WEBVTT
METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/994DtmGEsi0VDYK3jJI2BJ72GfgNIpU2/media/1031673?showtabssearch=true&fullscreen=false
Part: 1
1
00:00:09.885 --> 00:00:44.815
Welcome everybody. Before we get started, we have Congress. There we go. We're on Zoom. Yeah. Before we get going, we have an public speak section of the evening where any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda. It will be taken under advisement by the board. There will be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. This section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes and any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. Does anyone have anything that they'd like to discuss that's not on the agenda tonight? Okay, see, I do, oh yeah, go ahead.
2
00:00:48.515 --> 00:01:22.855
So this is not to do with any specific application, but we sometimes are asked by members of the public residents of Natick what our DEC decision criteria are for making these decisions. Because of course any case that comes before this board recording In progress, Any decision that comes application that comes before this board is by definition an application which is asking to be allowed to do something which isn't allowed under our law. That by definition that's why it's a board of appeals. We're appealing the laws.
3
00:01:23.675 --> 00:02:01.255
So I was looking at some other parts of the bylaws and I came across the site plan review standards. And even though this isn't specifically for the zoning board of peels, it does give us some values. It give us, it gives us some, yeah. Values that are put in words in a way that we can understand what, what we care about and what the town is trying to preserve, what the town is trying to allow. And I just thought I'd read a couple, just a couple sections of these, especially 'cause I only have five minutes.
4
00:02:02.635 --> 00:02:40.415
The first section A is preservation of landscape. Landscape shall be preserved in its natural state insofar as practical by minimizing tree and soil removal. And any grade changes shall be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed area where tree coverage does not exist or has been removed. New planting may be required. Finished site contours of the land, in other words, shall depart only minimally from the character of the natural site and surrounding properties.
5
00:02:41.365 --> 00:03:19.685
Next section is about commercial areas. So I'll skip that. Relation of buildings to ironment proposed development shall be related harmoniously to the terrain and to the use scale and sighting of existing buildings in vicinity that have functional or visual relationship to the proposed buildings. All buildings and other structures shall be cited to minimize disruption of the topography. Strict attention shall be given to proper functional visual and spatial relationship of all structures,
6
00:03:20.195 --> 00:03:59.085
landscape elements, and paved areas. There's more, but I don't wanna take up a whole five minutes. We've all got stuff to do, but I just thought since I'm frequently asked about this, how do we decide what are our values? This is part of our, this is part of our rules and regulations in Natick. So the hope, you, hope this helps. Thank you. Okay. The matter of seven Upland Terrace has been withdraw, has a request, has been submitted
7
00:03:59.085 --> 00:04:33.125
to withdraw that without prejudice. So if you're here on Seven Upland, that's not gonna be heard tonight, thankfully it's number one on the list. But in any case, why don't we have a motion to with accept the withdrawal without prejudice. I move That we accept the withdrawal of the application for seven Upland without Prejudice. Second, all second is Jeff. And so all those in favor? Alright, that's withdrawing seven. Upland is withdrawn. The next matter up is one 50 Woodland Street. This is a continued hearing for Silva Development. It's request for section six, finding
8
00:04:34.025 --> 00:05:09.885
for the demolition of an existing one. Family dwelling in construction, a new one, family dwelling on a preexisting nonconforming line. Hello there. Okay. One 50 Woodland. So why don't you tell us what's different? Sure. Between, we did submit to the portal, two plans, three plans, one in particular shows the four new, the four iterations of the plan so far since the beginning. Yeah. And the other is the, the zoning table site plan. But the, the one I suppose you were looking to be explain more as the most recent version.
9
00:05:10.435 --> 00:06:08.925
Just briefly. As you can see, we've reduced the, the square footage and the height while still moving the house more in line with the setback requirements that we had had before. So, and I believe there was some outreach to the neighbors. I'm not sure if it's all the way, but it is from the original one. We are down about a thousand square feet on the inside and about five feet plus shorter in height. Okay. Let's see. I am just quickly, I mean as, as we've gone through it tho, those have been the issues that seem
10
00:06:08.925 --> 00:06:45.605
to be raised most frequent. The design of the house, the board had at one of the meetings indicated they didn't, they liked the design of the house, the look of it, just the size of it was not all the board members, but some of the board members. So it really is a amassing issue that, that we've been addressing. Yeah, I mean I think that was pretty clear. So let's just go right to the, to to the neighbors and see what they think of what, what you've done here and, and whether that has ameliorated their concerns. So anybody wish to be heard on one 50 Woodland Street? Sure. Come on up. Just give us your name and address.
11
00:06:47.075 --> 00:07:27.595
Okay, so Amanda looks like it's one, two, oh is it already here? It's if you see the, yeah, right in there. It should be on the, kinda like the side of the, each one of 'em. Yeah. Let's see. Okay. Andy, Jason, David. It's Ari and Gail. But Jeff you've been here, right? Yeah. Alright, I'm sorry, can you repeat who's Voting? Yep. Yeah, it's Andy, Jason, me. It was Ari but Ari's not here. So Jeff will sit in, he's been here for the hearings. And you Okay.
12
00:07:28.945 --> 00:08:04.885
Hi. Just your name and address for the record if you would Hold on Woodland to the operating February. I'm sorry, hold on one second, I apologize. Go ahead. January or February one of those ones. I was not here. This has been Going on. Yeah, for which, okay. I, this is essentially a, it's a new proposal in effect, right? I mean we're looking at this thing from scratch. No, no. Good. So we're down to four I. So on the agenda, this one has been heard on Since March. March 23rd, April 27th, May 18th
13
00:08:05.265 --> 00:08:45.225
and today there was no continuous, It was there. Okay. Alright. So he's out. I think so, yeah. Okay. So you only got four tonight. Okay. Alright. Sorry, go ahead. Okay, again, Phil Miller, I live at one 50, I mean 1 48 Woodland next to one 50. And I've been here, I think this is my third time. It's gonna be fourth today. So we did meet with Michael. Microphone is, if you push the button on the microphone, sorry about that light. It is green. Hello? No,
14
00:08:45.765 --> 00:09:40.285
I can, I can hear him. The world needs to hear him Peter. I think They can The entire, He was about to say something. Are we good? Do you want come here, Take a man. Sorry. Right, you're Chopped liver. You Amanda. It's okay much. Alright, let's, Alright, moving forward. So we met with Michael about three weeks ago, four weeks ago, to finally I myself, my wife Malhi, Molly and Andrew and there was some other neighbors there as well
15
00:09:41.065 --> 00:10:17.685
to kinda walk through the site, talk about what our concerns were, pointed out some things on the property that we were concerned, especially around the trees. But we kept coming back to, you know, the big thing was that the house was too big at the time and still was too big when they came that last time. So I, we do appreciate that they've reduced the size again by another, I guess 300 square feet from the last proposal, which was 39 just for the living area. And they're staying with the two car garage and they recentered it on the lot, which appears
16
00:10:17.685 --> 00:10:54.605
to be much better because they pulled it back from the mul house a little bit. I think that was when you reduced the square footage that did that. Some concerns about, from my standpoint is the water. We talked about that. I don't know what you'll end up with a cultech or something that would pull that away, but hopefully you'll have some of that information to share on the whole, we'd like to design of the house. It looks like it would fit in. It's still a little bit bigger than we'd like, you know, something around 3000 square feet seemed
17
00:10:54.605 --> 00:11:43.445
to be more something that would fit. But we appreciate the efforts they have taken to reduce it from the original almost 5,000 square feet for that small 16,000 square foot lot. The other neighbors contacted me and said roughly they felt the same thing. They had a good, we felt we had a productive conversation. Wish we would've had that three, four months ago. We probably wouldn't be here today. And we had this resolved. So. Okay. Thanks very much. Okay. Anybody else wish to be heard? Alright, come on up. Is this the one? Hi there.
18
00:11:43.445 --> 00:12:22.245
Your name and address for the record. Shirley Tamai Miller. 1 48 Woodland Street. Yeah, we like the, the house looks real pretty. Just wanted to give you a little history. We've been at this home here that we're at for 26 years. Lots of development around us with that. We needed to put in a a fence because we were a lot of speeding. That was fine when they were doing the building across the way and with other buildings building around us, our lawn has gotten eaten up by trucks there. And when I brought that up one time to a developer there kind of laughed at me
19
00:12:22.305 --> 00:12:57.965
and just drove on out. So hopefully, I don't know where the trucks and things we parked, but we have had accidents and we had a near miss just the other day. So I'm just concerned about where the vehicles will be parked when you're gonna do any of the construction. Again, the homes around us just to the right of us was recently gutted, but it fits in with the neighborhood. The one behind us was gutted fits in the neighborhood, the mahi home. They had some stuff done to it. All these homes have, they're not really big,
20
00:12:58.075 --> 00:13:44.165
they don't take a lot of space there and it just fits in within our neighborhood. So just to keep that in mind. Thank you. Okay, thanks very much. Anybody else just to be heard. Okay. Alright. Any questions from the board? I have a question. Sure. Am I missing something or are we, do we still not have the dimensions for the basement in the latest version of the pot plants? I, I confessed I had right On the face of plant. Which one? The, well you talking about the architectural footprint of the basement, Are you talking about The cross section showing I,
21
00:13:44.225 --> 00:14:20.205
that's what I wanted to clarify. Yeah, yeah, there's a couple there, right? You're right. Well right now I'm asking for the usable square footage in the basement. 'cause you know, it's big enough that there's, it's not gonna just be mechanicals. I didn't find the dimensions for square footage. Well the basement square footage will be the same as the first wash square footage. It is. Minus the garage. Minus the garage. Right. Got that. Yeah, I mean, and then, so it's not Stairwells and Yeah, Where the heaters are. Right, the mechanicals. So is it over a thousand square feet of usable space?
