okay. And then to, to some of the other members' questions as far as if it, if we've, if you've reduced 14% of the structure,
that would, you would think it would change the, the floor plan somewhat and the setbacks somewhat. What has changed there? Speaker 18: It changed very little on the setbacks, but we reduced completely the attic space in some other areas on the second floor we, we reduced to be like just the storage. Speaker 14: Okay. So to be clear, the, the footprint of the building didn't change, didn't reduce at all? Speaker 18: No, not much. No. The, the roof? Speaker 19: No, mainly Speaker 18: The roof. It was the, the structure that got lower. Speaker 14: Okay, so the 14% you're talking about isn't building footprint at all. It's attic, third floor living space volume,
Speaker 1: Living space. Speaker 18: Yeah, it's living space and also building height maybe Speaker 13: Volume Speaker 14: Problems. Yeah, Speaker 18: And also building height because last time we were here we had to account the math. They had to redo it for the corner lots. So we end up with a much higher average. So we had to work on it. And so what Speaker 13: Did that drop from to Speaker 19: The previous spilling height was 34.66 Speaker 13: And then it's Speaker 19: 2.54. It's now 32.54 Speaker 1: From, Speaker 19: From 34.66. Speaker 7: So it dropped a little over two feet. Yeah.
Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 7: Take a look at the floor plans again. Speaker 1: How did just, Speaker 13: This is about 6% I and the math isn't working out. How did you get 14%? Speaker 18: No, 14% in the living area. So if we see living Speaker 13: Area but is that a difference between living area and volume? Is converting a office into storage? Does that reduce the amount of Speaker 18: No, we got rid of the, the attic floor because we were supposed to have a two and a half story home and we got rid of the attic because we had to lower the structure. So now it's just mechanic room and we don't have a stairs or anything.
It's just like a hatch. So for them to have HVAC, Speaker 1: Anyone from the audience wanted to talk about this project at 16? Westfield please come on up. Speaker 20: Good evening zoning board chair members. Okay, I was here during the first hearing and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Sherry Brass, I live at 77 Mill Street. My family and I have lived there for over 30 years. More specifically, we are butters to both
16 Westfield Road located behind us and also 79 Mill Street, which is next door, which they're demolishing both of them. As abut as we wanted to come before you and raise some of our concerns about the projects, we hope to learn that the board and the builder will consider steps to mitigate our concerns as abutters. In addition, one of our family members living at 77 Mill Street has a serious health condition and will continue to undergo treatment and recovery during this entire construction period.
So unfortunately for us the timing is extremely poor. Additionally, everyone in our house struggles with asthma and allergies, particularly to dust and debris in the air with ongoing construction that exacerbates those issues which will cause extra stress to an all already extremely stressful situation. We ask you to consider the following suggestions that, or anything that you might find suitable for the situation. The noise, debris and chaos of construction during demolition dust
and debris of materials often become airborne. The noise volume can be close to unbearable and may interrupt my business as I work remotely during regular business hours. In considering the noise plus the chaos construction, which starts early in the morning and ends in the evening in addition to the safe removal of materials of the previous homes, two of them that that bought us, would the builder consider installing a permanent fence along our property line that is congruent with other fences
for new builds in the neighborhood before the demolition starts? Would the builder consider having the fire department hose down the property during demolition to help limit dust and debris floating in the air? The fencing will help keep the noise debris and the chaos contained as a follow up to the last meeting we had in an initial conversation with the health department and will continue to follow up since it is our understanding that that permitting process is not yet complete. And it's interesting for me to hear about a three car garage in our neighborhood where
if you look at our side of the street and behind us, which is all Pelham capes, pretty much except for the new builds, there are no three car garages. And I, this is not my area of expertise, but it sounds like maybe the footage is considering the inside of the house and not the three car garage. But that's my, my questions are, are you, will you consider having them build a fence and the hose down while they're demoing the house? Speaker 1: Thank you applicant.
What do you think about either putting a fence in during or before construction or Gustavo is the builder. Speaker 20: He can answer the Speaker 1: Questions. Yeah, come on up. Speaker 21: Can I? Speaker 1: Sure. Either there at the table. Yeah, I can. Yeah. Speaker 21: Oh, we got put a fence all the way around property before demotion of all the stuff I already answered before. So we have to, when we apply for the building permit, you have to get all the, the tasks and everything before we get the approval. Once we get the approved from them, have any problem with
any product is contaminated, we have to hide a, like a, a special like a company with license to remove and then get approved from the department. So that's, we gonna do everything by, by law. So, and like I said before, if you need anything else to help you, we can, I can try to help with like we can change emails and stuff. You can ask me anything you needed. So I'll do it for you. Speaker 20: Okay, so the fence Yeah. Before demolition of course. And at least six feet high. Yes. Okay.
And then the second thing is, a lot of times with the dust and debris, the fire department comes and hoses down while you're demoing the two houses. I'll talk again about the next house. You know, we talk about 79. So are those things and how do I get a guarantee on that? Speaker 21: Well, okay, I'm doing good because I have to go to a microphone. Speaker 1: Yeah, if you're gonna keep talking, we need to have you on a microphone. Okay, come on. Speaker 22: So about the demolition? Yes, we, I don't know what you, you need from me to,
to you if you needed some letter or anything signed from me to do the way you, you ask me for, I, I can sign any letter if if it's, it's under by law so I'll do it. Everything's by law to, to do the job. Right. Speaker 20: So Mr. Chairman, how does that work with the fence and the, the hosing down of the house? How, how do I have a guarantee or whatever I, I don't know. I'm not a professional in this arena. How do you do that? Speaker 1: We, this board regulates the building that's going
to get built the final product and so I think a fence would fall within our jurisdiction. Okay. And and the timing of that fence? I don't know it's when our, within our authority to dictate that it goes in before or after. But it sounds like you've got a commitment from the applicant to do it before demolition. Okay. So we, we could write that in as a condition of our decision. As for the methods of construction, that is not within our jurisdiction, not within our purview. We don't regulate how they build or what hours or how much noise or dust or dust control. That's not within our jurisdiction.
So that would probably either be the board of health or the building commissioner to enforce those building code regulations and health code regulations. So I don't know that we could condition those things in our decision. Speaker 20: Okay. So if I would really appreciate if you could condition the six foot fence and that it would be congruent with the new builds in the neighborhood. And the other piece he's communicating that he's willing to do what it takes, I guess you could say, which is the hose down
during demolition to limit the dust and debris. So do I give him my email and he sends a letter to me certainly stating that so that we can get something in writing about those two things? Speaker 1: I I would leave of course you guys can do that. Work that out the yeah, yeah definitely I can do that. Speaker 20: Okay, well let's do it then. Okay, Speaker 1: Sounds good. Thank you. Speaker 20: Yep, thank Speaker 1: You. Thanks. Appreciate it. You bet. Anyone else in the audience, members of the board? Thoughts? Oh I saw a hand go up.
Speaker 10: Me again. Gail Western Roberts 26 Western. Just a quick question 'cause I thought I saw something in the bylaws about having to include the and and so I'm hoping you can just tell me one way or the other our garage square footage, is that supposed to be included in the total for the total size of the project? Since it is potentially living space and especially with the expansion of the garage which might be subtracting from the total footage of the living space. What is the rule on that? As
Speaker 1: Far as I know the zoning board under a section six finding doesn't have authority over floor area ratios or living area. I don't think that's a criteria that that we're looking at. Yeah, Speaker 10: Well I mean I mean the total square footage of the floor of the garage, right garage Speaker 1: Included in the coverage, the lot coverage. Yeah, we look at the structure in the lot. We don't look at what's going on inside necessarily. Speaker 10: Right. Okay. And so that three car garage that's now three car garage space is included in that total Speaker 7: Coverage for lot coverage? Yeah, the percentage for Speaker 10: Lot coverage? Yes. Lot Speaker 13: Coverage. The footprint of the structure on the property.
Speaker 10: Okay, thank you. Yeah. Speaker 9: Board. Speaker 13: And you said that the third floor has no living area in it? No, no. And I'm looking at this elevation, the rear elevation has dormers. Speaker 18: So which page you are, Speaker 13: If I'm looking at the right one, Speaker 18: Which, which page are you? Speaker 13: I'm in the rear, sorry. Speaker 11: On page 1.0 the Speaker 13: Rear Speaker 9: Elevation, the date is May something, Speaker 11: Isn't it? This Speaker 13: May 12th? Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 18: 1.8. Yes. Speaker 13: Yeah. Why are those dormers there if that's not going to be Speaker 18: Living, we left it just for style but if you guys have any comments
'cause now we've lowered everything. Speaker 7: Well my overall comment is yes you've lowered the structure by two feet, but essentially that's all you've done. So it's still a lot that's undersized by a fair amount and you're still pushing the boundaries of the height and the lot covered. So I think you can kind of sense where I'm still voting though, just so you guys know that Speaker 13: On a smaller lot, you know, 11,000 square feet. Speaker 7: Yep. No change in footprint. So, Speaker 11: And I'm kind of distinctively remembering our last meeting we kind of urged them to substantially reduce the footprint.
Speaker 7: Yep. Speaker 11: So that's where I'm in. Speaker 7: So who do we have, oh again, Mike. Mike Mike's out voting since Speaker 1: The, the rest of us. Okay. Speaker 7: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 1: Any other thoughts? Any other questions for the applicant? Speaker 13: Nope. Speaker 1: It sounds like A few of these folks might not be in favor of this project the way it's currently designed. And I would agree, I think our instructions or our request last time was to reduce the footprint, make it smaller building not just the height but the overall mass of it.
The length and width of it and I, I'm not seeing much of a change other than a couple of feet in the height, which is I think a good start. But it may not be enough to convince a majority of the board members that we can approve this. Speaker 13: Just an opinion. Nothing more than an opinion. I don't know why a three car garage is so needed and that's adding an awful lot of volume as well as footprint. I mean I don't know why you need a three car garage. Just just an opinion. Speaker 1: Nobody needs a three car garage. Speaker 18: No, just because like if we remember we have no basement
so we are trying to give them at least one one spot to store like snowblowers and landscape stuff. 'cause there's nowhere in the house Speaker 11: And, and I totally hear you, but when I look at the existing house in comparisons to the abutters around the house, it is substantially larger. Speaker 18: Okay. So then even that we cut it a a whole floor. It's not good in the square footage area. Speaker 11: I do not think a 14% reduction in this part is sufficient. Speaker 7: Well to the commissioner's, sorry, the chairman's point
that that's a reduction in square footage. We technically don't have an opinion or I can have an opinion on the actual square footage. It's, it's the, you know, items in the zoning chart that we look at. And so when I look at that, yeah the only thing that's changed is the two feet of the height. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 13: I mean again, it's not even the, how you're using that two feet, it's just the bulk, the mass of this sitting on that one corner lot is really excessive. Just an opinion. Speaker 7: So someone could either make a motion or Speaker 1: Yeah, we should probably, Speaker 13: If they want us
to make a motion, if it gets denied, what happens Speaker 1: If we deny this then they would not be able to reapply for two years unless the plans have significantly or substantially changed. So would you like a vote tonight or would you want to continue and try and make it Speaker 13: More Speaker 1: Months smaller for lack of a better word? Speaker 18: Hank is, is here. He's the honor and he can Speaker 9: Decide we'll do the next here, next Speaker 13: Continue. Okay, Speaker 1: You wanna continue? Okay. Do you need any more guidance from us or do you understand what we're looking for? Speaker 18: So then the only thing missing is the corners.
Like shrink the house down, not like the levels, everything. You guys have any questions while the engineers here? For the levels of the house or No? Speaker 13: You mean the height? Yeah, the height. The height I think was fine at 32 from my personal opinion, but combined with the current footprint, it's a bad combo. Speaker 1: Right. I'm looking at the, the plan has what, 35 and 47? 5 76 feet long Speaker 13: By 35 feet Speaker 1: By 35, 22 60. Yeah, it's, it's a big footprint. So do we want
to give them any further guidance without redesigning it for them? As far as what we're looking for? I think just, or just smaller. Speaker 13: It's, it's a good looking place by the way. I think it really looks nice. Yeah. Three car garage is big. Speaker 1: I I tend to agree. I think it's a, it's a large house for this lot. I think it's probably too large for this lot. Speaker 13: And one recommendation is please update the documents and make them accurate and submit them to peg. Yeah. Enough for the people in the neighbors to look as well. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. So we have a request to continue to June 29. Is there a motion
Speaker 13: Move that we continue the hearing for? Speaker 1: I'm sorry, June 23rd? Speaker 13: Yes. 16 Westfield Road to June 23rd. Speaker 1: Is there a second? Alright, all in favor continue. Five. Oh thank you. Thank you. Speaker 18: We stay for the 79 or is the same answer for the se the 79. Speaker 13: Well, I mean change it is for Speaker 18: Me. Okay then. Yeah. Okay. It's Speaker 13: For me. Speaker 1: Was there no significant changes to that? Speaker 18: The 79 we also worked with the Speaker 1: Engineer. Let's let's, let's open that one and talk about it quick. Speaker 18: Yeah, I just wanted to be clear before we leave.
Speaker 1: No, we treat them each individually. So yeah, it just happens that you're the applicant on both. Yeah. Speaker 18: Yes, Speaker 1: I know. So we're going to have the hearing on 79 Mill Street continued from last month again for applicant Hank Yian, section six finding and native bylaws four B and five a proposing to raise the existing single family and construct into a single family dwelling on the lot please. Speaker 18: So the same thing, this house is a true story and it was previously 4,665
square footage and now it's 4,033 average of 13.5 square footage deducted in the gross floor area. The coverage lot coverage is 2358. And we worked with the engineer team and changed the foundation to his lab foundation to accommodate the elevation, requested the building elevation requested. And yeah, so the roof peak height is approximately 34 6 inches and we changed also the roof slope so we could accommodate
and do everything by the last time we were re requested. But for the corner lot bylaws review and the relief we requesting today is the lot size from 15,000 and we propose 11 2 38 Speaker 1: Board members. Speaker 7: Yeah. To, to your point, it's similar. I would say my, my feedback would be similar. The same. Likewise. So do should make a motion to continue or I'm sorry, maybe we should ask if there's anybody Speaker 14: One, just one comment I have about both these houses with
that, that large garage being kind of continuous with the house, it really makes that mass look so much bigger, right? If the, if the garage were smaller than the house and looks accessory rather than just part of that whole slab, like the, the front elevation here just makes the house look really big. I keep looking at the architect, that's why I'm Speaker 1: Anyone in the audience wanted to speak about 79 mil? Yes. Speaker 20: So Speaker 1: A name and address for the record again please. Speaker 20: Okay. Good Evening zoning board chair members
and Peg, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Sherry Brass. My family and I live in na, have, have lived in Natick for over 30 years. More specifically, our family home is located at 77 Mill Street as residents of 77 Mill Street. We're abutters of the projects at 79 Mill Street and 16 Westfield as Abutters, we wanna come before you and raise some of our concerns about the projects. We hope to learn that we hope to learn that the board and the builder will consider steps to mitigate our concerns.
In addition, one of our family members living at 77 Mill Street has a serious health condition and will continue to undergo treatment and recovery during this entire construction period. So unfortunately for us, the timing is extremely poor. Additionally, everyone in our house struggles with asthma allergies, particularly to dust and debris in the air with ongoing construction that exacerbates asthma allergy issues, which will cause extra stress to an already extremely stressful situation.
Thus we ask that you consider the following suggestions or others that may be suitable for noise, debris and chaos of construction during demolition dust and debris material often become airborne. The noise volume can be close to unbearable and may interrupt my business as I work remotely during regular business hours. And considering the noise plus the chaos of construction, which starts ear early in the morning until evening, in addition to the safe removal of materials of the previous homes,
would the builder consider installing a permanent fence along our property line that is congruent with other fences for new builds in the neighborhood before demolition starts? Would the builder consider having the fire department hose down the property during the demolition to help limit dust and debris floating in the air? The fencing will help keep the noise and debris and chaos contained as follow up to the last meeting. I actually didn't get to speak on this, but we have had, I have had a conversation with the health department and we'll continue to do that.
My additional concerns is if there's gonna be a three car garage, the footage, et cetera. And also we have solar panels on our house. So I'm also considering, I, I'd also, I'm also concerned about the way the sunlight will hit our, our house with these two big houses, one behind us and one beside us. How that could affect that. Thank you so much for listening and Speaker 13: I think if I may ask a question, I think you're on the south side of this property,
you're 77 mil did you say? Yep. Yeah, I think you're south of these two structures, meaning you won't, the sun will not if they, these won't impact your sunlight on your house. I do Speaker 20: Not. Okay. So if they, if it's, I don't know how much taller than my house it is, again, this isn't my area of expertise, I can try to look into that more. I just know it's a really big house. Yeah. And oh yeah. You know, I just wanna make sure that that's not going to impact our ability, the sunlight that hits our house.
So I, I don't, Speaker 13: Okay. Yeah. Take a look when you go home tomorrow, if it's sunny and Speaker 20: What'd you say? Speaker 13: Look, tomorrow if it's sunny, you'll see that the sun is on the other side of the houses. Okay. Sorry. Alright. Speaker 1: Do we want to ask the applicant again about the fence prior to demolition if he's willing to do that as well as work with fire department or board of health on controlling dust? Yes. A yes, I have a yes. Yes. Okay. I have a yes. So it looks like he's willing to do the fence before demolition for you. Speaker 14: Yes. And and you're asking for a, a true final fence, not a, not a construction fence.
You want like the real fence? Yeah, Speaker 20: I'm asking for a final them Speaker 14: To pay for fences on both property. Yeah. Speaker 20: At least a six going Speaker 14: Around us six foot. Speaker 20: Yep. And yeah, and the hosing down of the debris. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 20: So I don't wanna speak for him, but it sounds like we have an agreement and he's gonna send me a letter in writing to speak to those two issues. Speaker 1: We, what we have, I heard him nod his head and said yes as to putting in the fence before demolition
and that he would exchange emails and communicate with you and, and work with you on the dust control. Speaker 20: Okay. Speaker 1: That's, that's about all we can do for, for, from the zoning board on that. Speaker 20: Alright. Thank you. And I'll continue to be in touch with the Board of health because I know that that has to do with their permitting and the pest control and all the other issues that I mentioned at the last meeting for 17 Westfield. Right. Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks. Speaker 20: Thank you so much. Speaker 13: And Mr. Chair, I, I can't make sense of what these drawings are in terms of dates and heights
and you know, this diagram, the height diagram is 34 2 6, which sounds like it doesn't change. This is dated May 12th on the outside, but the revision seems to say April 11th. So yeah, I, it might be my bad. Same Speaker 19: On that. I, I just never updated the date on the what? That, that's the correct elevation. 3, 4, 2, 6. Speaker 13: Okay. That's the correct elevation. Could you continue, just make sure that these are all correct and updated 'cause we can't ascertain. Thanks. Speaker 1: So are we proposing similar advice
or recommendations as the last Speaker 13: Identical, Speaker 1: Make it a little smaller or a lot smaller Speaker 13: Please. Garage. Speaker 1: Rob's focused on the three car garage oven. Speaker 13: This Speaker 1: One has a two again. Would you like to ask for continuance or push for a vote tonight? I'll leave it up to you guys. No, Speaker 13: We want to go to come next month. Speaker 1: Next month on this one as well? Yes. Okay. So is there a motion to continue to June 3rd, 23rd Speaker 13: Move that we continue the application for section six finding at 79 Mill Street until June 23rd. Second.
Speaker 1: Alright, all in favor. Speaker 13: Five second. It is a nice looking place. Okay, Speaker 1: Thanks. Speaker 13: Thank you. Okay. See you in a month. Thanks. Speaker 1: I wanted to have Dave have something to do when he gets back. Speaker 13: Can pay. Speaker 1: What do we have next up is Speaker 13: To Westlake Speaker 1: Westlake. So we've got a, a hearing for number two Westlake that was continued from last month. It's an application from Peter Beamus for a finding under 40 a section six and Natick bylaws proposing to raise the existing single family structure and construct a new single family dwelling on the precinct nonconforming law. Yes. Good evening.
Speaker 23: Beam engineer and design consultants to Westlake court. So this was initially presented by MS meeting last month. What we did was the average grade around the lot. Obviously it was a corner lot. So we should, Speaker 13: I can't hear you. Is that on? Just to make sure that the light Speaker 7: Here you go. Is on. Yep. Speaker 24: Sorry Ari. Good. Pardon me. Peter Beam is engineering design consultants here on behalf of Corp to Westlake Road. So this was initially presented to you last meeting last month. The average grade calculation was done on the lot we needed to do center line because it's a intersecting street,
Irving Road and Westlake Road. The grade drops off eight and a half feet from the southwest corner of the lot at Irving to the northeast corner at Westlake. With that average drop, the grade drops considerably. So that forced the house to be lowered. You received a revised plan that was uploaded to the portal for the site plan that's dated five 15. And then the house plan was also updated with the roof height and we eliminated the dormers on the third floor. There will just be a standard attic for mechanicals. The other item that had come up
during the discussion was the street tree, well it's actually a private tree, but it does have a crown that enters onto Irving Road. So we would consider that and look at that as a street tree. So we're not gonna eliminate cutting that. We moved the driveway to Westlake Road and we are on the south side of that and the grades are resolved around the lot. The average height calculation is in the upper right hand corner of the sheet. So the, the house was lowered over two feet to comply with that. And another item that had come up during the discussion was the abutter to the north had sought a fence. So we proposed a six foot fence along the lot line on
that border erosion controls were moved about. We still have a, a slight increase in impervious area for the proposal between the driveway and the walkway. However, we're infiltrating a hundred percent of the roof. So we actually have a net gain of, I wanna say about 2,500 square feet of gain, of impervious benefit, if you will, by, by reducing it through in, through infiltrating the roof zoning tables updated on the sheet. All the ties are on the, the plans versus just having the data.
So there's a, there's a tie in the existing and the proposed and the drawings were sealed by PLS as well as pe. So I think we've addressed all the comments that came up during the last meeting and be happy to answer any other questions that may be be needed. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's right. I I recall wanting to confirm that the type of the building was taken from the center lines of the two streets, which you've now corrected that. Correct. And that you actually lowered it or Yes. Speaker 24: Oh yes. Considerably. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. Not, not just because of the calculation but Speaker 24: Change, change the tructure and change the structure.
Right. In accordance. Okay, Speaker 1: Good. And so that final height now is as measured from the center lines? Speaker 24: From the center lines. Right. So the average center line grade is there, we've given you the elevations and there's a calculation in the upper right so you can see how the average grade is calculated. Right. So there's a calculation of Irving then the point of curvature between the two intersecting streets and then Westlake. Speaker 1: And that's at 31 7. Now Speaker 24: 31 7 is the roof height from foundation? Yes. This is an average. So you take the average still it's 34 8, but that's because it's of the center line of these intersecting streets.
So it's artificially much lower. But that's the number we, but that's the number, that's the number that matters to you. Right? That's 34. We still got a three inches of, of delta so that we know that we won't have a problem. Speaker 1: Okay, Speaker 24: So you're paying the hill tax, paying the hill tax on this one? Yes. There'll be those circumstances that you'll, you'll find on intersecting streets. This is just one of those that I had actually had to go back to corp and say, you know, sometimes we gotta look at those ahead of time. 'cause the corn lot can have an impact. Speaker 1: Yeah. When it's on a hill like this. Yeah. Yep.
And I see that plans are updated for the, for the fence between Speaker 24: Yes. Yes. We added a fence. 'cause that was another comment that came in at the meeting. Speaker 1: Anyone on the board comments question? Speaker 24: Yeah, I just want a little more time take a look at that site plan for a second. Speaker 1: Anyone in the audience want to speak about number two? Westlake please. Speaker 25: Good evening board. My name is Bill Thompson direct of butter at number four Westlake Road. So I'm a little bit confused on the height still. I know there was talks now that the height has come down, but I think the overall height from grade is still close to
that 35 feet. Is that correct? Speaker 1: No, I think on the plans it's 34 and change. But that's measured from the center line of the roads, the average center line elevation. And when you go up on the yard and you measure from the corners of the building. Yep. It will be only 31 something 3 1 7 31 0.7. Speaker 25: Okay. Maybe I was misreading it 'cause it looked like there was like three feet of foundation above grade then 31. No, no. Speaker 1: We count from the grade, right? Not from the top of concrete. Speaker 24: That's right. Well it, it's, it's, it's from the top
of concrete but it is based upon the grades. Yes, absolutely. Speaker 1: So is it 31 7 from the top of Speaker 24: Concrete? From the top of concrete, but but then the average grade is calculated from your center line. Right, Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 24: So we don't have a lot of exposed foundation here though. We're, we're, we're at minimum six inches where we can be Speaker 1: With the exposed concrete. Yes, sir. Speaker 24: Okay. That's Speaker 1: Right. So it's, it'll be about 32 feet, I think the building height from the ground. Speaker 25: Okay. Okay, gotcha. Okay. Okay. So my biggest concern was in,
at the last meeting I brought it up was the, the property line is, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. The, the property line is sort of divided by a stone wall that at any point on that stone wall is, you know, could be somewhere from three feet maybe at the very back corner of the property to about four and a half feet high at sort of the front edge of the house, if you will. So my concern is, and I I did send some pictures over to Peg and I don't know if you guys saw all those pictures,
just trying to give you a, a better sort of visual of the drastic drop off at that property line. Right now I have a six foot fence on my side and you can clearly see that, you know, if I stand in the two west lake side, I'm towering over my six foot fence. I know in the new proposal there was a a six foot vinyl fence being put up in the sort of back section of the property, which only goes to about halfway to the center line of the house.
I guess it's, so there's still a portion of the front part of the property that will be unexposed or exposed to their property still without any privacy there. The other concern I have with the fences on fences and a rock wall there creates this giant void between the rock wall and my fence right now that at no point now will it be accessible for anybody to clean debris that collects back there any erosion, you know, that sort of falls off of that wall
rotting my fence, critters, rodents, what, what have you nesting in there. So it just becomes a kind of a, a dead space that I'm concerned about being maintained or cleaned by any sort of landscape. So what I'd like to propose is rather than putting fence on top of old deteriorating rock wall and having two fences, could we put some sort of retaining wall with a six foot fence as the property lines? So we now we just have a, you know, nice
dividing point where there's a retaining wall fence on top. I'll remove my fence and we'll just use that one piece as the di dividing of the properties, if that makes sense. I think it'll just be a much cleaner, you know, finished product at the end. So that was my big concern is, is how, how they're the separation of the properties will be. Rob comment, Speaker 13: I just some clarifying questions, which there's, who stonewall Speaker 25: This number? Two, Speaker 13: Two has a stone wall, Speaker 25: Two has a stonewall.
Speaker 13: Who has the fence? Speaker 25: I currently have the fence. You have Speaker 13: The fence? Yeah. The fence is not on the stone Speaker 25: Wall? No, the fence is on my property, which is substantially lower than, than the stone wall, the rock wall and the grade of that, which Speaker 13: Is you standing? I saw the picture Speaker 25: And you Yeah, I'm, I'm standing on the two Westlake side. Yeah, yeah. So when, you know when the, the new occupants of that property, you know, if we left things as is, if they, you know, come over to the rock wall, they'll be looking that, that's, that's their view of my yard. Speaker 13: And so what you're asking is you take down your fence
and then a new fence get put on top of the stone wall. Speaker 25: Well, I'd like to see the stone wall disappear. I, I don't know that they can construct anything on top of the stonewall. There's also some trees that have grown into this stonewall, which to me i, I don't feel are structurally sound trees because they're such a drop off. So they only have root structure on the two West lake side. So a lot of those trees, if you look in the pictures, you can see a few of them are already lake leaning towards our property. So one, there would be no way to build a fence on top of the stonewall because the trees obviously are,
you know, in the way. So I, I would propose just dig all that stonewall out, take those trees down, make one nice looking retaining wall with a six foot fence on the upper part of that retaining wall and it makes it a nice clean finish for both sides. And Speaker 13: So there's a significant drop off from the two Westlake to your property? Speaker 25: Yeah. At any point, the highest point, probably about four and a half feet. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 13: So when your place was built, somebody excavated out all that area is what it looks like to me.
Speaker 25: Yeah. Back in the fifties when the, the houses were constructed That's right. Speaker 24: To the applicant. Do you want to talk about we, we see 18 inch trees there. So from our perspective, when we look at it's from a design perspective, there is a bit of more of a wall formality, if you will in the front parts. We left it alone, we left the trees alone, there was the 18 inch air is being retained and the fence is gonna go along the back and tie end into the house. So we, we were responding to this as a, I think a good applicant to an abutter. What he's asking for is going well beyond what I think we would normally be responsible for. There's certainly the ability
to grate onto his lot and build something up. But I, I don't wanna stop building retaining wall on a lot line, especially when you don't need to have one. There's vegetation there today. There's separation today. I, I'm still, you know, we, I spoke to Naone coop, we agreed to defense. So we'll put defense in. It won't in fact impact anything with the wall. My son took good pictures when he did the survey work there. So I was good with it up front. It certainly would be more challenging 'cause the grade is falling back to the street, but I don't think it needs to be there. I it's a front yard. It's no different than any other front yard.
It's the street for privacy. We're giving him the privacy to his backyard, which I think would be, you know, responsible abutters to do anything over six feet is gonna be a building permit. Right, right. So I I really don't think that makes sense. I don't think it would look good either. Yeah. But this, so we, we'll we, you know, we're committed to a new fence on our lot line to extent. It can be raised up a little bit, you know, we'd raise it up. But yeah, Speaker 1: I mean these are, these are challenges you have on living on a hill like this, right? Speaker 24: Yeah. Yeah. No matter what you have a six Speaker 13: Foot fence on your arm. I'm sorry sir. Are you thinking of a six foot fence? Speaker 24: Yes, sir. We were going to, we, we proposed a six foot panel fence.
Speaker 13: You'd be looking like a nine foot fence. Is that Speaker 24: It is so much lower. So we're, we, we're gonna get some gain out of it, but I'm just saying I'm not, I can't go into his lot and Speaker 13: No, I, I get it. I mean you understand that if he puts a six foot fence on his lot line Yeah. Which is already, if you're looking at a nine foot high Yeah. Which is, is that okay by you? Well Speaker 25: It's, that's great. It's nine feet in the very back part of the yard. But as we come up the yard towards sort of the front part of our house, it's a much deeper grade.
So we're like four and a half feet of elevation change. And that fence doesn't quite come to that point. I don't believe so now there's, there's basically side yard that overlooks our yard and our bedroom windows are right there and stuff. So there's no privacy, you know, at least covering, you know, our house. Speaker 13: And is that the situation today? Speaker 25: Yeah. Yeah. So like the pictures that I took that I'm standing there, one of the pictures I'm standing literally like on the side of my house where I can just be looking right into
what would be our bedroom windows. Speaker 13: But he is not introducing any new issues by building a new structure on this lot. Correct. It's the same issue you're already dealing with today. Speaker 25: Yeah. Yep. Except that, you know, now the house is obviously, you know, three times as tall, so less privacy, you know, from windows and things. Speaker 1: But it sounds like you're keeping those existing trees on that Speaker 24: Line. Yes, yes. We weren't proposing to remove any of those trees. Yeah. Speaker 13: As a screen. Speaker 24: And I, I believe it does, they're, they're mature trees. The 18 inch tree is a pretty substantial tree. So we, we were accommodating them
and I'm, I'm, I'm really not moving the house a great deal in that direction. We we're changing the rotation of it. Speaker 25: I just, I, to me I don't feel that the trees are maybe structurally sound with, with the root Speaker 24: Tructure. Well, I, i rather than it be a condition of this, I don't mind having them evaluated during the construction process. And if it makes sense to plant a, a, a tree, you know, we could put back some AEs or something. We take down a tree that would provide maybe more screening. But I, I don't want to be committed to that because there are mature trees there now. They're substantial and I don't wanna just make an ad hoc decision on that.