22
00:14:24.595 --> 00:15:02.645
Yeah, the first floor Is 12. I I, I don't know if I could do the garage in my head, but the garage Is Just wanna point out, I've asked for this every month. You guys are getting here and I keep on getting the First floor living. What Make is the first floor living is 1700 square feet. So if we reduce the garage right dimensions, I'd say it's probably about a thousand. Thereabouts. Well, the 24 by 26 puts it, this is a little over 600, 700 square feet. Yeah. So 17. Oh sorry. I should have been a mathematician. Okay. And has there been any change in the grading
23
00:15:02.755 --> 00:15:38.725
elevation since last month? The, the finished grade in comparison with the existing grade? Yes, there's a, there is a, what we've done is taken the grade around the body of the house and we've left a little more of the concrete exposed to make it so that the ground doesn't slope as much towards the neighbor. We've lost, well I'm just trying to Yeah, yeah. To the, so like for example at the front door,
24
00:15:39.665 --> 00:16:19.285
the grade there last rendition was a little over 2 0 5 and now it's a little over 2 0 4. So if you look at, if you look at this particular one. Yeah, that was the one. This is our current, I tried to print that out. I couldn't get to work on my printer. You want on C size? I got This one if you want it, but Yeah, that's okay. I'll just take your word. Want You the one that you'll be able to read. Thank You. Yeah, instead of the, My glasses. I mean it's nice having the comparison, although even ultimately we're really just comparing with the existing and what you're proposing tonight. But it is useful to have those additional,
25
00:16:20.345 --> 00:17:05.005
the previous iterations. Okay, so lower, lower right, lower right is the most recent. Yep. Yep. 18. So top of concrete came down a foot. Did the ridge come down a foot? The ridge came down a, well the top of concrete didn't come down a total a whole foot. The top concrete concrete came down, I believe it was, Well I Do see six inches in the last rendition. I do see TTOC 2 0 7 2 0 7 2 0 7. Now it's 2 0 6 I think. What happened is the last one it was 2 0 6 5 and there was a typo in this. So are you talking about the ridge height? Building height? Yeah. Yeah. So last,
26
00:17:05.315 --> 00:17:40.485
Yeah, so if, if top of concrete dropped then the ridge would drop, The ridge would go with it. And then good. We had also a reduction of the lumber proposed. So we had a twofold reduction on the height, which is why we went from, So the floor to floor changed a little bit to make it, I believe it was, there was actually a variety of alterations on this. I believe it was mainly in the second floor slash pitch of the roof. Look at the, you know, the elevation view. The way that that was implied.
27
00:17:41.625 --> 00:18:15.715
And what that did was allowed us to go from, because our, our existing average grade plane really didn't change, which is what the height is measured from. So our ultimate peak is now down to only 29.5 feet above that same call it zero our, our hard deck the last go round. It was 31 in the chart. Yeah, it was 29.5. That's what I'm, okay. So it's come down a foot and a half ish. Okay.
28
00:18:21.825 --> 00:18:57.885
Any other questions here? I'll just make one comment. You know, in looking at this, this document and seeing the sort of incremental change to from here through this to here, we're not gonna do this anymore. I mean I'm not blaming you, it's a test. It was a, it's meant to be illustrative. We're gonna give you a shot from going from something that's essentially unpalatable unacceptable to the board, to something that either is or is not. And we're not gonna keep coming back and just chipping away until we reach a point
29
00:18:58.185 --> 00:19:33.085
that's acceptable to everybody. Because I mean, as the neighbors have said, this is their fourth meeting, it's also our fourth meeting on this project. I think we're there, but at least, at least for me, I think we're there. But it's just, you know, pulling teeth to get here is, is not gonna, it's not gonna work on a go forward basis. So they can lead with this. Right. Well you might as well take a bite I guess at the outset. Nobody shows up. Nobody shows up. So here we are. And I Does anyone have any, any other questions
30
00:19:33.505 --> 00:20:10.045
before we close the public hearing? They don't see any. Okay, good. Thanks. I was just wondering if they are proposing a stormwater infiltration system. Sure, Yeah. Hello Alec Chong, Chong Engineering, I'll be the project engineer. So Natick has a pretty extensive stormwater bylaw. It kind of follows a mass state stormwater bylaw. So when it comes time for permitting, we, we will be designing this to withstand a hundred year storm event. Under current conditions there is no stormwater mitigation on site. So all of the impervious area will be collected and mitigated. And the sheet flow that will be occurring is just from the lawn area. So the overall peak rates, peak rates, we'll see a drastic
31
00:20:10.925 --> 00:20:44.645
decrease from pre to post. Good. How Did you accomplish the Decrease it's going to be because it's required by your regulations in Natick. You have to follow the stormwater bylaw, the state stormwater bylaw. So you have the design for the a hundred year storm event. What Does that mean on the ground? What are you building? Oh, it's underground. Like tructure chambers and or shake alleys. Something along the lines Of I couldn't, I just couldn't find the plans that I had in the Yeah, they Haven't been developed. Yeah, that's gonna get submitted to the Board of health and for, sorry, conservation in your town for review. It looked like it was a requirement from the town engineer, but I didn't see any comments from the town board
32
00:20:44.645 --> 00:21:18.405
of Health on stormwater infiltration. But I'm glad to hear it's going in. Yeah, sorry, conservation, but yep. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Oh, I have a question about that. Now my understanding is the cultec chambers are collecting runoff from the roof surfaces. Yep. So how are you counting for possible runoff from the slopes you're creating that don't currently exist that are on Sure. Soil. So the, the overall topography still is pitching. You have like a slider pitch from like say 2 0 2 to 2 0 1. So when you go to model this in a hydro cad, you you have to model the existing conditions
33
00:21:18.405 --> 00:21:51.765
and you're taking con taken into account the, the elevations. And then when you model the proposed conditions, you still have to take into account the 2 0 4, 2 0 3, like the higher elevation, the big, the big that when you're having runoff go on a grass, it's really not that much runoff that's gonna be going into your neighbors because it's got a lower CN value. Where you have, the problem that affects the abutters is typically when you have your roof runoff that's not collected, it's going off down the downspouts onto the lawn and all that impervious area. That was once grass is not collecting anything and it's pushing it onto the abutters. So when we do our final plan, I'll probably,
34
00:21:51.765 --> 00:22:25.165
we'll be playing with a little bit of swales, we'll make sure the overall sheet flow that's coming from the grass is gonna pitch more towards the right of way rather than going to the abutters. But again, you have to follow the state standards where you have to ensure that the peak rates aren't increasing. And like I said, right now, existing conditions, there's roof runoff from the impervious surface from the pool that's not collected. All the new impervious area will be collected and you're still gonna have the grass that wasn't collected initially and you're not gonna be throwing a trench drain for the grass. But the overall rates will be far less than what was what's there now. Okay.
35
00:22:25.225 --> 00:22:57.525
Now that, that's, that's good. And how do you account for when the ground is frozen for four months out of the year and the runoff is much more significant? Sure. So we'll probably utilize like a slight swale. So right now the way it's shown on field resources plan, they kind of have a contour. It's ending at 2 0 200. We'll have like, well our design plan will show the wailing, so it's slightly above higher as it gets towards the abutters and it flows down. But again, that the, the, the grass that's gonna be there, post-construction was still there, pre-construction.
36
00:22:57.685 --> 00:23:31.005
'cause the overall slope, it's very level now but it's still, it was still sloping towards the abutters slightly. But regardless, we'll probably be putting some small s swes in there to direct it away from the abutters. But And are they indicated on this drawing because I'm didn't see them? No. 'cause that gets submitted for the con when you go to submit your engineering plan to the conservation department, the board of health in your town reviews as test bits, then your conservation department approves it. Yeah, they're the plan. Thank you. Will that be available as part of the documentation so I can get a copy of it? 'cause I'm the one that gets the most
37
00:23:31.015 --> 00:24:06.565
water that comes off that House that's gonna be submitted as part of a, an approval through another board, the Board of Health Conservation and Engineering. So you, you can take a look at that as those plans are submitted. Yeah, and I'll just add to that you wanna find out when they're on the agenda for the conservation commission. A lot of people don't realize how helpful it can be to attend the meeting when that property is under discussion can be very, very illuminating. Will we get notified? I believe you have to ask.
38
00:24:07.325 --> 00:24:45.645
I don't think you get any kind of notification about that because We get a notification about this. Right, right. Although major stormwater permit, they do get a notification from the board, don't they? This? Yeah, If it it's a major then you do get a letter from the board. If it's minor, you don't Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing and Jason, if you would, I would move that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantial more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming use and structure provided it's built and substantial conformance with the plan submitted
39
00:24:45.985 --> 00:25:22.165
and the requirements from any town departments who submitted letters to the board. David, I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Before we do that, just to summarize what the n what the neighbors did. You guys met with the neighbors, correct. You guys feel like that was overall a positive meeting? Yeah, we met with Michael and it was nice to meet with us. We're just concerned again with the water. It's like an ice skate when, when the water comes in, when the ice is over. So that was our concern. And now our yard is kind of, yard is kind of pitted down mean with the water,
40
00:25:23.265 --> 00:26:03.765
the landscape and our yard has changed because of the runoff. So that was our main concern. And, and then we had some trees. Yeah, trees Okay. To take down. So the, I know we're still talking out of turn, but so the, the reduction in height is beneficial for you guys enough? I think so. I talked with the, they felt it kitchen and the fact that they were now 31 feet away from the property line supposed to the, and that we were gonna, we walked through the trees
41
00:26:03.765 --> 00:26:40.325
that they're gonna leave on that property line too, which would give them additional privacy. Yep. Without Taking out, so Yeah, the landscaper, we had a landscaper that came by today doing some work in our yard and there are two trees that maybe Molly will talk with Andrew and Molly and maybe they can talk with her development here regarding, 'cause I think they're gonna have a lot of shade with this higher pitch roof. And we were talking, we don't know if they should take these trees out or leave the trees. Maybe they need more sunlight, maybe they'll have less shade
42
00:26:40.435 --> 00:27:22.085
with, you know, give themselves sunlight. So maybe that can be a discussion that they can have with it. Thank you. Okay, good. All right. So we will continue on with that, Jason. That's, that is my motion. Okay. It was second. Okay, I second. So It's, it's Jason, David, Andy, and Gail. Those are the only four. Can I second? I second? Okay. And all those in favor? One, two does not pass. Okay, thanks very much.