Speaker 1: Would you consider even if the trees are okay, the, the couple, two or three that are there adding a few more arbor, ie. For some, Speaker 24: I, I'm just not sure if they're gonna grow well with there. These are, it's, you know, a confers versus a deciduous tree 'cause that's really what's there. So I maybe we could probably put a birch clump there or something like that. Yeah, I don't Speaker 1: Wanna tell you Speaker 24: What to plant something. I know. I just don't think it may be appropriate, that's Speaker 1: All. Is there anything that could go there you think? No, Speaker 24: It's on the north side, so I, it's, it's, it's gonna be a more of a shady location. So that would be the only thing I'd say is that I just don't want to, again, do something ad hoc. I I would say that there's gonna be as much desire
by the proponent constructing the home to provide privacy for the new owner that, that they're seeking as well. So defense I, I think makes good neighbors in this situation where we're stopping it Makes sense. And if something else has to be supplemented, they would do so. Yeah, Speaker 1: I, I don't know what more we could do. It sounds like to build a fence there is almost impossible to bring it down to the street. It sounds like vegetation may or may not be successful in that area. It doesn't sound like the applicant's willing to rebuild that entire retaining wall, but they are putting the fence up on the top
of their wall at least halfway or to the front of their house or to halfway across their house. So, Speaker 24: And I would just say that that that, you know, again, Idon has built a number of homes in this neighborhood. They, they, they always wanna be a good neighbor and I would just suggest that when they start the construction, if these trees aren't sound, they can reach out to the neighbor and they could do something mutually acceptable to both parties. I I don't think there's gonna be zero dialogue here. Right. I just think the conditions of this permit are pertaining to the house that we're proposing. It's, or it's orientation. Are we in compliance with the zoning provisions? I think a section six finding is warranted and by all means, I I I'm committed to expressing this
to nardo and suggest that they reach out to the neighbor before they start construction and evaluate those trees. Because again, privacy's gonna be important to both parties. Speaker 1: I think that if we were to approve this, that might be a condition to evaluate the trees. That'd be fine. Would the neighbor to either preserve them or take them down and if you take them down to replace them Sure. Something like that. I think we could, we could write a condition like that. Speaker 24: I, I'd be fine with that. Speaker 25: I'm also just concerned though, to review, sorry, Speaker 13: A condition to review to trees and then their ability to withstand
Speaker 1: How healthy are they today? I don't know. Yes. Speaker 25: I I guess my biggest concern is if, if we're only going with that, you know, fence that's proposed right now, like I, I just don't see how anybody can maintain the space between those, our two fences. There's, there's literally just an abyss, you know, that's unaccessible to anyone anything other than, you know, wildlife and critters, rodents, termites, ants,
carpenter ants, you know, anything, you know, building and all that stuff that just collects down in there. And ultimately, you know, we're gonna take the brunt of it because I have a, you know, a wooden stockade fence on the lower side of where all that debris collects and it just rots out the bottom part of my fence where if, you know, if there was some way to maintain that, you know, landscape it leaf blow it, rake it out, we can keep it clean of debris. Speaker 1: I I thought I heard you ask for the fence,
you wanted the applicant to put a fence in. Speaker 25: Well, I wanted a fence, you know, on top of a rock wall, I mean on top of a, a retaining wall ideally that, you know, Speaker 1: That's kind of what this is. Speaker 25: Well it's an old dilapidated rock wall. I Speaker 1: Think it's functioning as a, as a retaining wall though it's retaining earth behind it. Speaker 25: Barely. If, if I took my fence down, you'd see how many rocks have actually fallen outta the thing I, you know, I have a pile of rocks on the other part of my yard that, you know, have all come down off of that. So I think it's really acting as much of a retaining wall as it might sound. So I don't know, I just, it
Speaker 24: Looks like it's more sloping than a wall Speaker 1: To be honest. Right, right. Speaker 7: It's a slope. So if it, if it is a slope, I mean exactly how much space would there be between his fence and your proposed new fence? Speaker 24: We show his fence on the plan so it, you know, it, I see. I think portion of it is actually on the lot line. So I mean we, we, I'm just, all I can do is put a fence on a lot line. I, I don't have the ability to do anything. Speaker 7: I'm asking relative to the, the rock wall where iss your fence gonna be? Speaker 24: The, the, the, the rock wall. There's very little rock wall.
When you get past the point that we've shown here, it's a slop land. It's really more just the, the sloping land. So we're going to put it right on the lot line. Speaker 7: So this is a big pile of rocks, Speaker 24: Basically. Speaker 7: This is year six foot fence, sir? Yes Speaker 24: Sir. Speaker 25: Yes. That's in the very back part of the property though. If you come to the front, it's not a slope. It's a, it's a four and a half foot straight drop wall. Speaker 24: Yeah, there's a few, there's a few feet there. Speaker 7: A few feet. Is there a few feet to get in and clean it? Speaker 24: And I was just gonna say again, that if we put our fence up, it's gonna be higher than, than, and the gentleman can remove his if he'd like,
but if he wants to keep it, IIII can't do anything on his lot. Speaker 7: I think, I think that needs to be investigated. If, if I were you, I'd find out exactly where the property line is relative to your fence and you know, if there's enough room in between, then maybe they have a good point here. I think if there's no room in, in between and you're gonna try to put your vinyl sense right here, you're gonna have to rebuild this anyways. So I think you guys should try to work together and solve it. Speaker 24: And, and I'm, I'm, I'm very willing to, to do that. I, Speaker 7: It doesn't sound like you're really Speaker 24: Absolutely. I I I, there are other,
Speaker 7: There are other people who have said we're gonna write a letter. Right. The the previous person said, we'll give you a letter saying we'll do something. You can't do that. Speaker 24: Okay. Speaker 1: No, it sounds like I, it, it looks like it's gonna go in the location as shown on the plans, but it may move a foot or two in or out of the, within Speaker 24: Your property, evaluate and we'll evaluate the vegetation. It may, it may be a mute point at this, at this if it turns out that the vegetation is not sound. I, I just, I believe it's pretty lush, so I don't, I don't think that there's a necessarily a problem with those trees. Speaker 1: You, you kinda have to put the fence out
or inside of the trees there. Right? I mean, unless you're cutting down the trees. Speaker 24: I'm not, we're not. That's why I'm saying that that tree location is accurate. Speaker 1: Is there a couple feet wide, Speaker 24: The 18 inch tree is 18 inch diameter Speaker 1: At least. Yeah. From Speaker 13: They provide a good screen. The only thing you can do is put a fence building a new retaining wall would be prohibitively expensive. Speaker 24: And, and, and you'd be cutting down the tree. You can put a Speaker 13: New fence or you cannot put Speaker 1: A new fence. No, what I'm saying, Andy, to your point I think is that there's Speaker 7: A tree, there's gonna be space, right? There's, Speaker 26: There are trees here. Speaker 7: Got it, got it. Yeah. So the fence Speaker 26: Has to go over here. Okay. And then you've got, I don't know, three or four feet. Speaker 24: Yeah, we, we showed it at the lot line, but,
but we, we cannot go any closer. If anything we would be pulling it back Right. Speaker 1: To avoid the trees. Speaker 24: And I'm committed to the fence. It's part of your approval. So we will be putting in a fence. Speaker 7: So sir, does that make, does that make sense to you, that because of the tree location, it's gonna be on their side and that will create some space in between. Speaker 25: So your two fences, if, if, if that is the case, if they're gonna pull their fence in beyond the tree line to save the trees, why can't we bring that six foot fence all the way to the front of the property, or at least past the front of the house rather than cutting it off halfway
Speaker 24: Again, there's, there's trees down that whole row. And, and, and again, from a privacy perspective, all of our homes are exposed along their frontage, their streets. I, we get, we're putting the privacy where the, where I believe privacy is defined. Speaker 13: I don't think he's saying about putting a fence on the front of the house. He's saying, oh, Speaker 25: Just to the, just to the front edge of the house so that it, it at least it, it, it provides there it's, Speaker 13: There's two more Speaker 24: Trees. Trees that I just feel like are gonna be really close. And I didn't want to cut down a tree to put in a fence. Speaker 13: I, so you see Speaker 1: There's, there's trees that would conflict with that fence. Yes Speaker 24: Sir.
That's why we stopped where we did. Speaker 1: I mean you can have trees or you can have a fence. It sounds like you can't have both. They're gonna go in the same place. Speaker 24: So yeah, there's two 12 inch trees as you, as you go further to the east and I just can't see cutting them down to put an fence. Yeah. So Speaker 1: I mean, I think at the end of the day, you know, we try to work with the applicant and the abutters, but the final final say is up to them what they wanna build and then we have to decide whether we can approve it or not. So if that's what he says he can build, then it'll be up to us to decide if it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood or not. But I think we've, we've heard you Yeah.
And I think we've considered some options here. May not satisfy everybody a hundred percent. Yeah. But we appreciate the input. Is there anything else you wanted to talk about? Speaker 25: Yeah, the, the rain collection systems that they have on the property. Originally they had two, they still do have two. There were originally, they were both on the back side of the property. I see that they moved the one on the Irving roadside to the front part of the property. I would ask that they move the, the one on our side of the property also to the front of the property. So that should there be any sort of issue with runoff from
that rain collection, if it's on the front part of the property, it'll run off to Westlake Road rather than run off into our backyard, which already takes on considerable amount of water during any rainstorm. So it would just peace of mind if that system could just be moved to the front part of the property. Like the other system has moved. Speaker 24: I'm, I'm fine with that, Mr. Chairman. The, the, the issue would be probably pushing out a couple of contours there. I I didn't want it to be tight to the foundation line. Right. So there was a little bit more room in the back, but I'm, I'm fine with that condition. So we'll move the, the leaching area
that's on the north side, be the northwest to the northeast. I'm fine with that. Okay, Speaker 1: Great. Great. Speaker 25: That's easy. Another issue again with, with privacy at, at mind, The sort of the renderings of the property show windows on the second story and on the third story, I dunno if the third story one has changed that faces our property, but in the architectural it shows no windows cut in on the bedrooms facing our side. So I just want a clarification of if there's going
to be windows or if they could eliminate windows on the side of the, the house facing us and where there are windows on the second floor, maybe in a bathroom, I believe. Would that be like a smaller, you know, hatch type window that's higher up for light and ventilation, but less, Speaker 24: I I mean there's, there's probably still gonna be a window on the third floor just for light to come into the attic space. I I, I don't see them eliminating that. There's Speaker 25: Not gonna be living space up there. There's correct just mechanicals now and,
Speaker 24: And then the lower area there, there isn't one shown on the plan. But I, you know, I don't understand the limitation on a window, but is that the Speaker 1: Right side? Speaker 24: Yeah, that'd be the right side. That's why I'm saying I'm looking at it and it's the back portion. There's nothing in that front section and it could just very well be, that's where the bed's gonna get placed. So they don't do a window, but I, Speaker 25: This Speaker 24: What they're gonna, this is what they're gonna build. So this is the plan. The only thing that was the first version I gave you had dormers on the third floor and the dormers have been eliminated because the roof pitches come down. So
Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 7: So eliminated in the front elevation, but not, not in the other elevations yet. Speaker 24: They're not even in the front elevation. There's nothing else on another elevation. There's no third floor other than the, there's a, there's a gable window. Speaker 7: No, my point is you haven't deleted them yet in the drawings, the right side elevation and the left side elevation. Speaker 24: Oh, the old, old dorms. Yeah. Yeah. That was beyond my Photoshopping. Speaker 1: We do have, we've got the revised plans though. Yeah. Yes, we, okay. Okay. Speaker 24: Am I looking at them Speaker 27: If it doesn't have front
Speaker 24: Dormers, the dorm? Speaker 1: No front dormers, right? There's dormers in the rear. Yeah, Speaker 7: No, Speaker 1: Did that answer your question? It looks like there's no windows on the second floor in the bedroom or the other bedroom. But there might be, I think there has to be a window in the bathroom on the second floor. Right. Speaker 25: And then the third floor window is just mechanical space for light. So that's fine. That's Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. Speaker 24: Okay. Wonder. Speaker 25: And then my last thing would be, I see on the drawings the, the bulkhead cutout is on the right side of the house, which is our, you know, property line side.
Could that just be moved to the back or another part of the house so that that cutout isn't encroaching onto the property line any further than we're already Speaker 24: I think you've seen that in the generic. Yeah, the, the bulkhead would be in the back. It's not gonna be on the side. Yeah. Speaker 1: Sounds like the plans aren't a hundred percent accurate. It will be in the back. Speaker 25: Okay. Speaker 1: Why Speaker 24: Aren't the plans a hundred percent accurate? Well, no, I'm just saying it, I I'm, I don't recall the bulkhead. It might've been on the floor plan because it's a generic Yeah, it'd go in the back. Okay. There's no need to put it on the side. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. Now you're something about no front dormers.
Speaker 24: No front dormer, Speaker 1: But the, Speaker 24: The, the right section elevations still showing. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. We were trying to erase that from everywhere and then blend it back in again and I see, I see you did erase them from the roof. I did it right. And I just, I see that didn't catch the brow now, but I'm staring at it and I'm Yep, yep, yep. I see it. But you see it Okay. It's not there. They're not there. Yeah. No, I, they're not there on the front elevation, that's for sure. Okay. Speaker 1: Anyone else in the audience? Oh yes. Come on up. Speaker 12: Hello. I'm also a peg, peg Brockel. Good evening. I, first I wanna thank you for your service for the town.
It's a big volunteer job, so I want to let you know I appreciate what you do and I'm sure everybody in the room does as well. Thank you. Before I, I make a few comments on behalf of Lynette's Speaker 9: Sinclair. Speaker 12: Sinclair, excuse me, who lives at 45 Westlake. So she's the other direct Weathersfield road. She's the other direct to butter to two Westlake. And Bill is the other direct to butter. I live at five Peggy Brockel. I live at five Irving Road. So I'm directly at the top of Westlake Road. So I look right down the prop to Westlake. It's right here.
Bill is here, Lynette is here. She just would respectfully request, there's a alarm of some sort that goes on in the house, the empty house every night at about one, one to two for a long period of it's very loud. That's been taken care of. It has been taken care of. Thank you. I was not aware of that. All right. She asked me to, to mention that as she wasn't able to be here. I'm putting that in her mouth. I had sent a letter to you on the 3rd of May to the board with a variety of pictures as well to kind of demonstrate my concerns. And while I wasn't planning on addressing the retaining
wall, I, I would say that is a very extreme way of putting that wall. My husband actually as a child, saw that wall being built by the couple that lived there 50, 60 years ago. It's a bunch of rocks that are crumbling. There's no wall. There's a slope that has some rocks in it. Just to clarify, and I included some pictures in what I sent on May 3rd to give you an idea of what some of that really looked like, that that might help you and form as you decide to respond to Bill's comments.
My biggest concern is, is the height of the house. And I guess my first question is, because I find it very confusing not being in the construction business to look at the plans online and where I have some sense of reading architectural specs when I look at them, what I see sometimes in those drawings is not an accurate representation of the site with the current structure that's being proposed. And in addition, this actual architectural plans seem to have differences from what the building looks like. I I would just hope that in the future
that developers are, are very diligent in providing accurate information in the plans they submit. Because when the public responds, if there is a concern after the actual construction starts and so forth, if we don't have the exact specs to compare to what's being built, we have no recourse. I mean, we can go back to your meetings potentially and, and find what was supposed to be there. But it can put us in a difficult situation. And Speaker 1: I think, can I interrupt you for a sec ma'am?
Speaker 12: Pardon me? Speaker 1: Can I, I I, if you ever think that they're deviating from the approved plans, you can call the building inspector, building Commissioner. I Speaker 12: Appreciate that he's got, Speaker 1: He will have all the, I Speaker 12: Appreciate it. The prob the problem is, Speaker 1: Is he'll have all of the final plans that we approve. Speaker 12: Right. But how would I I I would just think that before something. Okay, so it's ultimately the building inspector that's in charge of the final actual plans? Correct. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Speaker 1: And they, they do regular inspections. The, you know, they have the foundation inspection, the electrical, the framing. They're out there regularly during these types of Speaker 12: Construction projects.
Okay, thank you. That's helpful. As you know, this is a corner lot. I suggest, as I did in my letter, that while a certain size structure can be appropriate on one lot in the neighborhood, it isn't necessarily on a corner lot or a lot that has such a grade as this one. And so I would, I'm very concerned at the height of the building and I see that the dormers are now removed. But is the, the height of the building has not changed and the pitch of the roof is the same. Is that correct? No. Yes. Speaker 1: No, it was changed from the last month, wasn't it? That's right. Yeah. Speaker 24: We lowered it and in the pitch it went from eight or eight
and a half to six and a half. Right. That's labeled. Speaker 7: So, okay. So if I could interrupt for a second, Mr. Chairman. So the, you may have updated the note, but the drawings have not been updated. Correct? Well, Speaker 24: Okay. It's a graph. It's a graph. This isn't necessarily to be the scale. Speaker 7: Right. So that's, I I want to reinforce her point. Okay. This is, this is a stock set of plans, correct. That were purchased online. Yep. Okay. So, and I'm not, there's no judgment there, but what, what there's been no, there have not been updates to these plans and elevations besides some of the notations.
Notations. Correct. So I think this rendering that you see on the front elevation is very misleading. I think showing these two large trees that blanket those trees aren't in the real thing, makes it look smaller. I think having this sort of sloping site on either side, which is inaccurate, is also sort of I would, I would, you can tell where I'm going. Yeah. I I I think it's, it does a disservice to the neighbors who are trying to do, spend their due diligence and time to figure out if they want to approve or disapprove of this project. So I don't
Speaker 12: Think it's happen. I appreci I I appreciate that because this, this looks as though it's in a lovely rural setting with lovely large trees along the side, which is totally not the case. That is a very busy intersection. And then there's Weathersfield road, there is Irving Road and then there is Westlake Road with two houses in between the proposed structure and then 45 weathersfield. It's a busy place. This makes it look, it's in some gorgeous bucolic setting. Speaking of the trees, 'cause they, there were conversation about that at the last meeting and I appreciate the attempt to save the really large
oak oaks that are there. But the trees along the retaining wall too, they're deciduous trees. So those trunks that are now bending towards for Westlake, there is no foliage on those lower limbs of those trees. In terms of privacy. It's, I think you just please take a closer look at the site before you render your decision. The height of the, of the roof then I, I would just urge that it, it be considered to, this is gonna be a skyscraper from my living room through the whole one section of my view down my street.