43
00:27:23.475 --> 00:28:01.925
Next matter up is 22 Laconia Road. The applicant is Za Berry and Nicholas do, I'm sorry about this Dore. The application is a request for section six finding for the construction of an addition into, I think it's supposed to say an existing one, family dwelling on a preexisting non lock into and existing into an existing, yeah. Okay. There may have been some typo there, but in any case, hi. Hi. You here on 22 Lae Road? That's correct. That's correct. Can you just identify your names for the record? SPE from 22 Laconia Road.
44
00:28:02.265 --> 00:28:44.645
And I'm Nicholas Duber from 22 Laconia Road. I was close. Okay, why don't you tell us what, what, what you're doing there. I mean we can see from the plans. Well I can see from the zoning chart that you have some essentially lot issues. The lot's small and that's where you're running into some trouble. The one thing that's not filled out on the chart is the height. Is that indicated on the plans? You've indicated at two stories, but there's no height measurement. This is just from the first floor. So we'll be adding to the existing first floor about
45
00:28:45.535 --> 00:30:20.085
eight, eight feet seat. So this, this is, okay, well let's take a look. You are you, your addition will not be higher than the existing roof, is that? No. All right. Okay. It's 10 feet, eight inches Overall time. Okay. Alright, Let's see. Okay, this, anybody have any questions on the board? This is for the record. I'll just say that the lot's small, the frontage isn't there. The depth is not there. The front yard setbacks not there. It's exer, currently nonconforming. It won't change. The rest is okay. The height is, won't exceed the existing roof ridge.
46
00:30:23.105 --> 00:31:04.285
So it's really just about the lot. Let, let's see if there's anybody here on 22 Lae Road. Nobody, I'm not seeing anybody online. Okay. Thank you very much. Also, when you get a chance, can you just announce who's voting? Oh yes. This is new. So it's gotta be 1, 2, 3, 4, skip, five. Great, thank you. Just the members. Yeah. Yeah. So anybody here have any questions for the applicant's? I have just one in the chart. It says you're at 20%, 20% lot coverage, which is allowable, but it's not.
47
00:31:04.795 --> 00:31:40.165
That was calculated and you're not 20.01. That was one of the things you were taking into account. I'm sorry, I just wanna make sure that you're, you're clear on the lot coverage? Yes. I can't find the calculation and just 'cause it was, it's where it needs to be, but just make sure it's below. Yep, It that's a square. They're adding on a square, right? Oh, not a Yeah, actually it is. It's not a square. It's a rectangle. 14.67 feet by by 13, 13 feet, right?
48
00:31:40.395 --> 00:32:31.085
Yeah. So let's, we can run that. I think We could Let's call it 14 for sake of argument. By 13. It's 182 and they're existing 15.3% plus 182 square feet. Is that right? 182 It's 190. 191. Okay. A hundred that, so two. So call it 200 square feet. I don't have the dimensions to the 200 Building by 200 divided by 55 12. It's 3.6% of the loss. That's 15.3
49
00:32:33.385 --> 00:33:08.005
If the engineer did it, that's certainly correct. Three plus Three. Yeah. Yeah. That appears, that appears to be okay. Yeah, I just wanted to make, because It's, you are right up, you're butting up against the, the maximum lot coverage. 20%. So that's the question here. Anything else? Anybody have any other questions? No Storm water issues here. No major grading changes? No. No. Okay. Okay, then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.
50
00:33:08.425 --> 00:33:44.205
And Jason, I would move that we approve the project based on our finding. It's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the previous non-conforming use and structure provided it's built and substantial conformance with the plan submitted and any requirements from the town departments who've submitted letters to The board. Second. Second Is Gail. All those in favor? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You're all set. Awesome. Thank you. Luck. Thank you so much. Thank you. The next matter is 13 Sheffield Road and hang on a second. That is the applicant is CG P two Realty trust.
51
00:33:45.065 --> 00:34:22.685
Hi George. The application is a request for section six finding for the demotion of a one family dwelling in the construction of a new one. Family dwelling in a preexisting nonconforming lot. Hello there. Good evening everyone. Evening George Richards from South NA Law. Let's take a quick peek here. Okay. The lot frontage depth, all or substandard front's. Okay. Side's. Okay. The other side's. Okay. The rears. Okay. Coverage is okay.
52
00:34:24.705 --> 00:35:07.845
The height is okay. Just, Okay, so this, this must be going on the existing footprint, right? That's Substantial. Well, the, the increase in the lot coverage is only it's point. It's a Different footprint but it's not a lot bigger than the existing 4% Footprint. You got one in there, You zoning and you read the kind of corrupted, Yeah, yeah. So it's, the lot is 10,000 required as 15
53
00:35:08.765 --> 00:35:46.445
frontage is 90 required as one 10 depth is a one 11. The depth required as 1 25. So those are all substandard. The remainder are all, they are compliant. The fronts 30, it's, it's 30, almost 31. The side 12, it's almost 13. The other side's 12, it's like almost, it's 36 and a half. The rear is 25, it's 26 and change coverage is 19.6. It's going to 20. Oh no current.
54
00:35:46.805 --> 00:37:03.005
19.6 going to 2025 is the max, the height's 35 max. It's now around 15. It's going to 35. Mr. Chair. Yes sir. I'm Just curious, do we decide who's voting on this or that's to be determined? No, no, it's, it's, it's gonna be, we don't need to decide because Okay. The five members here, right? One associates. So it's gotta be the five unless someone's conflicted out or not here. So let me just take a look. Alright. Okay, I got it. What would you like to tell us? Well, you essentially established the fact that the,
55
00:37:03.345 --> 00:37:42.285
the three non-conforming prior non-conforming dimensions were lot area frontage and depth, which we have no control over. No, all the others comply. We have not received any of online or otherwise any notice from Abutters. So we would like to see if anybody's here. We have reviewed the Board of Health Conservation Commission and DPW letters and they are totally fine and we will comply with all their requirements. Fantastic. Okay. And I'll see if anyone's here.
56
00:37:42.285 --> 00:38:35.485
Is anybody here on 13th Sheffield Road? Nobody is. Okay. Nobody online either. Nobody online either. Thank you Amanda. I'm gonna get used to that. Okay. Does the board have questions, thoughts, comments? Any great changes? George? The green changes are virtually non-existent. I think Should, Oh, there's almost no gray changes. Flat as the pancake, isn't it? Yep. It's a flat lot. Thanks. Yep. Okay. Anybody have any questions?
57
00:38:37.155 --> 00:39:20.485
Well, I, I have a comment. I think the appearance of this building is, is, is huge and block like on such a small lot. If we're on a large lot, of course it'd be very different. But it is a large chunk in that neighborhood and so, I mean the massing is, is a great concern to me. That's my primary reaction from having looked at the elevations today. So Anybody else have any thoughts? Just comment. So it's a walk-up attic, so
58
00:39:20.485 --> 00:39:59.285
that's also square footage up there? Yeah, it's a slab on great house with the, due to the water table. So it does have a finished attic. Got it. So no basement? No. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? I share a concern of height and massing. It's been squashed in and pushed out and then raised up almost two x more than two x. Yep. It's Big, not outrageous. Okay. Well, I mean,
59
00:39:59.845 --> 00:40:37.565
I don't know if anybody wants to tip their hand. I mean, when I look at it, I don't disagree with the description of it, but since there's nobody here from the neighborhood suggesting that there's any problem with it, I have to accept the fact that nobody in the neighborhood thinks it's more detrimental or substantially more detrimental than what's there today. So for that reason, I'm, I'm inclined to, to vote in favor. Anybody else Wish to take their hand? David? Can I respond to You can do whatever you want, comment, want. Well, within reason. I, I would just like to say I I don't think it's, hmm,
60
00:40:37.705 --> 00:41:11.805
I'm trying to find the fairest way to say this. The fact that nobody shows up and nobody has communicated does not equate to acceptance or lack of concern. And I know this from having been through this in my own neighborhood and many other neighborhoods where people show up because they have the courage to show up, especially if they know their neighbor is trying to sell this project and they don't wanna upset somebody they care about. So the fact that nobody shows up does by, to me by no means,
61
00:41:11.855 --> 00:41:44.125
means that there isn't. Now I understand too. It also doesn't, we also don't know how many people are excited about your project and want it to go through. We don't know either of those things, but I, we know for sure that there are people who are reluctant to come forward. We don't know that for sure. That's Your, oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I mean, generally not on this specific project. Generally perspective, I know this Specula, in any given case, there may be a dozen people or more who wanna come and don't because they're in favor or they're opposed, we just don't know.