And while that, that size house is fit in a number of lots in our neighborhood, they look lovely and people are very happy in them. I think this location just deserves again a little less height. Maybe a hip roof still gives genetic 'cause I have one and I'd urge you to consider the height on that location and consider the fact it is a very busy street. We have two schools in that neighborhood. A lot of kids walk through that neighborhood, which is another concern about an inability to access an area between fences on properties to keep them clean.
I guess that's basically what I wanted to say. Thank you. Speaker 7: Alright, thank you. Speaker 24: So the only thing I said Mr, they are stock plans. You know, we try our best in many cases I've come before you with isometric plans, just one line drawings and people will say, well that's not a lot of detail. I think Shane's structures does a pretty good job. But you know, we're not, we were never trying to imply that those trees were there. There's a street there, but there is 1 36 inch tree that we're saving on that side of the garage. And we were doing a side entry again when we started and we've now we're doing a front entry.
So they are fairly accurate to that definition. The roof pitch, you know, is different so that we'll be lower. But we did it through the graphical annotation. It didn't redraw it again. So I'm, you know, I'm sorry but I'm, you know, I'm trying to be misleading with this in any way. We're trying to give you all the definitions that you need and, and still use a set of drawings that I think we're giving you more detail than you might normally get. Speaker 1: I, I appreciate both sides and I understand what Andy is saying here. It, it would be preferable if the elevation drawings show what you're proposing and these don't
Speaker 14: And the floor plan, it's hard to approve a set of plans and be like, well those dormers you see on the side elevation won't be there and the bulkhead will actually be in the back not on the side. No. And the roof pitch will be smaller than it's shown on the, the rendering. There's not an elevation that shows Speaker 24: Yeah, I didn't pick up on the floor plan showing where that, where that sure was just, we would never put it on the side like that. Too many things. But I didn't mean that one for sure. But then I didn't catch the brow on the right side elevation. That's, that's on me. 'cause I was the one editing this. I don't to Speaker 14: Get it done. I don't, I'm not giving the impression or I don't get the impression that it's misleading.
I Okay. But I do get the impression that it, that it's a little sloppy or we can't, you know Alright. Speaker 24: Act on it. Yeah. And, and if I ever grab one of Shane's drawings again in the future Will, will try to erase those trees because he does 'em all that same way. And I never thought about it from that perspective that it's, it's lessening the, the Speaker 1: Visual. Anyone else in the audience wanted to speak on two Westlake? Seeing none board members questions, comments? Speaker 13: I'm still not sure what the height of the structure is. Speaker 1: 31.7. Speaker 13: Right. And where is that shown on
Speaker 1: The drawings on the table here. And that's from the ground, that's not from the center lines. Four eight is Speaker 13: Measured from to top, top Speaker 1: Average Speaker 24: Down top right is the calculation. Speaker 1: This one up Speaker 24: Here? That's right. Yes sir. Speaker 13: And you changed the pitch to drop Speaker 24: To get the roof down to 31 7 Speaker 13: Beyond the bylaws. Speaker 24: Correct? We, we had to back into this 'cause they were committed to this, this architectural at that point. Speaker 1: Anything else? Think we might be ready for a vote or do we need more information? I'm not making a motion. Someone else wanna make a motion?
Speaker 13: Rob's a motion man. No, I'm not gonna make a motion. Speaker 1: I mean I, Speaker 13: I have some conditions that, oh Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know what the sense of the board is. I think this could be approved substantially as designed. I don't think it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood with a few of the conditions that we've spoken about tonight. Some of the tweaks and changes. But I'm just given a sense of where I am, Speaker 13: I would actually like to see those reflected in the current plans. Speaker 1: Okay, that's fair. There's enough changes for you that you wanna see revised plans. Yeah, Speaker 28: I would also echo I think what Alan said
and I think also what Andy said, I think more information is always better and it's certainly good to have a sense of what it's gonna look like for the neighbors as well. Speaker 24: Okay. Speaker 1: Sounds like we might be continuing if you would like that or a vote tonight. Speaker 24: Well I just, I guess I would ask, I know you accommodated an earlier provision here. I we did get a plan from the architect today. I I don't think lightly of coming before you the night of a meeting and saying, I've got a drawing on my phone, I can forward it to peg right now. I don't like doing a presentation that way. I believe everything is here. The intent was here. We got it to you ahead of time so you'd know
what you were voting on. I do have the plan that does that per hours removed. No doubt. Because the architect did it, not me and in the, in the timeliness he couldn't do it ahead of time. So I do have that data. I I'm, I don't want to have to continue for a month, but I also don't wanna not have a project before you So I, I guess I would ask that, you know, we've been before you a number of times we try to get things right and we try to make changes when you ask for them. We came in with everything you asked for, albeit, you know,
a couple of blemishes here or there. So I, I I would've ask you to consider that, but I don't want a negative vote this evening either. Just because Speaker 1: Did you say you have the plans? Speaker 24: I do on my phone. I can just forward the p now I'm saying I just, I didn't do that because I didn't think it was appropriate to say, to peg, here's the drawing Speaker 7: Phone, it's ridiculous. Speaker 24: Please, I got the plans from the architect today. Okay. I just don't, I I don't, I would not come to you and make that presentation tonight and say, oh I've got the plan here. It has to come to you ahead of time. That's what we did. And what you have is accurate in my opinion.
Speaker 7: Do you want take a moment to up upload the current plans Speaker 1: To the portal? Speaker 7: No, not appropriate. Speaker 1: Okay. Would that satisfy your concerns Andy? Speaker 7: I see enough in here that I, I know how I would vote regardless of what was sent in, in the nick of time or not. So Speaker 1: Does anyone need more information? I think we've heard enough and you have said you've got the plans ready to submit. That's gonna show exactly what we are talking about here tonight, right? Right. There's not gonna be any surprises. No, Speaker 24: No, no, no.
It's, it's, it came from the architect so the dormers are removed. He probably did remove the one that I missed 'cause I wasn't thinking Speaker 1: We know what the height of the building is going to be. It's just the Speaker 24: Height's defined. The Speaker 1: Visual representation of it is gonna look a little bit different. Speaker 7: I don't know if there's still this appropriate time for public comment. We'll have one more. So Speaker 29: Good evening. My name is Jim Cody. I live at 14 Bradford Road and I live right around the corner. I walk by this property all the time, every day. So what I see from this applicant, the same type of situation arose at the construction
and the planning for one Liberty Street where there were plans and all of a sudden we come to the meeting unless we know, well now all of a sudden the plans have changed. It went from a home without a basement slab on grade and all of a sudden it got changed last minute to having a basement and change the hip roof. Which I really think is wrong for the board to accept that without giving the opportunity. As somebody who's spoken earlier tonight, getting these plans out to the people, the residents so we can see them. This is not the first time that this has happened. Speaker 1: Well let's stick to just this application tonight then
Speaker 29: I'll stick to this application because personally I think the height is too tall. The height, the building, it's at the corner. It's the only two story on all four corners. So when you're gonna be coming up Westlake Road, there's gonna be a site difference over to the right when cars are coming down. 'cause it's busy. As Peg has mentioned, coming cars off of West West Weathersfield and coming down Irving and honestly that rock wall, it's a pile of rubble. It really is a pile of rubble and it's, it's really, it's misleading to say it's a, it's a, a wall, it probably deserves a retaining wall.
And he does have an issue with water coming in his, in his yard and it looks horrible as it is now. So putting a fence up on top of this rubble, I just think it's ridiculous and I really don't think you should be making a decision right now. I think it should be tabled until the next meeting so you can review all the concerns that have been brought forward. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. I would go, Speaker 24: It came through. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Pleasure of the board. I think we probably should have more accurate plans on hand. I I I personally, I think the changes you've made
are less intrusive on the neighborhood. You've lowered the height, you've taken some other changes, but they're just not shown on the plans. Speaker 24: Right. If you could look at the plan that I just sent to Peg, I don't know if she can upload it that fast and you'd have it in your portal, but I I can't do the portal on my phone Speaker 1: Unfortunately. No, I think, I think we should probably Speaker 7: We can't, we can't do that too much time. I think there's a big difference from having a hard copy that folks could see here that we don't have that. Okay. So I think that's different than, than the other instance. Speaker 1: I would recommend you request approval, but that's up to you. Speaker 24: Recommend continue. Speaker 1: I mean, not approval continuance.
I'm sorry, Speaker 24: I'll, I'll, I'll continue reluctantly, but I'll continue. Speaker 7: I'll move to continue this. Speaker 1: June 23rd is Speaker 7: Our next June 23rd Speaker 1: For a second. Second? Second. All in favor, continue. Good night. Thank you. See you then. Speaker 24: Thanks. Speaker 1: Thank you. Should we take a five minute break? We've been here two hours already. My gosh. Speaker 7: Yes. Speaker 1: Wow. So I think we're gonna call it back to order here. Moving on down the list, we've got a hearing for eight Warren Road continued from last month
for a finding under 40 a section six and four B and five A of the bylaws for raising an existing structure and constructing new single family dwelling on the pre six nonconforming lot. Yes sir. Speaker 23: My name is Derek Wheeler. I live at 46 Marion Street in Natick. I own eight and Warren it is two lots actually as it stands right now, there's an existing single family home on eight Warren. It's a currently nonconforming law. It's, it's current. The existing house Speaker 24: Can't Speaker 23: Hear you.
Speaker 24: Hello? Speaker 1: Is the green light on Speaker 24: It is now. Speaker 1: Oh sorry. Why do these have off switches? I wonder Speaker 24: Everybody good. It is a currently a single family nonconforming lot with an existing house on eight Warren. The proposed new home would actually be on both eight and 10 Warren. We'd be combining the lots. There is a logistics thing that will have to happen if granted approval for this ZBA hearing where it would be a planning board logistics thing. It's a, I don't think they can vote on it.
It's a, you're able to combine the out by Right. So Amanda Loomis was helping me with that, but we didn't want to do that until we actually knew we had the correct plans before going down that route. Speaker 7: Can I interrupt for one second? I'm sorry. I see that paper copy. Can you guys see, can I get through to see the new site plan on the portal? I get to some Gmail one page and then there's an icon to try to download the PDF and it doesn't work. I'm looking one called Speaker 24: April 8th, 2025, Speaker 27: April 8th.
Flip the ZBA site plan. Speaker 7: Just wanna see if that's, Speaker 23: That's the only one I, Speaker 24: I've only had one site plan so it should be the Speaker 7: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was at a yes. Different. Okay, I've got it now. Thank you. Speaker 24: The proposed home, oh let me pull up the actual documents. The proposed home will be 39 78. I actually miscalculated the square footage by a little bit. That does not include the garage. There is a three car garage on this property but the total property is actually half an acre, just over 20 square feet. The reason we are here, I am here, I'm the sole owner
of the company is the lot is short on square footage because it's in RSB zoning which requires 40,000 square feet and it's short by about five and a half feet of depth. So with that being said, I can actually, I also have the elevations for the audience members Speaker 7: To see 'em. Sure. Just questions. You're doing that. So you have the required, you have zoning information, residential single B district and required, but I don't quite see the, what you're proposing yet. Chart. Speaker 24: It's in the proposed tab off to the right
Speaker 7: Post. Speaker 24: Alright. It's on the, this zoning checklist. Speaker 1: I can run down Andy if you want. Speaker 24: Just for the, yeah, Speaker 7: Go for it. As I'm trying to, yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. Get it up. So I've got the zoning table here. It says lot area 40,000 existing 20,292. So it's for area lot frontage is 140. They've got 140 lot depth is 150 required. They have a hundred forty four five, which is deficient. Front yard setback is requires 40, has 43.2. They're proposing 45 side yard,
20 has 15.2 today is going to 22 side yard east 20, existing 79, proposed 44 rear yard setback 40 required 53 existing 51. Proposed building coverage, 20 existing 8.1, proposed 13.1 and building height 35, maximum existing 32. Proposed 33. Speaker 24: I will say for the sake of this zoning checklist, it was all done on both lots being combined together. I didn't want to play a game where, yeah, it shows way
high lot coverage just for the one lot and, and it looks like I'm actually reducing lot coverage. Both lots were owned by the previous owner. I owned both lots and the proposed is okay comparing apples to apples. Speaker 7: So this is my, my first time on a, a case where, you know, someone is proposing to propose combined two lots, has it happened before? Does that trouble any of us or is it sort of like this is a precursor to then going in front of a someone for a subdivision? Speaker 24: This would be an a
and r plan with the zone with the planning board. Yeah. So it's not So you the Speaker 7: Planning board after this Speaker 24: Or it, we are still investigating with town to town council whether or not it's administrative because it's actually just combining two non-conforming lots by the same owner. Not adding existing, not adding another house. We're not making a subdivision. So it's just Jason combining two lots when two Speaker 14: Lots are in common ownership. They are one, become one lot Speaker 1: For, for zoning purposes. My understanding is yes, when they come into common ownership, they're combined for zoning purposes. You can't, you can't maintain two,
two lots next to each other in same ownership. Both non-conforming the the law requires you to combine them. Speaker 24: I zoning, just to clarify that you can't have a house across two lots. Now I could build a house on the existing eight Warren and then sell that. Keep the existing lot, but I, as far as I'm aware, that would be a non-conforming lot that I would never be able to build on. So there's really no point in doing that. Speaker 1: But to Andy's point, I think we would approve or we would take an action on this proposal before us, whether we approve or deny it. And then it's up to him to figure out, you know, ownership
of the lots and whether they can be combined by the planning board under an A and r plan or not. If he can't figure that out, our approval would have no effect. Right? Correct. Speaker 24: Okay. That's the way I understand it. Yeah. Okay. I will, I know you guys have been here a while and you got many more, so I do know my, one of my neighbors is here, so I'll, Speaker 1: Do you wanna start with the board or do you have any questions Speaker 24: Here? However you guys would like to move forward. Speaker 13: Just want to confirm that the lot going, going to Dover Road looks like it just gonna comes as a triangle. And does somebody own that property Speaker 24: Between Yeah, Eversource Eversource owns the lot
between Dover Road and a warrant, so it is a Eversource owned lot. And then there's a private owner on the other side as well Speaker 13: Along the St. Thomas Avenue side. Speaker 24: I would have to pull up the madam, I'm not sure. No, like to the north and the south of this Eversource is to the south and then private owner owns it, goes back into a wetlands for way further back. Speaker 13: Yeah, I'm just saying the point being is it doesn't look like there's any other neighbors. Speaker 24: There is my neighbor across the street that I met yesterday and then there's another neighbor across the street
directly in front of this house that I believe is here today. Speaker 13: But nothing really can happen behind you. Speaker 24: No, that's the actual Dover border. So there are neighbors but they are not close. There's a fence on their yard actually. Okay, Speaker 1: Why don't we go to the audience, see if there's any questions, comments, concerns, anyone wanna speak on eight? Warren, come on up, grab a mic, give us your name and address and your thoughts. Speaker 30: Good evening. Thank you. My name is Tim Donahue, 17 St. Thomas Ave. Just to clarify the builder's remarks,
I am a neighbor on the corner of St. Thomas and Warren to the south, the neighbor to the north is Robert McNitt to the south of the prop property on the east side of Warren Road is, Chadwick Properties is Chris Antonio and Paul Wiley. Directly behind that house is an in Eversource transmission line. That's there's a utility corridor there. Thank you for hearing me tonight. We've lived in our current house for 25 years. We've lived in the town of OCH for 32. We welcome development of this particular property. We have a couple of concerns which we documented in a letter
to the board prior to the last meeting. The first comment I would make is that clarification. In the builder's remarks there stated there was a three car garage on the property. The, the plans included a three car garage. There's currently a two car garage under the, underneath the existing structure. There was formerly a canvas, a Quonset hut style structure that was used as a utility shed. But that's been gone for quite a while now. That was located on 10 Warren. Another sort of minor comment. The paved portion of St. Thomas and Warren are,
are substantially narrower than are shown either on the plans or on the town. GIS St Thomas Avenue is 19 feet edge to edge in a, an easement, I guess it would be called. Forgive me, I'm not an expert on this of 40 feet. Whereas the paved portion of Warren Road opposite my driveway, which exits to the east is 16 feet wide. And just bef as the meeting was commencing, I nailed a picture that I took this evening of a Ford F-150 parked at a diagonal across Warren Road.
So that I think illustrates just how narrow that that portion of the street is. It's kind of difficult to get out. My driveway has flares on the end of it. It's kind of difficult to get outta there, particularly backing up without crossing the opposing property. The driveway exit is shown in the site plan exits kind of on the St. Thomas Avenue, but also kind of on the corner of my property. And given the width of the street, it's gonna be difficult for anyone visiting the property and not parking in the garage and backing out the driveway to avoid driving over my lawn.
I'm not so particular about my lawn, but I do spend some money on my lawn and I do get a little cheesed off when people drive across it, particularly when it's soft. And since the end of Warren Road and the end of St. Thomas Road tend to collect water as it runs downhill from Pleasant Street, the grass is often soft there. I have a couple of small stones on the end of the, the end of the grass now and they've been somewhat effective in keeping people off of it. Sometimes they do it once and then they don't do it again. But my point is that the sighting of the driveway
as shown in the site plan, will invite people crossing my lawn and as illustrated in the photo with the Ford truck, it's gonna be very difficult to come out of there cleanly and make a K turn without crossing the grass. The second point I'd like to make regarding the plan directly opposite, well kind of, kind of where the driveway exits today, maybe a little bit to the, to the south, are two beautiful mature maple trees. Again, I mailed these to the board earlier. They are surrounded oaks and pines. They occupy the forward edge of 10 Warren
and I think the driveway would force elimination of those trees. And we, I I've been told that Mr. Wheeler has indicated to my neighbor, Mr. McNitt, that those trees are gonna be taken down. My ask would be that the driveway be realigned such that it exits as it does now. And I've invited architectural comment on this by someone who is quite skilled in the art and said, gee, you could make the property a lot more interesting if the driveway came out and curved a little bit. So I would ask that those trees, which also provide a very nice visual barrier in the leaf season between my property, our property,
and the existing house at eight Warren and the much larger sru, more prominent structure that is planned for that site. I'd ask that those be, if at all possible be left in place. I would respectively ask for your consideration in this matter. And thank you for your time. Thank Speaker 1: You. Speaker 21: Thank you. Speaker 1: Do you want to address anything that you just heard? Speaker 24: Yeah, Mr. McNitt actually mentioned it to me when I met him out on site that that was a concern. I had been talking to our engineer about potentially not making the driveway
straight and curving it. I, I hesitate to claim I'm gonna be able to save a tree. I have run into problems with this before, but I could, we can curve the driveway to match up with the approximate area where the existing driveway is. I've just, my only concern is maybe engineering issues if grades and things like that with curves. So I'd wanna lock into something at the zoning meeting and find out that it can't be done. Then I have to come back if, if that's adequate. Speaker 30: I you, you know, it would be great if you could do what you can do. Okay. I understand you're constrained by the size
of the house and the leaching field. Yeah. Speaker 24: That, that's another concern is Yep. Getting too close to that. Yeah. The comment on the three car garage, I didn't mean to insinuate that there were three cars there currently. Obviously there's not. But after every other hearing we've heard today I, I've heard some concerns about three car garages. So I just mentioned right off the bat. So, and then the Warren and St. Thomas roads are narrow. They're, they're very, very narrow country roads. It is a 40 foot easement with maybe a 14 foot wide drive.
I don't, I don't know if you're asking me to do anything or, or just Speaker 30: Mention No, I'm not. Okay. I'd rather not any. Well it'd be nice if it were potholes were filled. Speaker 24: I, well it's a town Speaker 30: Issue and we, well Speaker 24: It's one of those things that I might be able to help somehow if I, I don't want potholes in front of the new house as well. So Speaker 30: You understand it's scheduled for repaving next year Now that actually happens or not? I don't know. Speaker 24: Okay. So I believe and so I will do the best I can to save the trees. I understand your concern directly shape screens your property, so I understand. Yep.
Speaker 30: Yeah, I mean Speaker 24: I don't think these are unreasonable requests Speaker 30: And, and it's not all about me. I mean that particular side of our house is not visually appealing. We've got a truck in the driveway and I'm, I I think the neighbor, the, the future homeowner would appreciate having not look at it. I mean there's nothing understood. We, we only have a closet window on that side, but we stand in the driveway or we come out and it's, it's nice that it's there particularly in the fall. Yeah. But it's as much for the fu your future homeowner as it is for me. Agree. Speaker 24: Sometimes engineers just like the straight lines so I get it. So yeah, as I mentioned,
I think these are reasonable requests that I can accommodate. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wanted to be heard on aid Warren? No. Board members Speaker 21: Chart again. Speaker 1: Want me to read it again? Speaker 24: Do you you see an issue? No. Oh, okay. I just wanted to make sure I had had it correct for you guys. Speaker 1: It looks like it'll meet all the setbacks. It just won't meet depth in lot Speaker 24: Area. This is the first time I've actually had a lot in this zoning district, so it actually surprised me that when I bought it that it was RSB. So
Speaker 21: No, I don't Any questions? Speaker 24: There are no plans. I don't see any Speaker 13: Architectural plans Speaker 24: They're labeled. It's got a weird label because the, the website Speaker 13: You see. Yeah. Thanks. Speaker 9: Yeah, it's under Speaker 24: The website doesn't allow for dashes or commas or dots or anything. So they had to get relabeled those. Speaker 13: Yeah. Don't know how to condition the driveway issue. It sounds like a, it's a nice looking place. Speaker 24: Free Speaker 13: Car garage. Speaker 1: I'm not even sure if that's within our authority to dictate where you put your driveway.
I think you need a public works or engineering department permit for a curb cut. Yeah, Speaker 24: I Speaker 1: Mean and it's subject to their approval. Speaker 24: I don't know if you can Condit can condition it or not. I stand by my word. You I, I come here maybe once a year though, so it's, Speaker 1: I think Speaker 24: Come in from of Speaker 1: The board if it were to approve it, I think we could say that it'll be built in substantial conformance with the plan submitted. Yeah. And that if the building commissioner thinks that you are changing those plans such that he can't approve your application for a building permit or whatever other permit, then you would have to come back to us to get a plan modification.
Correct. I think we could approve it that way if that was our bent. Speaker 13: Okay. Speaker 1: Motion. Somebody, somebody other than the mic. Yeah, Speaker 13: I mean it's nice looking place. Work your magic baby. I move that we approve the application for section six finding on eight Warren Road seeing as opposed structure is not substantially more detrimental than the current structure
provided that the building be constructed in accordance to the plan submitted and subject to the letters of recommendation from the town. Speaker 1: Very good. Is there a second Ari? All those in favor? Speaker 24: Thank you members. Speaker 1: Five zero That finishes the portion of our meeting from last month. Now we move on to this month Speaker 13: Chair. I do need, Speaker 1: Mr. Beck is excused. Thank you for your service. Moving on to 14 Mill Street I think is next. Pardon? John Christopher for a special permit from the Aquifer Protection District
bylaw per section three A five of natick zoning bylaws the applicant proposes to modify an existing ZBA decision existing ZBA decision modify, increase a lawful non-conforming, use self-storage and to modify the preexisting non-conforming structure as shown on the plan submitted 14 mil. Speaker 14: Yes sir. How are you tonight? Speaker 1: I'm well, how Speaker 14: Are you? Good. My name's John Christopher, the applicant for RLJD. RLJD Corp. With me tonight is Raj Oltra, the owner of RLG Corp. And the property is more commonly known
as All American self storage at 14 Mill Street. This property was actually approved back in 1997 for a special permit for self storage. Been there since, well, since 1997. Hopefully he's been, he's been doing well. And in 2018 we actually came in front of the board for a modification of that special permit and the aquifer protection permit to expand the self storage into a porch on the building that was not used for self storage currently. I can get up and Speaker 23: Kind of show you where it's here. We have Mill Street here, the porch
and this is the complete rolling. I'll stand, there'll be above. I can see the area we're looking to expand mainly is this front area. I'm gonna go to day chair. We're calling this just to make it easy for us and everybody else. We're calling that BU portion building E. Currently that's just empty space and it's in not that great a condition. It needs actually a lot of repair and it needs to be torn down, rebuilt. Basically it was an old part of the bottoming plant back in the eighties, seventies to eighties with PepsiCo watering plant. They still have a old syrup tank in there, things like that. So that's the main portion of building there,
building E that we wanna modify. Building F and D. Those are actually used for storage right now, but they're used for like single tenants and he wants to expand that into multiple units because, you know, you get a better return on your investment. You have more units turned out to people. So what we came in here for back in 2018 was to Speaker 14: Modify this special permit and for the, for the aquifer protection permit. And that was approved. Unfortunately we didn't get our ducks in a row, but before covid hit and we were unable to build it and that special permit was expired.
So that's why we're back here tonight. So what else do we have for you? Let me show you the elevations now. Speaker 23: So what we're trying to do is make the building less a lot better than it does for Mill Street. These are our proposed elevations and this is this section here. Is that section building E we talked about that you mainly see from Mill Street. So this is your Mill Street facade. Pretty much here. We're trying to keep all the roof heights no higher than they are now. And that's, I think shown on our plans. I think the Mill Street height is 19 foot, eight inches off the average grade. And that's what we're trying to keep with the peak of this roof here. This is the side of the building. We've got a, a, a little, you know, sloped roof,
put some windows in there, put some, you know, break and some siding on it. I don't know if you guys can buy the building. It's, you know, no offense, but it's not the greatest looking thing. It needs a little refresh. We wanna do there. Speaker 1: Lemme ask you this, are you proposing anything different than what was approved in 2018? No. Or is it identical? Speaker 14: It's identical. 2018 something Speaker 1: We already approved. Speaker 14: Something you already approved and we just didn't get everything done in time before it's expired. Speaker 1: After two years of non-use or something? Yes. Okay. Speaker 14: So, so it's just for the extension or the re resubmittal of the approval.
No changes to the, no changes to our 2018 approval now. And I'm open. Any questions? 2018 then. Okay. I'm gonna trust us from 2018. Speaker 1: I, yeah, I'm looking at Speaker 14: It. I mean I do have a copy of the 2018 approval. I think that's in your package Speaker 1: Still. We've got here. Yeah, it was approved. Four zero. John Burke was your attorney at the time. Yeah, Speaker 14: He, we wouldn't had 'em, but I believe he no longer practices. Speaker 1: He's retired to Cape Cod I think. Oh, bless Speaker 14: Him. Speaker 1: We miss him too. Speaker 14: Any comments? Any Speaker 1: It Speaker 14: Controversy? Speaker 1: The, let's see. The description of the project was the applicant proposed to modify roof liens.
I think that meant lines to various portions of the existing building to create additional self storage in accordance with the plans filed. The footprint of the building will not change. The revised structure will conform to all dimensional requirements, facts, evidence, findings. We granted a section six finding at the time desired relief without substantial detriment to public good proposed alterations not substantially might detrimental to the neighborhood. Proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the a PD district. Bylaw appropriate for to soils, topography and other characters to the site will not have an adverse impact on the aquifer water supply
and will not be injurious to the site. Petitioner's proposed drainage of the storm water runoff will protect, preserve, and maintain the existing and potential groundwater supplies areas within town. As the state approach that a PD requires. We had some conditions or conclusions here shall be constructed substantially as representative of the plans to the extent that vehicles are permitted to park on the site. Those vehicles shall not be permanently parked on the east side of the parking lot. Petitioner shall comply with the recommendations of the con com board of health. DPW decision shall be recorded. And the proposal is voting
to amend the original special permit. 97 0 0 2 7 and all the conditions of the special permit remain in full force in effect. And so tonight you're asking not for a brand new decision, but to modify this, Speaker 14: I'm not really sure how you'd say it, but to, to renew, renew, renew, renew. Let me see what the I I like the not having modify in there. Speaker 1: Commissioner Mimi wrote the application seeking to modify an existing special permit. The property has an existing special permit from 2018
because you wish to modify this special permit. I'm unable to approve at this time. So that's what we're doing, modifying that decision. So I think we could just reissue it or I don't know, modify the issuance date without changing any of the terms and conditions. Findings and conclusions. Yeah. Speaker 9: Lemme see if there's anybody up there who wants to Yeah. Chat about it six years later. Speaker 1: Anybody wanna chat about it Speaker 14: Five years later? Why up? Speaker 4: Hi, John Whitney, two Victoria Circle. I am in a butter and I was here at the last meeting in 2018.
I, some of my comments are in there. Not all of them made it in there though. So I have a number of things I want to bring up. The parking on the east side of the lot, that's a concern. The applicant said they would stop doing that. It has not stopped today. I drove by, there's 21 vehicles, construction equipment, trailers, RVs, boats stored outside part of the original special permit. There was no outside storage allowed. Speaker 1: Have you, can I ask a question? Have you called the building commissioner with Speaker 4: That? I didn't.
Speaker 1: That is the only way to enforce this. Speaker 4: Okay. I will do Speaker 1: That. And unfortunately it falls to members of the public or anybody who witnesses a violation like that to basically drop a dime. Okay. Because otherwise the building commissioner's not ever gonna know about it. But if you think, well I'm sorry if you think there's a violation, all, all the town can do is answer the phone when you call. Speaker 4: I had to do some digging today to get the original special permit. People forget things like this. So can it be, can these conditions be reiterated in the new permit? Speaker 1: I think that's, that's my intent and we'll see what the rest of the board thinks.
But yeah, I think so. Okay. Speaker 4: So I have a number of other ones. The other thing is no outside storage. If that is a condition the applicant needs to take that off their website because today they state, oh, bring your RV in, bring your boat in, we'll store it for you. And it's really unsightly and don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the building improved. 'cause it, it looks terrible. Hours of operation. Hopefully the hours don't change. But with outside storage, even if the hours are normal business hours, people come in all hours of the night. They're hooking up their trailer,
they're bringing in their landscaping equipment. They're moving trucks. There's four moving trucks sitting out there today. I believe site lighting was also mentioned. I'd like to make sure that the site lighting doesn't leave the site. There's directional lighting, shades, whatever. Will this have to go before the planning board? Speaker 1: I don't think so, no. Speaker 4: Okay. So site lighting being mentioned would be important. Speaker 1: Yep. Speaker 4: The biggest concern I have is related to building D. That's the one that they're going to put a second floor on part of that building.
They're allowing outside access to storage, the storage units, the original condition called for all storage units only accessed from inside the building. What I'm concerned about is those access from the outside are overhead doors. So the landscapers that are storing things there are gonna use that for repairs. It, it'll wind up being like a maintenance shop. So I want to keep that condition that all access to storage units is from the inside of the building or my opinion is it should stay like that. Speaker 14: Was that in the original decision?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, Speaker 1: I did you have any more Speaker 4: Comments? Yeah, I do. I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah, the roof, the, the height of the roof doesn't bother me so much, but I'm just hoping there's no rooftop units above that 21 feet because that'll add additional height to the building. Speaker 1: Once, once we have a full list, I'll let you respond. Yeah, Speaker 4: I'd also like the applicant to consider wooden fencing around the perimeter. Again, if storage is going to be allowed, which I hope it isn't, it looks like a used car lot right now. So it looks terrible. And wooden fencing instead
of the chain link fencing that's there now would be preferable. And that's all I had. Speaker 1: Alright. Thank you. We'll see if the applicant wants to respond to some of those. Just to clarify, I didn't see all those conditions in our last decision from 2018. Did you recall they were in 2018 or were they in the earlier decision? Speaker 4: They were in the earlier, but I re reiterated them in 2018. Speaker 1: But they didn't make it No. Into the written decision in 2018. And Speaker 4: I I didn't see the Speaker 1: But the old decision is still in force. Correct. So they, they kind of work together. That's Speaker 4: One of the conditions of the 2018.
Exactly, yeah. Is that, those are still Speaker 1: Enforced. Exactly. So if we chose to approve this modification and give them another two years to get their jobs started, it would, it would renew both the 2018 and the earlier decision and all the conditions that come with it, I think. I think so. That's, that would be my intent or my hope. Thank you. So I I I don't, I don't think I'm gonna have to list them all out in a new decision. We'll just refer back to the old, old decisions. Speaker 4: Okay, thank you. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 14: Yeah, I, I'll try to address 'em and Raj can jump in as far as the, the outside lighting.
Typically when I go in front of the boards, they require that no light spillage goes off the property line. And that that's fine. We don't plan on putting any ex any like exterior lights around the parking lot. We don't plan on digging up the parking lot to put pole lights or anything like that in. And I believe the, the building is far enough away from the parking lot. I'm sorry from the lot lines that, you know, if there's a condition that no light can go off the property line, that's fine with us. 'cause we don't see that being an issue. Usually everybody's going to the dark sky lighting where it goes down rather than up. So we shouldn't have an issue with that. Can
Speaker 1: I, can I stop you and ask you to let us know which one of these that you're talking about are already conditions in our earlier decisions? Or if these are new things? Speaker 14: I think that's a new one I think is what the gentleman said. And I, I read the 1997 decision. Unfortunately I didn't bring it with me. I think the big one was the no outside storage. And you know, the, the cars and the moving trucks I went by today too. They are there and you know, Raj has a new management company running the place. We're trying to get it back into shape with this conversion. So if it's in the 1997 decision, we have no problem falling the 1997 decision.