62
00:41:44.225 --> 00:42:22.455
But what we can go on is evidence and the evidence that I have before me, which is how I make my decision, it's not my own personal whims. It's based on the standard that the board determines whether or not this is or is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conformity. And I, for me, I haven't heard anything that suggests there's any detriment, let alone substantial detriment. Okay. With that, does Rob anything from you? It's big. It's not outrageous. It's not substantial. I wouldn't wanna live next to it Jason.
63
00:42:23.405 --> 00:42:59.285
I agree that it, it appears large on the plans, but I, I agree with the chairman. You know that we haven't seen any or heard any comments from any of the abutters who all receive notice of the hearing, whether they attend in person, submit an email or attend virtually. Now that we have that option, and I'm, and the fact that it com the, the structure will comply with all dimensional setbacks and height requirements as well. Lends me to support the project. Jeff, I'm with Rob. I think it's a little, it's a little big.
64
00:42:59.425 --> 00:43:35.605
The design is, could be much better. That being said, agree with Jason on the dimensional requirements. It meets all the setbacks. This is one of those, the town meetings. Great wisdom has given us a zoning that doesn't comply with the lots that are in front of us. And that's why we're here. Andy, I'm not voting but, but I would vote against it. I think it's pushing too many boundaries. I think it's, yeah, some
65
00:43:36.235 --> 00:44:16.115
doesn't need to be as big as it is. I'm not anti-big but doesn't need to be as big as it is. So there's some very simple things that could be done to tighten it up. And I feel like folks come in here to push the envelope, push the envelope when they could tighten it up for a whole bunch of reasons. Mostly economical. So I would, yeah, I would vote against it. Ga Yeah, it's, I'm, I just cannot see voting for such a, a building that looks like this and feels space the way it does
66
00:44:17.895 --> 00:44:55.165
in on this particular lot. And yeah, that's all I'll say. Okay. You heard it? I have no idea how the people are voting. I'm the one who tipped my hand the most. Jason next, the other two. I, we have a pretty firm thing here. Indication here. These two gentlemen are, are, are poker players maybe. So I'll leave it up to you. So one of the things that, and it's not on this project though, you received a letter on another project that is, sorry. We received a letter on a, on a, not a previous project, another project.
67
00:44:57.105 --> 00:45:36.145
And it's been one of my pet peeves lately is, no, not lately for the last 10 years I've been on this board is the garage is the front front facing of the building. That is something that goes a long way. It's not the massing, it's flip the front. The front door should not be behind the garage. The garage should be behind the front door on the facade. And that's what I was getting at with the design. Whether that leads to be more substantially detrimental. But yeah, maybe shame on me. I'm getting pretty frustrated with everybody coming in with these designs that are not Mr.
68
00:45:36.145 --> 00:46:15.845
Chairman. I'm happy to speak with my client but I guess my advice to 'em would be that this does meet the, in my opinion, meet the legal standard of not substantially more detrimental since there's no evidence of anyone in the neighborhood. So you might win on appeal. What do you want to do? It does look big on here. We, we've actually built the same house I think three or four other times in town. And I mean the rendering might not do justice when it's all white. Building the same house three or four times in town is not the, not the winning argument you might think.
69
00:46:16.795 --> 00:46:54.205
Yeah, I, it's hard with doing the, the slabs to get the square footage. 'cause honestly if you, if it could be done a different way that's, we could pull the roof down but we have to comply with the, the board of health rules and that Okay. Your call. So we need to go forward and hope we get three votes Or Yeah, we can go forward. Yeah. And see, Yeah, we'd like to proceed. Okay, good enough. With that we'll close the public hearing And Jason, if you would, I would move that we approve the project based on our finding that's not substantially more detrimental
70
00:46:54.205 --> 00:47:29.370
to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming use and structure provides built and substantial conformance with the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments or submitted letters to the board. Second, I'll second it. So all, all those in favor? Two in favor? All those opposed? Three opposed. It does not pass. Okay. Okay. So we will see on the next go round. Yep. Alright, Thanks very much. Okay, thank you for your time. Thank you. The next matter up is 59
71
00:47:29.515 --> 00:48:08.365
West Lake Road. This is Nicholas Arthur by Daniel Burke. It's an application, there's a request for a section six finding for the demolition of the existing priests to non-conforming one family dwelling and for the construction of a one family dwelling on a priest in non-conforming lot. Hello there. Hello. How are you? Good, how are you? Okay, so 59 Wesley. Let me just get a peek here and we'll see where we are at. I'm not sure if you guys have the the chart or not, but a lot is good. Uniquely it's five feet short on frontage.
72
00:48:09.305 --> 00:48:50.165
The depth is good, the front is compliant, the side west is compliant, the side east is compliant, the rear is compliant. The coverage is going from 10.5 to 15 seven and is compliant. The height is 17 three and going to 29 8. That's compliant. That's it. So it's just the frontage. Yes, I see the frontage. Yes, that's right. Get any closer than that, huh? Alright, let's take a look If I may. We sent in I, I'll say revised. It was, there were a couple clerical errors on our
73
00:48:50.315 --> 00:49:28.125
architectural plans. So the last attachment in the portal has the correct property owner information. Okay. Alright, thank you. Let me take a look here. Did you Say property owner actually pro, yeah, the proposed design was for another builder. There's a few of us builders use the same architects in town. So the wrong name was on the plane. Yes, I've noticed. Yeah. Okay, thank you. This is exact same one I, I was like I'm looking at the wrong plans. The garage is turned nine Years. Oh, oh yeah this was the one 50 woodland. Yeah, Yeah, almost exactly. Yeah. Right. Okay.
74
00:49:30.895 --> 00:50:07.005
We're pretty familiar with the plan. So what if anything would you like to tell us in addition to what we already see? So my name's Nick Arthur. I'm the property owner and builder. We are proposing to demolish and construct this 4,000 square foot cape style home. As you mentioned, we're deficient in frontage. Our average grade in our proposed, our existing grade and our proposed grade are staying exactly the same. I'm not sure if anybody did a drive by here, but this slot for all practical purposes blends in nicely with the abutters and it's very flat.
75
00:50:07.185 --> 00:50:45.765
So we didn't see a reason to change the grade at all. We selected this plan because again, if you guys drove by, this lot is elevated from the road by three or four feet. So we thought that picking a plan that wasn't a typical two and a half story colonial that would probably be pushing the average ridge height. We decided to go with a plan that was a little bit lower. So the ridge height here is 29.8 feet and I think with the elevated lot it will sit nicely. We made sure that our home complied
76
00:50:45.765 --> 00:51:27.365
with all the setbacks and we pushed it back 35 feet from the road. I think having it set back a little more in line with the abutters houses, it sits nicely. We are not proposing a finished basement or a walk-up attic in this house. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Anybody here wish to be heard on 59 Westlake? Seeing no one? Okay. Oh see no, no one on online either. Still Lake came, one just came up. Oh, okay. A Rick M Okay. Mr. Rick M what would you like to tell? Oh, just give us your name
77
00:51:27.365 --> 00:52:03.045
and address for the record if you would. On Zoom. Hi there. Sorry, can you hear me? Yes, loud. Ah yes. This is a, yeah, this is Richard Mario, 54 West Lake Road just across the street from the the proposed site. Yep. One thing, just looking at the plans, like I said the house looks beautiful and everything. Well just like the overall like width of the house compared to like the other homes. It seems like it's very, it sounds like it might comply with the setbacks on either side but seems like, like a very wide house. Like it has like a lot of ex exposure to the street. So Yeah and as a obviously a small house, it's,
78
00:52:03.045 --> 00:52:37.405
that's on there the current lot. So from a character standpoint, yeah it just looks like a quite, I know it just seems kind of big from that perspective. You are right about the height, the height seems about right but just overall from the width it just seems really wide I guess overall. Okay, thanks. Yeah, yeah, the house to left is really small too so just, just from a character standpoint seems to kind really stick out. But that's overall the house looks nice. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else on the on, on the zoom? Nope, I'm not seeing any other hands. Nothing. Okay. Anybody on the board have questions?
79
00:52:40.525 --> 00:53:16.325
I have questions. So when I was visiting this site, I saw there were no trees in the front of the lot but in the rear there's substantial row of some really beautiful tall trees that are clearly providing a lot of screening right now for whoever abuts on the rear. Have you spoken with those folks about those trees? We reached out, I have a copy of a letter we sent to, we didn't send it to 30 or 40 people in the neighborhood. We sent it to the direct abutters including the people in
80
00:53:16.325 --> 00:53:51.165
the back to see if they have any concerns now. And so they have a direct line of communication throughout the project. They nobody mentioned, we haven't heard from anybody. But I will say our intention generally is to keep as many trees as we can. I haven't located trees on this plan yet because we weren't prepared what was it to apply for a stormwater permit yet. But any perimeter trees that I would say don't come within 15 feet of the house, I would happily agree to keep. Also something that's not proposed on the plan yet
81
00:53:51.715 --> 00:54:28.805
that will be going in is a, a vinyl fence as well for privacy. So having seen a number of sites now where trees were coming down because of how close they were to the actual excavation as opposed to the finished walls, what is your estimate of the distance from the excavation to the bowls of those trees? I could probably give you a better answer if I refer to the edge of the canopy. So if the edge of the canopy is within 15 feet of the house, I find that most buyers find that that's too close.