'cause that's what you guys allowed us. Yeah, but I don't think lighting was in there but we're not, I wouldn't be opposed to that. As far as rooftop units. We on that side of the building that addresses Victoria Ave, I believe he said it was all our units are on the ground. So we don't have any issues with not putting rooftop units in. It's actually a little, it's tough to put on these self-storage buildings, how they build 'em to put rooftop units in. 'cause the, the roof doesn't really support that kind of weight. So that's really not a, an issue. Wooden fence would be a little bit difficult. I, I'm not sure where the fencing is out there now. It's a large lot so I mean I could take, take a look at it,
but it's not something I could probably say yes to to this right now. And did I miss anything? Speaker 1: We had parking on the east. Speaker 14: Yeah, we said that we'd agree to whatever was in the 97 degree, you know. And Speaker 1: You're working with your new management company to straighten that out? Yeah. No. Outside storage. Yes. Is that in the old decision? Speaker 14: I do believe it was, but whatever was in the decision, we'll agree to. Speaker 1: Well I'm just wondering if, if we're smart enough to approve this request tonight, Speaker 14: We're fine with no outside. Speaker 1: I don't wanna be redundant if I don't have to, but if we're not sure, Speaker 14: You don't wanna be redundant Speaker 1: If we're not sure,
we're gonna, we're gonna reiterate these conditions. Yeah, I think so. Speaker 14: That's acceptable. Okay. Speaker 1: Hours of operation. Speaker 14: We, what are your hours operation right now? Speaker 31: It's till 6:00 PM I think so from eight 8:00 AM to around 6:00 PM or I mean a little bit longer. Monday Speaker 11: Through Friday. Speaker 31: But the building closes Speaker 11: Till 6:00 PM Saturday nine to five. Sunday 12 to four access hours. 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Saturday nine to 5:00 PM Sunday 12 to 4:00 PM
Speaker 1: There you go. Apparently that was your website. Speaker 14: Yeah, so the, the way it works is they're, the customers given a code and that code shuts off at those hours so they can't get in the building. Okay. Think what the gentleman was referring to. There are some outside storage units on that building. What did you say it was? Building E or building ED, building D that we proposing. 'cause some people like to just op, use the outside storage. They're not climate controlled. There were like six of them in there. We would like to keep those. And are Speaker 11: Those like iPod storage units or are they Speaker 14: No, they're built to the building. They're in. So you drive in, you drive into,
so typical roll up units, the building right into the building door. It's just an outside access store. Okay. And is the access for those limited to those six operational hours as well? Is the gate Gate at the front of the whole building? It is. And if we find customers violate that, we'd have to have a conversation with the customer. 'cause they could access that without using a keypad. So they can get, they physically could come in and break those rules. They physically go in there. Yes. Speaker 11: Because there is no gate access. Correct. Speaker 14: We'll get you again. Speaker 1: Building D That was the question about building D access preferred. Yes. But you're not proposing any changes to building D right now, are you? Speaker 14: Yeah, that was one of my shows there.
Is it, it's actually used for storage now or used and we just wanna break it up into different spaces. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. But still outside access. Speaker 14: I think just, I think there was six doors on the outside for outside access for that building Speaker 1: D But there'll be twice as many potential users if you're breaking it up into smaller Speaker 14: Bits. Yes, yes. There'll be more users, correct. Speaker 1: Right. Okay. Speaker 14: Is there is there's no outside gate. Is there any way to do an outside gate? Oh, there's a way. What do you think about gates there? Speaker 31: You may have outside a, a gate for not those six units,
but the other units because trucks have to go around the building so to, so that, but in order to get into the building they still have to use a keypad. Speaker 14: Yeah, but they, Speaker 31: And keypad we restricted how long, what time to what time they can get into the building. Speaker 23: So the building they're talking about is here. Yeah. So potentially, yeah, you could put a gate here or a gate here, you know, to keep people from getting to these, these units here. And to kind of give you an idea of where that is on the plan is that's this building I highlighted over here in the back. Yep. Speaker 1: Is there only one access point from the street?
Speaker 23: No, there's two. Yeah. So the Speaker 14: Other thing I, I didn't mention, he comes off of, if you're looking at the building, most customers where the office is, is on the right side of the building. Now we're trying to move that also to the left side of the building. Give people, you know, if you go to the office now, it's like a hole in the wall. You, you know, it's not very inviting. Oh. We're trying to clean that up and make it pretty and give something nice for people to come into. Speaker 1: That's the east side that the neighbor was talking about? Not, Speaker 14: No, no. That's would be on the other side. Yes. Okay. Yeah. The new one would be on the east side. Correct. Speaker 1: So new parking area would be the east,
Speaker 14: It wouldn't be a new parking area. The new office entrance. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 14: So you would be in essence needing to build two gates. Yeah. You'd put one on either side, put Speaker 31: Two gates. Right, one right side. Speaker 14: Which it was pretty typical on self storage. My family has one. I mean the gates would, would certainly solve all of the Speaker 1: Off hour Speaker 14: Access hours. Yeah. The off hour access. Except Speaker 31: For the six units. Because the gates will be after the six units. Speaker 14: No, we'd have to put 'em before the six units. Speaker 1: Well the, the, the six outside units are the only ones that don't self lock at 5:00 PM Correct? Yes, correct.
Speaker 14: Those are the ones we're trying to come up with a way to keep people from going in after hours. Raj, if you put up like a gate right, right up there somewhere. So they have to come in, hit the keypad and they go around. Speaker 1: Yeah, probably up here. Speaker 4: I think you have to have two. Speaker 1: That'd Speaker 14: Probably, or you get rid of this Speaker 1: Other drive over Speaker 14: Here I think. Well you wanna get rid of the outside some Speaker 1: More, Speaker 31: But they put a gate somewhere else then. Speaker 14: Well the other gate could just be a, like a fire gate. 'cause people, you don't want people driving around the building anyway. Speaker 31: Doing Speaker 1: D Yeah, there's another access point there I think Speaker 9: Maybe.
Speaker 14: Yeah. No big trucks going. Yeah, Speaker 23: I think that's where the office is. Speaker 14: They're just gonna come in, turn around and go back outside Speaker 23: Where us all shit parked. Speaker 9: Right. Speaker 1: Was there anyone else in the audience who wanted to speak on this one? Speaker 14: The first gentleman wanted to go again. Yeah, come on up Speaker 23: If anybody else go. Speaker 1: Oh, you seem like the interested party here. Speaker 4: I just wanted to clarify something. The original conditions do not allow for access to storage units directly from the outside. Speaker 14: Yeah, it did. Speaker 4: Okay. So those six doors that we're talking about and a, a couple other ones that have been put in are not allowed per the original special permit.
All access to storage units should be from the inside of the building using hand trucks. So to do what he's asking for, building D would require a amendment to the special permit. Speaker 1: I wonder how Speaker 4: That, as far as I know, Speaker 1: I wonder how that got built then if it was not approved in 97. Speaker 4: How, what got built, how, Speaker 1: How they have outside access today. Speaker 4: It doesn't have it right now. Building D does not have that. Oh, okay. Speaker 14: Alright. No, I thought building D has one outside. Alright, I'm, Speaker 1: I'm just trying to figure out what's out there today. Yeah, Speaker 14: There, there's a right, there's a door. There's a door out Speaker 31: There.
There's one outside access in building D, right? Speaker 1: There's outside access to building D. Yes. For the six units I think. Speaker 31: No, it's big unit right now. The whole building over Speaker 4: There. So they probably went in and cut a door in? Speaker 31: No. Speaker 4: Maybe got a building permit but didn't come to zoning board. So you go Speaker 14: Into building D and then there's separate units, storage units inside the building. Speaker 31: No, building D was one big unit building with a roll up door on it. Overhead door on it. That was access to building D. So there's only one door into building D. Speaker 1: So it sounds like it was meant for large equipment or vehicles.
Yes. Yes. And so you can't have a man door to access that if you're gonna park a truck in there. Speaker 31: So Speaker 1: You have to access it from the outside, right? Speaker 31: Yes, it is. There's a man door as well as a overhead door. Sure. Okay. Both. Speaker 1: So I'm not sure how they could have a condition to say you can't have Speaker 4: I I have a copy if you'd like me to bring it up to you. Speaker 14: Yeah, can I read it for a second? Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Could I Speaker 14: Read it? I forgot it. Sure. Speaker 31: So another thing is building C also has outset access into the, into those buildings. So there are three, three man doors
and one overhead door building C. Okay. Speaker 14: Okay. But you need, I don't see a code to get into the building to open the doors. Speaker 31: Right. We have a code keypad there so you can access only limited hours or whatever. We program it. Okay. There's an office there which was also entrance to the office from outside, which is also on the, that same side of the building. Speaker 1: I, I mean everything accesses from the outdoors. That's how you go indoors from the outdoors. But your concern with the outside access is what exactly?
Speaker 4: Well I'm, I'm concerned that it's like a a, a bay for maintenance and I'm already hearing lots of noise early in the morning with trucks, landscapers. Yeah. And I'm worried that that will get used for repairs and maintenance all hours of the night. Oh Speaker 14: Yeah. I mean they typically don't 'cause they're a lot smaller units. It's the businesses do like the outside units. I know another one I built, they like the FedEx delivery guy rented the unit and he keeps all those boxes he owes has a FedEx route. So he does that. But I mean he, he, the
decision actually says storage units would be accessible from the interior only. No drive up units. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 14: Usually that means the old style they used to build where, you know, they had the rows. I think the other facility in tic, the big facility down by the pike, he has like drive up units that we typically call drive up units for this. It sounds like what building D is proposed for. Yeah. Drive up. Drive up. Yeah. So, so it's seems like those are no, not allowed at all. So again, you know we're, if that what was in the decision, we're willing to honor the decision. Okay. Sounds So no, no drive up units in building D
somehow you have to access those from the interior. Speaker 7: Yeah. So I mean I'm confused. We look at the plans, the site plan has buildingd broken up into many smaller storage units. I is. Is that the proposal that you're trying to get? That we, Speaker 14: That's what we would like to do break out with the smaller units. But some of those units are accessible from the outside Speaker 7: On that the ones on the, I'm not sure cardinal direction but page down those, the larger ones if you have it on the site plant. But Speaker 21: I think I get it. I mean Speaker 7: The upshot is you just Speaker 21: Probably not gonna let you do it. So B Yeah, so so theses right here,
it's not drawing up. Yeah, those right there. Yeah. So I mean it's, there's there, I mean there's an alley there. Interior. Yeah. Figure out. Yeah, you can Speaker 7: Keep it all inside. That's what the original deal was. Speaker 1: Right. But the plans you're showing us have them on the outside Speaker 14: But it also has an interior hallway there. Speaker 7: Those right here like on this south side, these, that's what I'm reading it at those. Speaker 14: The plan doesn't delineate that they are Yeah, us from the outside. It might be better floor Speaker 7: Plan out there. Let's see if we can find it. I
Speaker 14: Think where you see it more as you see it on the elevation. Speaker 1: That's Speaker 7: What I see. Speaker 14: Bunch of garage doors. Yeah. This set of plans is very much in conflict to the conditions. To the conditions. Yeah. Speaker 1: I mean you're asking us to approve a plan that shows outside access, but you're okay with the condition that there's no outside access. Speaker 21: True. I we, we missed that and Speaker 7: I think we need to continue this one Speaker 14: Bay team plan, which John Burke got approved and Speaker 1: Continue. Yeah, I think, I think we've, we've heard as much as we can hear tonight. Okay. I think what we have to do, if you want to request a continuance to the next month
so you guys can straighten out what exactly it is you want. Do you want all the old conditions and no outside access or do you want what you're proposing on the plans with outside access? Because we can't approve what you've submitted because they're in conflict today. No, you can't make a condition that we can't just have, we, we can't have any outside access again. I mean we're approving those plans. That's the problem. Yeah, no, that's fair enough. So if you can modify the plans to, or the conditions, if you want to get relief from the conditions, you could request that too. Speaker 14: I think that Speaker 1: In the alternative, so one
or the other, either ask us to revise those conditions as part of your modification or Speaker 14: Which would probably be a tough sell or Speaker 1: Clean up the plans. So Speaker 31: Outside access for storage is one thing, but outside access into the building is a different thing because Yes, correct. There's a difference between the two, Speaker 1: Right? You have to, you have to access the building Yes. From the outside. Right. Speaker 31: So the statement that we cannot have outside access Speaker 1: To, to individual unit. Correct. Speaker 14: It says directly to a storage unit, direct to storage. You can walk into a hallway to the office, walk down to your unit. Right. I think is what the intention of a
Speaker 1: Approval was. Speaker 31: So only six units? Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean Speaker 31: Not the anything else. Okay. Six Speaker 1: Units is if those are the only ones that have current outside access. Yeah, direct outside Speaker 31: Access. Yeah. They don't have, it's not, there's no current outside access right now. It's just a wall there. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 31: So, but we are planning to put some, some units outside like the FedEx first. People want to store all the pharmaceutical people. Sometimes put box there. It's, people don't do, we don't allow any work to be done in those units. Okay. It's a storage place only.
So it's not that we allow people to do the carpet there or do technic and these landscapers do work that we don't allow it. Speaker 7: Sure. Sir. Just, just for the sake of time, I'm gonna interrupt for a second. So we're all, we've also heard that there are a lot of things that you're storing outside that aren't in accordance with the original deal as well. So I think, I think we should move to a continuance. Yeah. I ask for a continuance. Speaker 14: It'd probably be helpful if you all due respect cleaned up the outside. Perfect. In the meantime. Yep. Speaker 7: Alright. Yep. Good job. I move to continue this to June 23rd. Second. Speaker 1: All in favor on continue. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thanks. Speaker 1: Good job. Thanks. Next up 88 South Maine Public hearing for Jeffrey Wheeler requesting a finding under 48. Section six A MA zoning bylaws for B five A to construct a deck on a preexisting nonconforming lot as shown on the planes. Gentlemen, Speaker 32: Good evening. Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker 32: Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Wheeler with JM Wheeler Construction. I'm here with my client Ack Hetman. He's a homeowner at 88 South Maine. We sit before you tonight to request variance on the basis
of hardship. My client has an unusually shaped plot and based on his hobby of astronomical observation telescope, looking at the stars, he's unable to do so specifically based on the height of the surrounding buildings. So we're specifically requesting a variance on the, I guess you would call it the rear of the property, where the deck would be 22.7 feet from the property line
and the west facing side of the property where the deck would be 3.9 feet from the property line. Speaker 1: Just to clarify, I the letter from the building commissioner does not mention a variance. It looks like you just need a section six finding Speaker 32: Section six. Yeah. Excuse me. Okay. That's a Speaker 1: Whole different ballgame. Yeah. Excuse Speaker 32: Me. Variance. Okay, Speaker 7: Good. Thanks. Speaker 32: Yeah, apologies. Yeah, been, it's been a long day. I appreciate that. Speaker 1: So it's, yeah, we're looking at a section six finding for this deck edition and it's only of section six
because it's a preexisting nonconform, right? You're not creating any new nonconformities, is that right? Speaker 32: According to the, let's see, I have the original, Speaker 7: If we, if you look Speaker 32: At the chart site plan. Yeah. I have the original chart and the updated chart Speaker 1: Is an update. Speaker 32: The one that was on my application, yes. Okay. Speaker 7: So it looks like the west setback is getting tighter, let less so. Yep. Need 12 have seven proposing 3.9.
Is that correct? Speaker 32: That that's what's reflected on however the, the existing conflicts with the original proposed from 2014, which was six feet. So we're going from somewhere between six to seven feet to 3.9 on the west and then an existing on the rear yard from 25 to 22.7. Speaker 7: Okay. The building coverage is getting a little bit more Speaker 1: Question on the rear. That's right. On the rear it's 25. The current structure is 25 from the rear.
Speaker 32: I have the original plot plan as well. I believe that's what's reflected. So Speaker 1: That conforms to zoning and they might be creating a new violation at 22.7. Speaker 7: Yeah, Speaker 1: Maybe it is a variance. Yeah, it Speaker 7: Is a variance. Yep. Speaker 1: Wait, but it wasn't advertised as such. Peg. Yeah, is this a variance? Speaker 7: So the rear setback, rear setback conforms. Speaker 1: Yeah, it looks like the rear setback conforms today and they're proposing a new non-conformity. Speaker 8: So the building, the senior building in a determination says section six file commission.