82
00:54:28.865 --> 00:55:03.765
So we would remove it and if the canopy's 15 feet depending on the size of the tree, the root ball would be much further away. So any right canopy edge that's outside of 15 feet, we have no intention of taking down. Right. And and now since I don't trespass on these properties, I couldn't tell if those trees are on your side of the lot line or if they're on the neighbor's side. Do can you tell me that? Truth Be told, I can't say that yet. We haven't located all of the trees and we certainly wouldn't take down a tree that's not ours. Right. But of course if you're excavating into the roots,
83
00:55:04.025 --> 00:55:40.645
it affects the neighbor's trees. Yes. So I mean it's not always a death. No, I know that. Yeah. But at the same time it's a concern. Okay. We, we do consult, it's not a requirement, but we do consult the arborists when we're locating all of our trees to find out, I mean we don't love taking trees town. They're expensive quite frankly. Yes. So if we can keep 'em, we love to, but if we have to take one down, it's generally because we will damage it or there's a pre-existing issue with it. Yeah, yeah. There's a, there's one tree on the front left that is a very much dying spruce. I noticed
84
00:55:40.985 --> 00:56:17.605
In that case We would probably, it's The evil bug, we would probably remove that. Yeah, That, that one definitely. So I was trying to calculate the total square footage and I didn't see any dimensions for the basement, So, So I couldn't figure out what the total gross, I'm glad you brought this up area is because I was a little bit confused as well when we were calculating our gross floor area. I found in the bylaw, and I, this could be old or wrong, I'm not sure that any area exclusively used for heating, air conditioning or mechanical equipment when servicing the building, which is the main intent of that basement.
85
00:56:18.465 --> 00:56:55.045
We do not need to include the square footage of the basement. So that wasn't to intentionally Leave it out. Mechanical area does can be subtracted. Yeah. The entire basement will be used for mechanicals. What is, is it much smaller than the first floor footprint? It's probably, if the first floor is 1907, I would say that the basement is roughly 1300. But the sole use of that will be for mechanical space. That's almost the size of my house frankly. I mean we're not finishing it and the only use will be, I
86
00:56:55.045 --> 00:57:31.325
Understand that. I understand that for heating air conditioning it's just that for calculating the gross floor area. Yeah, we should be including the usable parts of the basement. So this is where I was confused. If we were to finish the basement we, we certainly would not need 1300 square feet dedicated for mechanical space. It would be far less than that. But because we're not finishing any of it and it will only be used for mechanical space, it seemed that we didn't need to include. All right, well I'll let that go. Okay, thank you. Anybody Else have Any questions? No questions. It's not, not voting again, right?
87
00:57:31.355 --> 00:58:06.365
Yeah, go ahead. So commentary wise, this is an interesting example where it's a fair amount different than other things we've seen tonight. I think that's worth noting that bigger site, not pushing the height, not pushing the site up as we've seen in other places. Other examples, we don't have an FAR here in town, meaning we don't have strict criteria on size of lot versus total size of square footage. And so that's why it complicates our job quite a bit.
88
00:58:06.665 --> 00:58:43.205
It creates a lot of gray area. This one I see as less gray because of the size of, of the lot and the fact that they have not raised the site to then raise the building. So those are the two things that I would vote in favor of it 'cause of that. Thank you. Another comment which is it's really nice to, every once in a while get a modest sized house on size of the lot and it looks like a little house on the prairie is being replaced by something that actually fits nicer with the house next door. That was the goal. Thank you.
89
00:58:44.115 --> 00:59:17.125
It's good. And building on that, I mean it's, it is a big house but it's Modest. Well it's decently done. It's as well exercise A lot Like the, I mean I know we didn't vote on one of these, the, the virtually identical parcel today or design, but this is, this model of house is a lot easier to approve than some of the other ones. And that's why I said what I said that specifically related to that was that that was significant with that other project.
90
00:59:17.295 --> 00:59:52.165
Again, relevant or not, it's not correct, but grazing that two and a half feet is significant. It matters. It does matter. And I Don't that, that's why we're, we're not voting on a house. We are voting on a house on a lot. Yep. Right. So it's, it's all about context and and Comparing it with the house that is there. Of course that is the standard. Of Course. Of course. That is the standard Required by state law. Exactly. Okay. Alright. So with that we'll close the public hearing and Jason, if you would, I would make a motion that we approve the project based on
91
00:59:52.165 --> 01:00:31.365
our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming use and structure provided it's built and substantial conformance with the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments or submit letters to the board tonight with the, some additional conditions that as the applicant proposed, they will install a vinyl fence around which sides of the property Agreed Where? In the back, on the sides and across the, i I would say halfway across the middle of the home. So Okay. The backyard And that the trees beyond 15 feet
92
01:00:31.995 --> 01:01:09.805
outside of the footprint to the canopy would not be taken down Un unless advised by an arborist that they're sick or unhealthy As amended. Yes. Yes. Okay. As as amended. Second I second is Jeff and again it's the five non, all those in favor? 1, 2, 3, 4 in favor? All those opposed? One opposed. You're all set. Thank you guys. Thank you very Much. Thank you. The next matter is 27 slash 7 29 Forest Avenue. The applicant is Chris ti.
93
01:01:10.395 --> 01:01:54.005
It's a request for section six filing for the demolition of a one of 1 1 1 family dwellings. Oh no. Of two one family dwellings, d ds and the construction of two new one family dwellings outta, I'm sorry. Hello there. How are you doing? Good. 27 29 forest. Okay. Gimme just two seconds. Alright, so the lot's short, the frontage is short, the top is okay. And now you have, you have front setbacks of, of both of them to the same front lot line.
94
01:01:54.005 --> 01:02:33.805
Correct. Okay. So it's not working 27. That's compliant. Compliant. Compliant. Compliant. It's all compliant. The side is all compliant. The other side is all compliant. No, I'm sorry. It's one of them is non-compliant now and will be made a little slightly more con. Oh no, it's the same thing on the west. There's a non-compliance and you're gonna improve the non-compliance. Correct. The rear is non-compliant in one respect and you're gonna improve that condition. The building coverage combined is 23.7
95
01:02:36.245 --> 01:03:14.525
existing at 17.5 and the height is 20.7 hundred is going 31 5 is compliant. Okay. Alright. Now so you're, you are, you have an existing non-conforming use being the two structures, Correct? Yep. Yeah, they were built in the early 19 hundreds and they, they've always been the two houses on, on the preexisting. Yeah. Non-conforming. Well yeah. And then the front house we designed,
96
01:03:14.765 --> 01:04:00.725
I mean they're, they're modest homes. We designed the front house within all the setbacks, like you said, in the rear house to improve all the setbacks. Yep. And we also improved the impervious service area. The lot as it is now. It's, it's primarily paid. So that'll be a, a large improvement Garage. So two car garage in the back And is it a single car garage In the front? Correct. Yeah. Okay. I spoke with engineering and then they said they would, you know, depending on the,
97
01:04:00.915 --> 01:04:37.645
when it comes down to the permit phase. But they were okay with having the, the two driveways since there was two separate homes, which they've done in the past. Yep. Okay. Alright. Definitely different from Yeah, the, the paradigm. Right. We don't see too many look like this, but the use piece is not up for review 'cause the use is is already nonconforming all out. So it's just, it's just a dimensional issue. Okay. Anybody wish to be heard on 27 29 Forest Avenue? Okay. We'll take you first if you would Yep.
98
01:04:37.705 --> 01:05:14.845
And just give you your name and address for the record. Thank you. Hi. Hi, my name is Kathy Lee and I live at 31 Forest. So I'm right next door on the long driveway. Oh, sorry. Next door. So in the discussion of do I believe it's an improvement over what's there? I do. Okay. I do believe that it's an improvement over what's there. I do appreciate that you've moved things back. I, my home is probably the closest to the house back. I believe it was all at one property at one very
99
01:05:14.845 --> 01:05:54.165
historical period of time. And so I approve of that. I would ask if there is any screening that is going in there because that would be important to me. Sure. Because it would be so close to the house. I know the discussion is just on the houses and not on the use, but is the plan. I'd like to know if the plan is then to sell this separately and divide the lot, You know, that you could not Do then. Okay. So that was part of my question. But, but Right. But whether they're, when I say use, I mean two single family dwellings.
100
01:05:55.005 --> 01:06:28.345
I don't mean use rent versus buying. Right. That that's not the Right, I just wanna make sure that clarify That. Yeah, no, I just didn't know. Is is, are we sort of going through this and then the eventual plan is like it's all gonna get divided 'cause you're building two houses. Yeah, I don't, I don't just, we'll just explore it just for a moment. Yeah's just con, are these condos, They'll be, you know, I don't know, exclusive use areas? No, I mean they will be condo eyes mean It could be, it could. That's not really relevant. It's More, yeah, my attorney said that has to do with ownership and ownership is isn't really relevant.
101
01:06:28.655 --> 01:07:06.865
It's not, it's not relevant. Yeah, it's not relevant. Okay. So they could be rented, they could be sold. Yeah. I understand that there be some Right. Sharing of the common areas, whether it's by way of easements or condominiums or whatever, You know, because we're taking it all the way down and taking the the ground piece out, you know, would it be my preference that there be a one house built more inside and not so close to the border? It would, but do I believe that this looks better than what is currently there? I do. So again, you know, my concern that then is just,
102
01:07:06.865 --> 01:07:39.105
is there gonna be screening close to the back border where I border? Sure, Sure. Yeah. I can work with you. We can meet and, and we can discuss, yeah, Some screening and then again the water issue because it is gonna cover more just to make sure that the water is done appropriately so that it Yeah, it clears appropriate. So you said back, but really are, So if you, yeah, if, if you actually look at the overhead pictures, my house does not appear because it's in, it's under trees completely. But you're on the left. As you look at the house from the forest, As you look at from forest, I'm on the left down a very
103
01:07:39.105 --> 01:08:16.165
long driveway and, and the, I'm three feet right off the lot, off the lot. I am very close. Okay. So he says, we'll work with you. Are you satisfied that we will work with you, is good enough for you or, Yeah, the fact that people work with me would be fine. I mean, the house that's currently there is in horrific shape and so would I like to see that improved? Yes. The height I know is it's very tall. There are other, there's another house built that is also adjacent further down that is also very tall. There are some short winds in there.
104
01:08:16.445 --> 01:08:52.965
I feel like eventually they will end up getting taller. That's, you know, it's, it's in the limit. It doesn't really bother me. The borders are what bothers me just because it is so close. So We have the power, if this board were inclined to approve this, to make it condition it on a kind of screening, yeah, we can do that. Or we can wait and you can do that between the two of you at some future. I think we can do between, I mean, really the amount of screening we're talking about probably is eight feet because I, yeah. The ARBs existing, so The, I, the arb es are on my lot. I see. And so if you wanna cut those back some,
105
01:08:52.995 --> 01:09:40.125
like we can do that and we can work with it. But my AEs are co are covering 80% at this point. Yeah. Okay. Well we can leave that to the two of you to the, yeah, Yeah, that's Fine. Okay, great. Thanks very much. Yes sir. Your name and address for the record? Yeah. Hello, I'm David Richardson, 25 Forest staff. Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board. Thank you. Ms. Loomis and town staff we're at 25, so we have abut 27 to the immediate, it's to the immediate south of our, of our house and all of our south facing windows. Our main concern is that the new build at 27 is going to be
106
01:09:40.845 --> 01:10:18.485
about 50% taller than the current structure and that it's going to block out a lot of the sunlight into those south facing windows. Particularly in the winter. The dimensions of the new build more than doubles the angle of incidents as viewed from our windows to the sight line from 10 degrees to 21 degrees. And just for reference, in the middle of winter in Natick, the sun only gets about 20 degrees above the horizon. So it's likely gonna cost, you know, about 90 minutes of sunshine today and about two hours in the darkest part of winter. And ours is also an older house. So the south facing windows definitely do a lot of
107
01:10:19.005 --> 01:10:51.725
work in terms of helping to mitigate some of the heating bills. So we would expect a little bit of a heating bill change. So we would just respectfully request to lower the height of the house 10 feet or so. I would No, I appreciate it. I, I, I think we went, just looking at the numbers here, went from, so 27, so from 20 it's, it's existing 21 feet high and we're going to about 31. So it's not 50%, but it's, it's probably eight feet.
108
01:10:55.945 --> 01:11:34.405
You know, I, I didn't do a sun study, but I, I mean, decreasing the height by a foot or two, I don't think it's gonna to help the sun issue, you know? Right. Can I just, I'm sorry, can I just interrupt you for one second. In looking at this plan right here, it's showing 27, 29, and then I see Ms. Lee is here and then you see you're 25 and directly next door. And this is labeled 20. Yeah, the original plan was incorrect. Oh, okay. This one says Because 20 is on the other side of the street,
109
01:11:34.405 --> 01:12:10.805
obviously. Yeah. One would think well, okay, but, so this is your lot here? Yes sir. Yeah. About how far away are you from the lot? This side of your, So the current depth is or length between our window and the side of the house is 50 feet. 50 feet. It'd be about, it'd be about 45 feet. Okay. The between the structures? Yes Sir. Your house and the proposed. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So you're, you're looking to just as the front house,
110
01:12:11.865 --> 01:12:50.685
how much height restrict, how much height reduction are you seeking? We, We would seek a full 10 feet. 10 Feet. Just a re respectfully request. That's all. Fair enough. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very Much. Great. Thanks so much bro. Appreciate It. Yes sir. Okay. Yeah, please. Just a comment on, on that, you know, I asked the distance because you know, the greater the distance, you know, the better, the Less impact, the Less impact. Sure. I mean, I, I don't know, you know, the impact of your house on his house
111
01:12:51.385 --> 01:13:28.205
at 50 feet now, I don't know what it it is today, what it will be against the proposed or what it will be against his suggested proposed. Nobody knows. Yes sir. Your name and address for the record. My name is Brian McKennan. I am at 20 Roxbury abb. So Across the street. Yeah, kind of like in the dead end street on the other side. So we actually bought a significant part of, I think it was 29. I could be wrong, but the gist is, is that I think that the water, based upon what we stated some
112
01:13:28.205 --> 01:14:01.245
of the other neighbors have stated, it seems like we're working on, I, I know there's minimal, I think the engineers referenced that they're minimal issues there and that they're gonna work on maybe addressing that. I could be wrong, but the bigger issue, similar to David is was the height where we have intentionally, we, we, we put in something there that allowed that for, we put a greenhouse in. And so now with the increase of height
113
01:14:01.265 --> 01:14:38.405
and moving the house over, if I'm reading this correctly, you know, it adds a significant amount of, you know, shade there. You know. So I would like to, I don't have a number, you know, but it does seem rather high considering it was going from, I think it was 20. I don't have, I can get my glasses on here, but the gist is between going between 24 to 31 of 29. I, I just, you know, again, I don't have a number, but it just seems a little bit high. And I know they're moving the house back from the prop line
114
01:14:38.525 --> 01:15:12.605
a little bit, but still not asking us to change, you know, nonconformity to a different nonconform number, but it's still, it's gonna add a lot of shade to that area, which we're trying to not have. So as much of, so that's all. Thank you very much. I, you know, as, and looking at these numbers, just, just help me, I'm looking at the chart for a moment. Sure. Existing height, there's actually four numbers, right? So existing height number 27 is around, oh, That's the, yeah, yeah. 2020 to 31 24 9 to 31 5. Okay.
115
01:15:12.665 --> 01:15:50.565
31 5. Okay. So, okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else wish to be heard on 27 dash 29 Forest Avenue? I don't see anybody online. Okay. Thanks very, very much. Mr. Chair? Yes Sir. Mr. There's an email that we received. Okay. Yeah, please go ahead. Record. Yep. Thanks. You want me to read it? Yes, if you would. If it's not too long, otherwise you can summarize it. Basically this is the email I was referencing earlier about the garage on 27 being pushed back away from the port away from the street so that the porch is forward to the garage. It is from Mr. Glenn Glader at 28 Reynolds at
116
01:15:57.545 --> 01:16:32.885
And what's he say? I would like to see a minor change to the design of 27 so that the garage is not the closest thing to the street. I request that the garage be pushed back further from the street than the porch in front door. Similar in design to what is proposed for number 29. There are no last few other properties on porch F with the task garages and having the garage be presented first to the street front is contrary to the neighborhood that, Okay. Just to speak on that. I mean a lot of the houses on for us, they have, are very close to the street about eight, 10 feet off the street.
117
01:16:33.705 --> 01:17:15.005
So I mean that's why there's really no front facing garages. This one will be set back, you know, more than, more than most of the, the houses on the street. I have the, the plan here. Let's see. Yeah, I don't think his concern is about exactly how close it is to the street. I think he's rightly pointing out that in central it's traditional and it interrupts by introducing the modern design of making the garage garage the most prominent feature. And it, I, I would agree with him at living in that area
118
01:17:15.435 --> 01:17:49.325
that, I mean, not not that close. I didn't get a notification, I'm further west, but it's, it, it is a problem when those go in. And there's, I I also have a question about the, I think it's a design, the driveways, this Aesthetic design. What's the problem? You said it's a problem That is an aesthetic design? It's an aesthetic design. Yeah. It's, it's opinion. I Think it is, it is out of character with the way cars have been stored in, in terms of the relation of garage and house to the street
119
01:17:49.505 --> 01:18:25.245
and passengers by and Sure. So on. Okay. But I have a question about the driveways on the plot. It, it appears that each of them is 12 feet wide. Yep. So maybe Amanda can answer this for me, given that this is not a duplex but it is still a two family unit. Does this fall under, does this outside of the restriction of 21 feet wide for driveways for a two unit lot.
120
01:18:25.945 --> 01:19:04.725
So this would be an odd case, but I believe that if DPW had reviewed it, and they will review this again when they do the street opening permits or any modifications to the curb cuts, but they are two 12 feet and they are acting independently. So they do get, kind of get the grandfather, 'cause they were built in the 19 hundreds. Oh hmm. I'm a little puzzled by that, but, okay. Wood scale, the 21 feet is to accommodate multiple cars sort of in parallel. That's because these are two separate driveways. Asking both of them to be 21 feet might seem a little extreme.
121
01:19:05.795 --> 01:19:40.205
Well that, that's the, the regulation that we have started looking at that people hadn't noticed before that came up. I don't think, were you here for that? I wasn't here, But yeah, that's why we have a ZVA is for adopting unique circumstances, the law to unique circumstances. I don't see an issue with 21 with the driveway. 'cause there's two separate ones. So It is different, it is different from having a single, you know, 24 foot wide driveway. But I, I would like to make sure that we really got that nailed down because it was a special effort on the part
122
01:19:40.205 --> 01:20:16.365
of the select board back in 2017. They have an entire memorandum about it and it's not just, you know, minor matter. I'm reading this incorrectly. Each driveway is 12 feet wide. Yes. So it adds up to 24. Right. But they're separate so you're giving each lot or Right. Well that's what I wanted to settle that, you know, as long as the departments say it's good, then I'm fine with it. Yeah. I just like to have that confirmed. Anybody else wish to be heard on this project? 27 29 forest. Okay.