So all I can do is confirm what they, Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 1: I suppose we can, if we so choose, vote on the section six finding that was advertised and before us. And if that's not sufficient for them to get all the permits they need to build it, they'll be back in front of us asking for a variance someday. But, Speaker 7: Okay. I'm just gonna take a look at the plans. Speaker 1: Is it, it looks like a new nonconformity, right? Speaker 7: That's 25. Speaker 1: It's 25 today. 25. Do, do you understand the problem that we're talking about here? Speaker 32: Yeah, yeah. I do see the, the original plot plan
that I have from 2014, it does say 25 foot min minimum, but it's not really clear. I have a copy if you want to look at that as well. Speaker 1: What's, what would be most today most beneficial to you is if the current structure already violates the rear yard setback and then you would not be creating a new non-conformity by going to 22.87. But if you're creating a new non-conformity, if it conforms today and you're creating a new one, that's a variance typically.
Speaker 7: So it's a weird shape Speaker 32: Line. Yeah. Yeah. It's an old copy. Speaker 1: I, I guess I don't know what was in the building commissioner's head when he, Speaker 14: Well I think if, if we were, if we like the project, we could approve the section six that the new, the proposed project is not substantially more detrimental. Speaker 7: Right. Speaker 1: And then if that's good enough, someone will tell us to Yeah, Speaker 7: Do it again. Speaker 14: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this? Speaker 1: This is 88 South seeing none board members questions, comments? Speaker 7: Nope. Speaker 14: So I could do a motion,
I motion that we would approve this proposed deck at 88 South Main Street and that it's not substantially more detrimental than the existing structure and that it's built in conformance with the plan submitted and all the letters from the town departments. Speaker 1: Is there a second? Second Speaker 7: Andy. All in favor? Speaker 1: 1, 2, 3, 4. Yes, yes, yes. Five. Good. You're all set. Okay, Speaker 32: Thank you. So would you like us to just apply for the building permit and if something comes up we'll just come back before you, you Speaker 7: Do whatever you wanna do. Speaker 32: All right. That sounds apply Speaker 1: For a building permit.
Don't apply for a building permit. Speaker 7: Join the deck. Well if you Speaker 1: Don't get a building permit, you can't build it. Let's be clear. Speaker 32: We'll be here. Well thank you. Thank you for your time. Speaker 1: But as you saw from the last applicant, we gave them their approval, you know, four years ago, five years ago and they never moved on it and it expired. Speaker 32: That won't be the case but yeah, we'll Speaker 1: That's what happens if you don't apply for a building permit. Yeah. Speaker 32: Yep. Speaker 7: Thank Speaker 32: You for your time. Good luck guys. Speaker 7: Have a nice night. Bye. See you. You too. Okay. Scarsdale Road. Speaker 1: Okay, next up is number five, Scarsdale five. Scarsdale Road Realty
for a finding per Massachusetts general law 48. Section six and four B and five a zoning bylaws. Plans to construct a garage on the pre non-conforming lot as shown on the plan submitted. Let's open that hearing Speaker 33: My name? Yeah, my name is Alex and this is Marvin Ora. And we are with mass handy helpers, LLC. And we're looking to get approval. So we had done a section six and a variance before. Withdrew that. Now we're just putting in for the section six I believe, which I believe is just for that frontage requirement, which is staying the same.
So it's not going to be any more detrimental, but yeah. Speaker 7: Okay. Okay. So let's look Speaker 1: Here. Let's take a look at the plans. We've got the zoning table here. Looks like your lot area is short required is 40,000. You have 11,600 square feet. Lot frontage, complies, lot depth complies. Keep going to front yard setback. Does not comply and will remain the same. Side yard west will remain the same. Noncompliant side yard east will reduce from 27
to 20.1 in compliance with the 20 foot rear yard setback. 40 required 52.6. 52.6. Proposed building coverage, 20%. This is for a garage addition. Speaker 7: Okay, so Mr. Chairman, we're, we're flying blind a little bit here. I don't think we have the right link to see, see if we can get there somewhere. Search five. Five square down. Okay. Dale, Speaker 1: You guys have any find the plans or we getting Speaker 7: There? Okay, the link on the agenda brings me to the previous project. Oh,
Speaker 1: I had to go to the main website and type in the address. That's right. Speaker 7: Okay. I think we're getting there. Speaker 1: If you find the main page you can type an address in Natick. Speaker 7: Got it. Interview Speaker 14: Paper Speaker 1: Cars. Yeah. Files. Looks like just a bigger garage. Right. So the plan is you've got a a garage there now, but you want to tear it down. Correct. Alright. Build a bigger garage. Correct? Two door, one door garage. One door. One door. Speaker 33: Yeah. The original that did require variance was gonna be a two car or a two door garage, which we withdrew that. That
Speaker 14: Brought you into the side setback, correct? Speaker 33: Yeah, Speaker 14: Sent Speaker 33: Back because we got I believe approval for the variance for the front It's But then what, just like you told the other gentleman, what made it all a lot more complicated was the fact that we were getting into a variance. Speaker 1: Yep. You were conforming and then you were not Speaker 14: Gonna conform. So now the project conforms as much as you can. It's just a lot. Correct. Speaker 1: Okay. Anyone in the audience wanted to speak about 88 South? No. Where are we? Five. Five stars. Five scars. Dale Garage. Seeing none. Anyone from the board? Comments, questions?
Take a quick look. Did you find the plan? Yeah, they have it there. Okay, very Speaker 14: Good. I'll propose a motion that we approve the garage at Five Stars Dale Road and that we find it not substantially more detrimental than the pre-existing structure and that it's built in conformance with the plan submitted and all the letters from the town departments. Speaker 1: Good. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Five. Zero. Good to go. Thank Speaker 33: You very much.
Have a good night. Speaker 1: Moving along, 53 Grove Road, Gregory Donovan for a finding Mass General Law section six and Natick bylaw four B and five A proposing to construct an addition on the preexisting nonconforming lot as shown. Speaker 6: Good evening. Welcome Greg. This is my wife Allie. We're the owners and residence of 53 Grove Road. And yes, we're proposing for a section six finding to do an addition off the back of the house. Currently on the back of the house there's a detached garage. So I had not originally included that in my existing percentage.
So the percentage you see for our footprint coverage is 10%, including the garage it would be 15. Our end goal is to be at 19. So that's one thing I missed. But yes, we have our existing non-conforming lot and there we're planning to continue our side setback, which is currently 3.8 feet. We would keep that at five feet as shown in the survey. And then our rear setback is currently set seven feet and we're going to improve that to 14 feet as we move the garage back towards the house
and eliminate the current location of the patio. And then the rear of the house where the kitchen is would connect directly to the first floor, which would be above the garage and the same with the second floor. Speaker 7: So to be clear, should then the setback the west, should it actually just just say 5.5? It says sort of 3.8 and then parentis addition to be 5.5. That is 5.5, right? Yes. What, what's you're proposing? Yes. Okay. Speaker 1: I had that question when I was looking at it today. Speaker 7: That matched the make sense with the site plan. Speaker 1: You've got three street frontages. Yeah. Yep.
You're on three streets. Yes. So you've got I think three front yard setbacks to, to contend with here at 30 feet each. Speaker 6: Yes. And we're nonconforming in all but one, Speaker 1: Right? But well, no, the table, yeah, you're nonconforming. But the table I think should say 30, 30. 30 and 12. You've got three. Oh, Speaker 6: I I view the, I was viewing Linson road as our rear. 'cause that's where the back of the house, that's where the garage is. That's Speaker 1: Not what the zoning bylaws say. Okay. If you have frontage on a street, that is your front.
Speaker 6: Okay. Pretty sure. So the west side should say 30 or the, Speaker 1: Yeah. So let's see West, then the last Speaker 7: One that's left, is that a side? Speaker 6: It'd be, well I think Speaker 1: That's a side, like we would do two fronts and two sides on a corner. Right. But here you've got three fronts. Speaker 7: I mean it's kind of just semantics, right? Because he doesn't meet any of video. Speaker 6: It would be, it would be nonconforming. Nonconforming in either way. Correct. Speaker 7: West, Speaker 1: South and east are all gonna be 30. And you're at three. All right. So you're not creating any new con new nonconformities that way. Correct. And then the rear, what did you call the rear? Is
Speaker 6: That the rear is on Linson road, which I had listed as 12 feet. Sorry, I had listed as a requirement for 25 feet. It's currently seven and a half and our proposed is 14. Okay. Speaker 1: So which one is the Speaker 6: Be improving? Speaker 1: Which one is the one that's not fronting on a street? Speaker 6: That is on the border road? So that's currently 53.1 feet. And we are not changing, Speaker 1: You have four lot lines. One of them doesn't touch a street. Oh Speaker 6: Yes, that's the 3.8 feet. Speaker 1: Okay. That Speaker 6: We're proposing to be the extension there would be 5.5 feet north. Speaker 1: Okay. So I think that should be 12.
So when you're on a, on a corner lot, I know under the bylaws you have two front yard setbacks, which in your case would be 30 feet on those two sides. Okay. And then the other two would be a side yard. So in your case it'd be 12. Okay. So I think your case is weird. It's got three streets. So I think you're stuck with three front yards. Okay. At 30 and one side yard at 12. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 1: But I don't think that changes much of anything. I just wanted to, Speaker 6: I appreciate that. Thank you. I Speaker 1: Dunno, state that for the record. Speaker 6: No, it's, it's good to know. Speaker 1: Waste a little more time tonight. Speaker 7: So the front Speaker 11: Yard setback is 30,
the side west setback is RD side East setback is 12, rear side back is 25. Speaker 1: No, I don't think there is. There's no 25. They don't have a rear yard. They have a side yard. Yeah. And so let's run down the list. 20,000 required 8500, 80 for lot area. You're also deficient in lot frontage. 120 required a hundred existing. Lot depth is deficient by a couple of feet. Front yard setback, they're all front yard setbacks. But 30 18.8, existing 18.8 proposed
30 53 0.1 existing 53.1 proposed rear 37 and a half existing 14 proposed. And the last one is a side yard at 12 required 3.8, existing 3.8 with the addition to be 5.5 from that side, building height will match existing. Speaker 6: So that was one that I wasn't able to measure and I didn't have the elevation drawings when I originally submitted. We have the elevations now that are in there. They had measured 24 6 from the top of the foundation. The elevations are different as you're, you guys talked about measuring from the center of street.
So on either side I don't have that measurement. I'm confident that that measurement is Speaker 7: 30 existing. Wow. We don't have any, these are the plans I'm looking at. Speaker 6: Oh no, I was told those weren't sufficient and I improved them. Speaker 7: Okay. Alright, good. So Speaker 6: Those are the la, the last attachment that was added, I couldn't, I couldn't replace the one that was there, so I had to add a new one. Ah, Speaker 7: Perfect. Speaker 1: Do you have the plot plan Speaker 7: Or Elian drawings? I had the, Speaker 1: Do you have a plot plan too? Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, I had that. I was just looking at the, there we go. There we go. To be fair. The hand drawn ones are much better than I could have ever done.
Speaker 6: I appreciate that. Speaker 7: For adjust, sort of like, lemme go back to last. Speaker 1: So your building height we were looking at? Speaker 6: Yes. The elevation on the architectural drawing is 24 6 from the top of the foundation. Speaker 1: And the foundation shows to be about two feet. So that'd be 26 6 from the ground, Speaker 6: Correct. Two Speaker 7: Feet feels like a lot, but Speaker 1: 24 6. Okay. And is it a fairly level lot or is it slopey? Speaker 6: Slopey. So the, it's, it's slopey on the west side,
the Arlington roadside. We walk down to the garage and then on the Grove Road on the east side it is, it's higher, Speaker 1: But it would be the streets here anyhow, right? Yeah. Speaker 7: Streets right. Like a, like a corner. Speaker 1: I don't know. Think it's only, I think says when it but's on more than one street probably. I think it says, does it say, does it say two or two or more? Speaker 6: The opportunity to make your own law, Speaker 1: But it's a pretty short, Speaker 7: Yeah, Speaker 1: A pretty short, Speaker 7: Regardless. What, what's the height? Speaker 1: 20 20 24. Speaker 6: Six. Speaker 7: Six. Sorry, what's the max that you 35. I'm not gonna get there. I'm Speaker 1: Not gonna get there. I'm not too worried about it.
Speaker 7: I'm not either. Speaker 1: We might forego requiring a more precise height calculation due to the, what's he have on the table? 10 foot variance. Speaker 7: Yeah, I I would Speaker 1: They just put 35. 35 Speaker 7: For the height. Should we ask if there's anybody here to talk about it? Yeah. Speaker 1: Is there anyone here to talk about it? We're on we at Grove 53. Grove 53? Speaker 7: Yep. Speaker 1: Nope. Okay. Doesn't sound like your neighborhood's too upset about it. Or they'd be here tonight. Right? Have you talked to any of the neighbors about the project?
Speaker 6: Yes, we've talked to a few neighbors. I've had some actually flag me down in the street, like on my way to work, saying that they're excited about the work and that we're a good part of the neighborhood so we, without all resounding support. Speaker 1: Okay, Speaker 7: So question though. So those elevations look great. The 3D model looks good then though. Floor plans is the floor plan then the part of that sketch. So Speaker 6: The floor plan would be more accurate to the sketch. I didn't include the floor plan from the architect because it was just a, they gave us a draft
and I was like, this is not even close to what we'd want to do. Speaker 7: You gotta see the floor plan. Speaker 6: I Speaker 7: You gotta have a drafted floor plan. Speaker 1: We what? Speaker 7: We, we need to have a drafted floor plan. I think What for, Speaker 1: For what Speaker 7: Typically what we, what we need? Yeah. Speaker 1: Inside. We don't get involved on the interior though, do we? We talk about structure and size and height and length and width of the building, but I don't care if there's four bedrooms or three. What, what, what information would be on the floor plan that could cause you to decide it's more sub, substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood?
Speaker 7: Beyond precedent or beyond? I mean do we, it's a scaled site plan. I'm trying to argue for you guys and trying to argue for you, but at the same time I'd, I want to be say what you want me to say consistent to other folks that I would think if the architect, if, if you have the floor plans, it's just a question of them. It's just a question of them making some, you editing them and say, Hey Susan, update these. You know, I would need to see those. I can't, I can't vote for it without seeing those. I think you, you've, you're so close
that I just don't think it's confused, fair and equitable to other folks who turn them in. So Speaker 11: For example, this evening we've been very insistent upon wanting to see actual real floor plans from people who are coming Speaker 7: To inside. Speaker 6: I've heard that in reference to garages that are monstrous and I think the inside of the home, which I can provide today, if you wanna like pick us to the end, I can provide that. No problem. But to your point, I don't think that it is. Speaker 28: I think the argument that we were making earlier, and I was just to make sure of their case for this, is that we're asking for architectural plans
because we're talking about the massing of the structure, the garage, the bedroom above it. It gives us a sense of like how this is gonna fit on the lot itself. The inside of what was happening in there was not of particular concern to us. It was simply massing of the size. So if we have the actual, you know we have the 3D renderings of how it looks. We have the site plan here that tells us exactly what it's gonna fit's case for that is that we say we Speaker 7: Going that here's a question for the whole group and maybe peg this is put you in the spotlight, but so what are bare minimum like in the application, and frankly I should know this, right, looking at the zb,
you know the, is there somewhere that states exactly what people need to bring in front of us? Maybe not Speaker 8: In the application process. It's a site plan. The architecturals and the zoning checklist. Speaker 7: Okay, so the architecturals, do they expand on that? No, Speaker 14: We had set in the past certainly floor plans. Elevations. Yeah. Speaker 7: Typically Speaker 14: Floor plans. Can we call those the handwritten ones that are part of the packet floor plans? Speaker 7: Should I'll, I'll, yeah, so I'll defer all Speaker 6: I have, I have called multiple times to ensure that I had the right documents
and I was told the elevations were not correct. So I made sure I got the elevations. So I'm with complying as much Andrew as you can. Speaker 14: You're okay with which I'm on, I'm this one. I think we need, Speaker 34: I guess I'm just questioning what, what the like placement of a closet inside will do to change the, and Speaker 7: That's how detrimental trying to structure is. I'm trying argue you guys of like what you need to know, number of bathrooms, et cetera. You do say bath, it's there is a bath, there is a, you know, so Speaker 6: We're not claiming to be removing 14% of something and not changing anything.