123
01:20:16.365 --> 01:20:56.405
Seeing none comments from the board. This sort of brings up for me the classic ZBA height issue where the smaller a lot in this case an exceedingly narrow lot exaggerates the adverse impact of going to the limit of height. I know you're not going up to 35 feet, but given how narrow this lot is, the height is pretty substantially detrimental. The net effect of the height, I think is you're getting effectively, we don't have FAR
124
01:20:56.945 --> 01:21:40.885
but you're effectively getting 6,000 square feet of living space with the attic bedrooms and and so forth, which is pushing that height up and which is causing detriment. Jason, I'm on the fence with this one. It, you know, I appreciate that it's not pushing the maximum height as Rob said, but I hear Rob's concern that being a very narrow lot and being only at that point 12 feet from the sideline, it, it, it makes the height a more prominent feature and more imposing on the neighbors. Did you wanna respond? Yeah, I'm willing
125
01:21:40.885 --> 01:22:18.805
to work a little bit on the height and I think that's where we're gonna End up. Yeah. With the roof line mean just because, but 10 feet is, is of course outta a, I'm here outta the round, you know that, that, that's between, that's between you and the neighbors. But yeah, Jeff, I'm less troubled by the height and large, well, on, on 20 on the back one, I can't remember if it's 27 or 29th, but the back one because the way the north south and it's gonna be shining down the ridge line, the sun generally, you know, at that times and even though they are close to the property line,
126
01:22:18.965 --> 01:22:57.005
I think the net effect on the neighbors being they, they are fairly far apart. They couldn't find the greenhouse on the map. So I'm still a little unsure of where that is, but there's, it doesn't seem to be undo and, and yes, 6,000 square feet, but it's broken up and it doesn't seem like a huge block. It's kind of split up a little bit even though the, the gross square footage might be exactly the same. You know, to the extent that there's an ability to work on the height of that, you know,
127
01:22:57.325 --> 01:23:31.665
I don't like seeing roof pitches Sure. Wash just to benefit a height calculation because in the end it doesn't do anything, anything. And it makes the house look crappy. Yep. Technical architecture term. Thank you. I would say in all the houses I do in the neighborhoods I do, they, they look like they belong. You know, they're never place I don't think these stone, I wasn't, I didn't suggest Yeah, I didn't. Yeah, I think you were saying if you went to redesign for a foot Yeah. If you went less, if you just simply dropped the ridge and went less slope, I would agree with And there wouldn't be much Benefit.
128
01:23:31.665 --> 01:24:08.205
It tends to be, yeah. Tends to be detri Mount's. Not for, for anyone. Andy, just following that, what Jeff said, I I I agree. I think that the, you know, just looking at the, you know, Google Earth and seeing where the houses are in relative to where you are build, proposing to build them, they are a fair distance away. Yeah. It seems like she's looking at the building section. There probably is a little bit of room there to, you know, tighten it up floor to floor maybe. So I would be not voting on this one, but I would say that I would be in favor of if there were a condition of dropping the ridge
129
01:24:08.385 --> 01:24:45.485
by a certain amount. Okay. Gail? Yeah, I, having visited the site, I I would agree with an earlier person who said, you know, the existing houses are kinda rough and, and so since I am always trying to compare the proposal with the existing houses, I am leaning more towards approval on this one. Given however that we are talking about, you know, a narrow lot that has a impact on multiple properties and folks are here expressing this clearly, I, I would like
130
01:24:45.485 --> 01:25:17.485
to see it come back with an altered design, perhaps responding to the garage being, you know, where it is in relation to the sidewalk in the street. And you know, I know it sounds crazy when you know, obviously you're trying to maximize the profit by the square footage, but if you could drop, drop them down, make 'em shorter Sure. In That respect. And I don't mean the squash kind like they're saying they're right about you that wanna keep a Steep roof line, you know, it's, Yeah. Well I yeah, it's losing, it's losing living space.
131
01:25:17.645 --> 01:25:53.045
I understand that. Yeah. There's a lot of small houses in our part in Natick. I make a comment about the driveway, Mr. Chairman and I get it. And I live in an old neighborhood and you know, when there's a wide enough lot to accommodate a driveway that goes up with garages on the side, you know, I definitely, this lot just does not have that width. Correct. And we are in modern America where cars are a fundamental reality and 120 years ago and these houses were built, there weren't any cars and therefore there weren't any garages,
132
01:25:53.295 --> 01:26:30.805
which is why they're all in the back at the end of a driveway on the side of the lot. It just doesn't work here. And you know, we gotta have a little bit of, give my personal opinion on the aesthetics to accommodate modern living was such an extremely narrow lot, just my personal opinion. Okay. I'm, I think we gotta give a little bit of credence to what the neighbors are saying. And so what I I think makes sense is You don't have to do this, you can roll the dice if you want is to, is to take it back, sit down if you wish to talk
133
01:26:30.805 --> 01:27:08.325
with these folks, get a beat on maybe a slight redesign whether you choose to or not, and come back in next, next meeting. And I mean, I think you're, you're sort of teetering on the edge here of, of getting the votes that, that may be necessary tonight. I think a, a tweak and not a complete redesign is likely to get you where you need to be. I, I didn't hear like terribly unreasonable comments. You know, for the record to think 10 feet is is a big ask. Yeah. I don't think you're gonna get there,
134
01:27:09.025 --> 01:27:49.445
but I, I also think it would be helpful just to have your surveyor show these a broader and maybe just an assessor's plan would, would also fit the bill just to, we can't see those houses. They're mislabeled. Yeah. Yeah. I brought it here. I wanted to show you guys how far they were. Yeah, they're mislabeled on the plan at a minimum 20 isn't next door, the one 20 Roxbury, it looks like it's correctly placed, but here I'll bring that to you. 20 forest is not Thanks, Excuse me. But as far as, I mean the front facing garage, I,
135
01:27:49.565 --> 01:28:28.605
I don't have much option there, so I don't know. Push it back a foot. Yeah, Pull it back a foot. And there there's really coming on the side. It is just the existing house there is only 16 feet wide and that's why it's so much shorter. And I'm only, this new house is only 24 feet wide. This is not a big house. Oh no, I, I, I visited the site and it's pretty funky. It's one of those old style catches. Catch can properties. Can I chair? I'm sorry. Sorry, I apologize. Go ahead, comment
136
01:28:28.795 --> 01:29:06.805
Over. Yeah, All I'm saying is I, I mean I agree with the email Ashley and I don't think you, I absolutely, one of the things I think is positive about this is that you are reducing the amount of driveway. 'cause right now it's a lot of driveway. It is, it's a lot. But all you need to, and I don't, wouldn't have a problem with the garage being the front, but, but highlight the front door and not the driveway. That's not a big ask, that's just sort of a little bit that way. Alright. I mean I think these things are things that you can sit down and, and horse trade over. But I can't force you to continue.
137
01:29:06.985 --> 01:29:45.245
If you want, you can go No, I'd like to continue. Yeah, good enough. Okay. So maybe step outside and trade information emails or, or something like that and then you can have a further conversation if you choose to do that and, but, but I, yeah. Okay. That, that's all I'll say. But you heard, you heard what we said on the earlier one, which is like nickels and dimes I don't think really move the needle very much. So. Yeah, no, I, I know the drill. Yeah. Yeah. Good enough. Okay, so here we go. Motion to continue to the July.
138
01:29:46.905 --> 01:30:22.485
I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I can pull that up. Oh, I got it. July 27. Is that, Yeah. Okay. Meeting date July 27th and It's correct. Yeah. Okay. Move to continue the hearing for 27 29 4 staff to our meeting on July 29, 20 ninth. 27th, 27th, 27th, Second. All those in favor? Okay. We'll see you on the 27th. All right, thanks. Thanks very much. The next matter is 52 Bacon Street.
139
01:30:22.745 --> 01:31:10.325
The applicant is Edward Zo. It's a request for section six bind for a standing tear down of the one family dwelling and the reconstruction of the one failing dwelling on the preforming lock. Hi there. How you doing? Good, How are you Doing? Good. Just gimme two seconds. Take look this. Oh yeah. Okay. So the lot's small frontage is short, the depth is okay. The front's okay. Side's good. The other side's good. So you're just gonna build on the existing footprint. Exactly,
140
01:31:11.145 --> 01:31:46.605
Yep. Other than adding a farmer's porch on the front. Yeah. Just to clarify, farmer's porch, do you mean that has screen windows? And can you No, it'll be open. Describe that please. Yeah, it'll be open with posts. Oh, okay. It'll have metal roof on it. See That's not what my grandma called that. What's the height? She, I, I'm sorry. Connecticut, Yankee. What's the height on It? I see you said you got the stories here. Two stories, but it all, there's a height restriction too. So The overall Height, 35 Amanda in this,
141
01:31:48.395 --> 01:32:25.805
it's not indicated on the chart. Lemme take a look. It's on the plans if you, I don't know if you have those, but on the right side of the house it's 30 foot three and on the left side it's about the same. But then it does drop down for the garage. So down to the grade, the driveway where the garage is is 34 9 proposed. Okay. So that's, that's the height is measured here. It's measured from the average grade, which is spot grades all around the exterior because the right side's higher than the left side. So you don't get dinged for having a, a low left side.