It's, Speaker 34: I can't, I I just thought we were talking about the, the how it looks from the outside. The structure should both, which I don't really Speaker 7: Understand that they're gonna win, they're gonna win three to two but Speaker 14: So we just need three. I propose a motion that we approve the project Grove 53 Grove 53 Grove provided that it is built in conformance with the plan submitted that it is not detrimental to the neighborhood and that it complies with the letters of the town departments. Speaker 1: Yes. Second, Speaker 14: Second,
Speaker 1: Andy. All in favor? 1, 2, 3. All opposed. 1, 2, 3 to two. You got it. Thank you. Good Speaker 4: Luck. Appreciate it. Thank you. Speaker 14: Second it and then not vote for it. I had to, I couldn't, I couldn't. You second it. That's the Speaker 1: Magic of Speaker 14: Robert that he wasn't supposed to. I actually asked David the last question. Speaker 1: Everett 1 22 Everett, what do we have? Three left. 1 22 Everett who's here for 1 22. Catherine and Brett Kelly for a finding Pastor loss section six and Nate zoning bylaw proposing to raise the existing
and construct a new garage on the pre-existing non-conforming lot as shown Speaker 4: A evening. Mike Collins for Kate and Brett Kelly I have at your pleasure some additional Speaker 21: Documents that I submitted earlier today. May Speaker 14: Thank you. Thank Speaker 21: You. Speaker 4: The application is a section six finding for the demolition and rebuild of the garage, which in all accuracy there is no demolition required.
You can see from the photograph the fire took care of the demolition. The garage no longer exists. Client is eager to to keep this project moving forward. So they are back in their home what the fire did not destroy. Smoke and water did. So the rest of the house is going to be gutted. The garage that's proposed to be replaced is pre-existing non-conforming and we are extending the, the, the length of the garage but not making that non-conforming any worse. We're working off of pre-existing corner
that is non-conforming, which is 29 and a half feet or so off the property line. It's a 40 foot setback. The package that I just submitted has some photographs of that as well as a, a little more illustrative plot plan that we developed just to, so I tell the picture a little more clearly than the the engineer's plot plan. That covers it pretty quick since it's running late and Speaker 7: I thank you. Don't need to drag this on. Thank Speaker 1: You. Awesome. It looks like the only non-conformity
is the front yard setback. Correct? Required 40 and existing 29 8. Proposed 29 8. That's the only problem you have with zoning. Correct. Speaker 14: And we have a real set of Speaker 1: Plans. Speaker 7: Yeah, that's a nice beautiful drawing. It's no, no floor plan. Floor plan. It's a two car garage, right? Two car garage. Two car garage. Okay. I one I believe so. I believe four times were submitted. Yeah, Speaker 14: I have there. Speaker 7: Check. Speaker 1: Thanks. Anyone care
to make a motion or ask questions? Anyone from the audience that wanted to speak? Vote 1 22 Everett. Seeing none, Speaker 14: I propose that we approve the project at 1 22 Everett and that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming structure and that it is built in conformance with the plan submitted and all the letters from the town boards Speaker 7: Second. Speaker 1: Nice. All in favor? Aye. Five zero. Speaker 7: You got it. Good luck. Thank you. Welcome night. Thanks. Speaker 14: You have to stay. You have to stay I think.
Speaker 7: Do you want any of the handouts back? Nope. Speaker 1: 85 cottage you're up Miles Walker for a special permit proposing to amend A ZBA decision ZB 24 70 to make a, to make two car garage functional by requesting for an additional three foot extension on the garage for a total extension of 10 foot front existing garage footprints. Previous decision granted a seven foot extension side setback direction of addition there is over 200 feet to the lot line as shown on the plan submitted. Okay, we're,
Speaker 35: So back in February you approved a a seven foot extension towards countryside and I have, you know, 200 plus feet to that setback, but it's an existing non-conforming with the front setback. The front setback is not being made any worse. It tapers back a little bit, but I'm asking for three more feet to that. Seven feet that you approved previously in February. Speaker 1: Okay. Special permit. Speaker 7: And why are you requesting it? To make it more functional Speaker 35: Or, yeah, the, the way the Garage Foundation set the,
the DR existing driveway didn't align with the garage bay so I'd be kind of backing in and then swooping to get parked. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 35: So now this brings the, the garage outside of the driveway so you can back straight in the garage bay. Speaker 1: Was this a section six finding you remember PEG or was it a special permit? I'm not sure why they're calling it a special permit. Speaker 9: We're modifying the existing decision. Speaker 1: The section six finding, Speaker 35: Right? Yes. Section section six. Speaker 1: Yes. Not a special permit. Speaker 35: No, but I was told to put it as a special permit to modify.
Speaker 14: This one's a special permit to modify Speaker 35: Section six. Speaker 1: Yeah, Speaker 9: I don't think that's how it works. Speaker 14: No, no we're Speaker 1: Just modifying the section six. Finding special permit is a defined term in the zoning bylaws that reserve certain projects and approvals for a special permit. Okay. I don't think this is that this Speaker 9: Is a Speaker 14: Modification I've been since section six modification finding. Speaker 9: Yeah, Speaker 1: A lot of towns and some people get confused that section six findings are special permits and some towns have actually voted to make their section six finding process a special permit process.
But we have not done that here, Speaker 14: So, okay. Speaker 1: As far as I know, it's not a special permit, just a modification to a finding. Speaker 35: Okay. Speaker 1: And so the only thing that's changed is the extra three feet. Speaker 35: The width? Yeah, Speaker 1: The width. Otherwise the height's the same. Yes. The depth of the garage. Speaker 35: Correct. Speaker 1: Same. Same. Speaker 35: Oh, I shouldn't say that. They, so conservation wouldn't allow me to, you'll see off the back. They wouldn't let me fill in the rear of the yard. So there's a four foot deck with steps off the rear. It's still within the rear setback, but that is in addition to the plans Speaker 14: Instead of bringing the grate up?
Speaker 35: Yeah. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 1: So that's like behind the garage. Correct. And you extended the deck to be behind the garage? Yes. Speaker 35: Okay. Speaker 1: Has con com approved it yet or are they waiting for us? They've Speaker 35: Approved it. They have, Speaker 1: Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to speak about 85 Cottage Street tonight? No. Thank Speaker 9: You. I may Speaker 1: Question. Speaker 14: Yeah, no, I have no questions. Yeah, I make a motion that we approve the project at 85. Let's see, Speaker 1: I think we're approving a modification to our earlier decision. Okay. That's all Speaker 14: To amend.
Yep. To amend, make a motion that we amend our previous decision at 85 Cottage Street to reflect the currently submitted plans and all of the letters from the town departments. Speaker 1: Lemme just summarize the change that's proposed. The change is to extend, to add another three feet to the garage that we previously approved for only seven feet. Speaker 35: Correct. Speaker 1: Just to clarify, car garage. Speaker 35: It's a two car garage. It's one. Oh, sorry. I was, I missed that. I missed that earlier. I was outside. Speaker 1: So as modified your motion? Yes. Is there a second?
Second. All right. All those in favor? Five zero. Speaker 35: Thank Speaker 1: You. Good luck. Thanks. We gotta let Ari make a motion. You prepared for this? You wrote it out and everything. You really, he's up. No, it's okay. I'm fine. It's not a big deal. Come on. I want, I want next. It's almost 10 o'clock. I think it's time. A little bit of work. I think it's time. Where are we at the end of the list? Yeah. 21. Yep. 21. Bradford Bradford 21 Bradford Tom Timco for a finding under master General Law. 48. Section six and na zoning bylaws. Applicant proposing to raise the existing single family dwelling and instruct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting
non lock as shown. Welcome. Thanks for staying up late. Speaker 36: Thank you for doing this. It's not my latest, which is sad to Speaker 1: Say. We will be outta here by 10 0 5. How's that? Speaker 36: I hope so. Speaker 1: Well tell us what you got, what you want. Alright. Speaker 36: 21 Bradford Street. Bradford Road. I'm sorry. First off, I'm Tom Timmco, copper Beach Design. I am the architect for my client's here and they have purchased 21 Bradford recently. They are neighbors to that currently.
They live around the corner and have a growing family soon to be bigger and are looking, they're determined that their existing house isn't going to work to expand when Bradford became available. They're looking to tear that down, effectively rebuild on the existing slab existing footprint. And the, at the front of the house, the, the footprint would be extended at the rear and at the, and on the left side. On the rear about 10 feet rearwards and eight feet sideways. The, the reason we are here is
because of the existing nonconformities of lot size frontage. The standard ones there and then the existing front setback is non-conforming. It's 20, it's 29.3 feet currently. We are not going to change that. We're gonna use that same garage footprint and everything else will be conforming. The one thing we've done to take care is to keep that the massing on the front fairly low. Where the, the house will be bigger obviously, but the larger portion will be at the, at towards the center
of the lot with the garage staying in the same position that it is. Also, that will be, it will have a second story over it, which it does not now. And, and that's pretty much it in terms of what we're, what we're looking to, to do. Speaker 14: Okay. Let's, Speaker 1: I thought the elevation was a, to me a little bit misleading or just wasn't obvious to me where the garage was, but I figured out it's in front of the front door. Speaker 36: Yes. It's a, it's a, it's a side entry garage Yeah. To the, in the front.
Speaker 1: But just the way the perspective is, everything's the same size. It looks like it's on the same plane. Yeah, it's, it doesn't look like it's 24 feet closer to me Speaker 14: Because we only have the one front elevation. Right? Yeah, yeah. We don't have any side elevations. Right, Speaker 1: Exactly. No side or rear elevations. That would be something we should request. Speaker 14: I think we do. Speaker 1: I don't care so much about a floor plan, but all the elevations I think are important. Viewing it from the other owners, Speaker 36: It, it's always helpful to us if we know exactly what we're supposed to present. Speaker 1: Is that list not complete on our website? Giving them instructions what they need to submit. Speaker 14: Any zoning board I've ever been in front is
always all the elevations. Floor plan, floor plan, site plan. I mean that's not anything. Yeah. Unique. Speaker 11: One question please. Are there any other two bedroom, excuse me, two level houses in the neighborhood? Speaker 36: As you know, that neighborhood is transforming rapidly, Speaker 11: So I'm only seeing sinks. Speaker 36: I I can't give you exact addresses, but there have been, there's been a lot of construction. There are a lot of tear downs both on Bradford, then around the corner on Westlake as well. Speaker 37: I'm sorry sir, could you repeat the question one more time? Speaker 11: I'm just wondering if there's any other like two stories nearby.
Speaker 37: There's one right across the street, 22 Bradford that was just constructed. So right across from us Speaker 1: Guys. Speaker 37: Okay. Speaker 1: But at the top of the hill you've got some big ones. Speaker 37: We've had a couple on Bradford. Yeah. And then there's on Liberty Street that was being talked about earlier. So that's a kitty corner away from us. Speaker 14: Is this in Weathersfield? Speaker 37: This is Weathersfield, right. So there's, there's probably one every 10 houses Speaker 1: We get two a month. Speaker 36: Yeah, I know we Speaker 37: Probably talked about four today. Speaker 36: I mean on the other side by Westlake there's at least four or five fairly close. Okay. Speaker 14: That are frankly more
problematic than this design. What I can, I would ones for sure. Yeah. And more awkward when that, when that, when that single ranch goes up, two stories just square the extrusion. Speaker 7: Yeah, it's brutal. Speaker 37: We, we've chose to reuse the existing footprint, so it's not a rectangular lot. It's an L-shaped lot and we've, all we've done is we've just squared the stagger at the back. So we're just taking the mask up that's existing right now. And like Tom said on the front, the garage is only going up one floor and the back rectangle is going up two and a half floors to create the attic space.
Speaker 7: So Yeah. What what's going on at the attic and it's hard again, not having the elevations. So is it a dormer a shed dormer for part Speaker 36: Of it? There's, there's a, there's a shed dormer 50% shed dormer on the rear. Speaker 7: It's not set back from the, you know, thread on the bearing wall. Speaker 1: Are there any Speaker 14: Oh, so the back goes straight Speaker 7: Up three stories back goes three stories, right? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. That, that's, that caught my attention today when I looked at it. 'cause the zoning allows 35 feet or a two and a half story building, not a three story building. Speaker 36: Correct. Yeah.
Speaker 1: This to me looks like a three story building. Speaker 36: Well it has, it's two and a half. It's it's 50% of the second floor. Speaker 1: Okay. There's the calculation. Yeah. Even with the straight up in the back. Yeah, Speaker 14: Well he comes in, he doesn't go wall like gable Speaker 36: To gable. It's not wall wall, it's only 50% of the length. The total. So so it was calculated to be below that 50% level? Yeah. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Speaker 7: Alright. Yep. Just for that portion. Let's see. Speaker 1: It's, it's fi it's really only 50% of the upstairs That's habitable. Speaker 36: That's the rule. Speaker 1: Just looks half, it looks like it's three quarters of it from the plan.
Speaker 7: Well sort like to, to seven feet. So they're losing so much it's Yeah, they're losing so much by the, it's Speaker 36: It's based on this the five foot seven foot calculation. Yeah. So, so that five foot, so your five foot area has to be 50%. Your five foot and above area has to be 50% of the second floor or less Speaker 1: Or lower. Okay. Yeah. And you've got that. Okay. Speaker 14: But that back dormer goes, goes the full length of the building? No, Speaker 36: No, it goes, it just goes this part right here it goes roughly 50% of the building. Okay. Speaker 14: Not, and not centered Speaker 7: To 23
Speaker 36: Feet. It's not centered. Yeah. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Speaker 7: Yeah. So we stickers and, Speaker 1: And I guess you don't count the HVAC area as habitable? Speaker 36: No, because it, it is lower than five feet. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 14: You'd count whether or not it's finished. You'd count anything above seven feet, I mean Speaker 36: Oh five, anything above five feet. Okay. Anything above five feet is counted. Speaker 14: Okay. Whether it's mechanical or Speaker 36: Whether it's mechanical or not, it doesn't really matter whether it's finished or not. It doesn't matter. Okay. If if it's footprint. It's footprint. Speaker 1: If you tell me it complies, I I believe you looks, Speaker 36: They won't let us build it if it doesn't. Exactly. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 1: I already asked if there's anybody in
the audience 21 Bradford. But yes. Last but not least, you stuck it out to the end. Good. Speaker 7: Good Speaker 29: Morning. I'm a good neighbor. My name is Jim Cody, 14 Bradford Road. So across the street you approved 22 Bradford Road last year, which is a similar type of design. Is this, it's an L-shaped ranch. And given that there's another two story L-shaped ranch, just two houses away, that was done several years ago. This is gonna fit into the neighborhood, it's gonna fit into the lot. The neighbors, they've all gone to bed. Speaker 36: Many of them were here earlier. Speaker 29: We were all here if given the okay on this
because it, it fits the lot. Well and it's a nice design. So I have no objections and I think it should be approved. Appreciate you. Although I would, I would mention it would be nice to see the elevations since we've said that to about everything going on. We should actually yeah. Play that. But I have no objections to this at all. Thank you. Best luck. Speaker 7: Thanks. Speaker 36: Point taken on the elevations. Speaker 1: Appreciate you hanging out until the end too. Speaker 7: Questions, comments? Yeah. What's, what's the pitch on the main roof? Speaker 36: It, it's drawn right now. The 12th pitch.
We're thinking about dropping that down just 'cause we don't want it to feel too massive. Speaker 7: Yeah. Okay. And so, 'cause right now you're at 46, sorry. 34 6 33, 4 6. Speaker 36: Yeah. Just, Speaker 7: Just below the height. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 1: It does seem tall to me, but we didn't hear any objection from the Speaker 7: Neighborhood. I know. So in fact we have support from the neighborhood. Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 7: Yep. Speaker 36: It's like I said, we, we've been, we were actually just discussing this earlier that we felt it might feel a little too tall anyway, so, Speaker 1: So you might actually lower the pitch. Yeah, Speaker 7: It looks kind of tall. Okay. Speaker 1: We could probably, if we choose to approve it,
condition it on not being any higher than this. See, Speaker 7: But it could be lower for the Yeah. For the clients in the architect, their discretion Speaker 1: Or we require them, you know, I guess it's up to the building commissioner if he thinks the change is substantial enough, he'll send it back to us anyway. Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah. But Speaker 1: I, I think I would encourage you to lower the height. So I, I would support that Speaker 7: We would lower the height. Yeah. Done. Okay. A motion. I Oh, okay. He even wrote it up. That's great. That's smart.
Speaker 28: I would move that we approve the project 21 Bradford Road pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40 a section six and then zoning and bylaws section four B and five A based on the finding that the proposed dwelling is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the pre-existing non-conforming structure or use and subject to substantial conformance to the plan submitted and approval from all town Speaker 7: Departments. Second. Is there a second? All right. All in favor? Aye. Five zero. Thank you. Thank you very much and we'll have more elevations next time.
Mr. Chairman, I move three more. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the minutes of April 28th. Is there a second for that? Motion to approve the minutes? All the question. I think Andy was first. All in favor? I vote Mr. Chairman move du turn second. He moved to adjourn. Move to adjourn. I second that. Done.