142
01:32:25.985 --> 01:33:28.485
But are you saying right now that the, the proposed max height from grade to the top of the peak is less than 35? Yes. Correct. Okay. Alright. Alright. The average grade would then make it even lower because you're gonna get a higher number off the right side. Alright. The higher grounds. Higher ground. Higher ground. Yes. Alright, now. Alright. Okay. Anything else you'd like to tell us tonight? Pretty self-explanatory. I think so, yeah. Keeping the existing footprint in the back, there's a deck
143
01:33:28.485 --> 01:34:04.245
that goes across the entire back of the house. I actually wanna do a small addition, which would be on the same footprint as the deck, but basically it would, half the deck would become a living space, just an extension of the family room. Yep, yep. You just fill in that, that rectangle in the back. Exactly Right. Okay. Okay, I think we got it. 52 bacon. Anybody here on 52 Bacon? Hi there. Come on up and give us your name and address for the record. Good Evening I'll Judy Welch, I live at 48 Bacon Street, owner
144
01:34:04.265 --> 01:34:40.325
of in 27 years. I met Ed back in April, March, April. He was looking at the property and courteous. Gave us his card and went over everything he's gonna do 27 years ago this house was in no re disrespect to the Pattersons, but that house has been in Dispair since the day I moved in. So anything that Ed is doing over there, he's shared with us all of his plans and if there's anything I can do
145
01:34:40.385 --> 01:35:17.285
as a resident here, I applaud everything he's gonna do there. I've been waiting for it for 27 years. Again, no disrespect to the Pattersons, but it, it should have been taken care of a long time ago. So I, I, I applaud you and thank you Ed. It's been nice dealing with you. Thank you. Thanks for coming. That's nice. Wow. Very nice. It's very nice, especially when you see that sometimes people just feel like they're not being heard. So you had someone who's been here for over an hour and a half just to say good job. So that's nice.
146
01:35:17.395 --> 01:35:54.085
Very much appreciated. It's nice to hear anybody else wish to be heard on 52 Bacon? Yes ma'am. Your name and address for the record if you would. I'm Maura Shannon. I'm at 51 Bacon Street directly across the street. This is the first time I've met Ed, met Ed and I think it's a very positive addition to the neighborhood. My concern, and I will admit I didn't do the homework looking at heights and all that, but I came in with my concern being since this is,
147
01:35:54.365 --> 01:36:26.605
I thought it was going up an entire second floor because I'm assuming that the square footage of the existing house is more than half less of the new house. So I was wondering about the height going up. I think Ed answered my question just in this meeting that the height is not changing at all or just a few feet higher than what it is now based on what I would be looking across to, because there is a complete tree buffer right now.
148
01:36:26.625 --> 01:37:01.725
So all we see is trees. But we will now be seeing facing a front of a house I think. Yeah. So there's an existing second floor on the house today. It's just very low ceilings. So we would be, we'd be going up with it approximately eight feet to get a full height second floor. So the only difference in height from what's existing now to what you are proposing to build is eight feet? Correct. Okay. And again, any buffer that is a busy loud road. I know that lights we've experienced when other additions
149
01:37:01.725 --> 01:37:36.645
have been made, the lights come into our second floor window. So I was just curious as to what kind of a buffer you are planning in front of the house. Well there's, If any, Yeah, there's existing an existing tree line there now. Some of the trees will get pruned just because a lot of 'em are dying. Actually, Judy mentioned there's one on the ground, right. So we need to do a little bit of cleanup. There are, and I would may mention David, to your earlier question, there's a couple trees that are right up against the house and then there's a couple that kind of hang over the house. So those we need to do some work with
150
01:37:36.645 --> 01:38:10.005
because they are a safety issue, safety hazard. So those have to come down. But the outside perimeter tree line is more about pruning and just cleaning it up. Okay. Because some of those trees are like right up to the wires. Yeah. And if they came down, you know, we had a tree that came down during a microburst and it went across, you know, these are old trees they went, went across, onto that existing property. So the unhealthy ones will be removed and some will still stay remain. Absolutely. Yep. Okay. Yeah. And I'm curious as to the, the change
151
01:38:10.465 --> 01:38:47.165
of square feet from what the house is now to what your, your property is gonna be. Yeah, so the biggest change really is the small addition in the back, which is about 240 square feet. It's eight by 15 and then the additional square footage on the second floor, same footprint. But now because the roof lines don't come down to the floor, they'll be raised a little bit. We'll gain some square footage there. So it'll be just over 2000 square feet, not including the basement. Okay. So the existing house now though, what is the square footage now? 'cause most of the houses in the area are 1100, 1500.
152
01:38:47.865 --> 01:39:22.365
So to go to 2000 seems like a big jump. It's between, where's it coming from? It's Between 15 and 1600 square feet. Oh, That's what the, that's what it is now? It is correct. Okay. Okay. Is that including the decks and the No, that's just the living space, huh? Oh, okay. Yeah, so it's an increase because Mine is considered 1600 feet and it's visually a bigger house. So I don't know. Yeah, there was An addition on the back of the house too. I don't know if you've seen that, but there was an addition. Okay. At some point. Okay. Way back. Yeah. So that add square footage.
153
01:39:22.835 --> 01:40:04.445
Okay. It's more just an inquiry because I was curious to see. So Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank You. Anybody else wish to be heard on this 52 bacon? Come on up sir. And your name and address if you would. Shirley Paul, grace me 17 Arbor Circle. I've not met Ed, but I actually was able to find the materials today. Just to let you know, administratively to the board, the link in both your ad and your agenda for this property. Links to 53 Westlake Road. Yeah. Oh, okay.
154
01:40:04.625 --> 01:40:41.805
So was it both in, you're talking about there's A couple bad links on there. Yeah. Okay. So, but I, you know, but the ad also says you could get the material at the, the office. But I'm just for your edification. Thank you. Right, thank you. So I was able to look at it today and I have a couple of comments. I'm generally supportive of this. This is not one of these things that's trying to push the envelope. It's pretty much staying with the existing footprint. It's going up another story, I pulled the assessment record card on this. The value of the building is 10%
155
01:40:41.945 --> 01:41:13.885
of the overall value of the real estate. It's time and it's rated in poor, the building is rated in poor condition. Right. And it's, and it's, I can only imagine what the inside is like, just looking at the outside and the crumbling driveway and garage door et at, at, at and the retaining walls that are shot come by anytime, Paul, no, no, no. I, it's fine. The, the, just one quick question. The orientation for the address, the front door is still gonna be on bacon. It is. As opposed to on Arbor.
156
01:41:14.105 --> 01:41:48.125
So the, the one thing I'm looking for, and I don't know if this is a condition, Mr. Chairman, the Arbor Circle is, so first of all, the intersection of Arbor and bacon is a signaled intersection. There are four crosswalks there. It's a fairly busy intersection. The legal right of way that the town has on Arbor Circle is 40 feet wide. The improved travel way. I went out and taped it this afternoon, I got a tape measure, it's 26 and a half feet. And normally that's not an issue except we have ES school
157
01:41:48.705 --> 01:42:21.645
and everybody who wants to drop off their children and doesn't wanna fight the lot over by Sergeant Field Parks all the way up Arbor Circle, thankfully they park on one side, but it makes traffic in and out of their very difficult. Earlier this year, I believe the, the family members were moving some things out of there and they were parking opposite on the other side of Arbor Circle. And you could not get two cars to pass Right. Parking on, on both sides of, of Arbor Circle, right. Where this is located. So the, the the,
158
01:42:21.685 --> 01:42:59.605
I don't know if it's mitigation or you know, condition or just the way you want to do things is to have construction vehicles and trade vehicles either park everybody parks on one side of the street or they all park on the lot as opposed to like in the road. Because if we there, the condition didn't happen very often where people were parking on the right hand side as you entered Arbor. The the family was doing that when they were removing items and the, but the parents are there every day. So we only had like two
159
01:42:59.605 --> 01:43:35.765
or three days where traffic was obstructed going in. But a construction project, you life safety vehicles would not be able to enter Arbor Circle. So, so let me tell you that we, we don't, unfortunately, I mean it's not an unreasonable ask. We, we don't have the power to control what's going on in a public way. And I think it would be too restrictive to suggest that they could build the entire house while keeping construction VE vehicles only on the lot. Obviously you can't park 'em on Bacon Street, it's too busy a street. Right. But they'll, I I think he hears you
160
01:43:36.905 --> 01:44:13.045
and will I hopefully govern himself and his crew appropriately. Yeah. The easiest trick would be at, you know, usually they're working like seven to three, so something around that. Have them hog the spaces that the parents take and make the parents go further. Go further up a, a circle. Well Judy Judy's there as the, you know, the traffic guard. Sure. They ruined my lawn. And little parents, you know, we've tried to grow on Harbor on my side and it just, it's habit. But I've dealt with Ed on this. He has parked vehicles and I've asked him to
161
01:44:13.645 --> 01:44:47.285
'cause for me to pull out of my driveway when they had a truck. They were very good about Can you move it up further so I can get out of the driveway? Yeah, thank you Paul. I didn't think of that. Yeah, so but that, that's the, you Fair, that's a fair point. And then, and I'll let you respond to the extent that you want to Yeah, I'll abs we will definitely be overseeing that and make sure that it's as minimal of an, of an issue as possible. As many on, on the property, there's not a lot of vehicles At any one time. We'll make sure they're on the property. The good thing is there's a another existing driveway on Bacon Street as well. So
162
01:44:47.295 --> 01:45:21.345
There are two drives. They're two driveways to get, you know, to get in there. So maybe they can Yeah, well maybe, but that the, that's So just so we're clear though, as you enter Arbor from Bacon, bacon, if you're going and you're taking a right onto Arbor. Yes. You want them parked on the other side? Well, that would be my stuff on the Welch on Judy. Well that's where they park now. Well, but not in your driveway. But if we Have littler school parking on this side and, and the construction on this Side, they have to be on the same side. Right. Where did the, where's the current parking occurring? On My side. On On, okay.
163
01:45:21.345 --> 01:45:55.605
So on the opposite side. Right. So if Ed was to park his construction on the right on Arbor and we get little just school on The left, there'd be no way to enter our, it's Impossible because the, the, the, the improved way is too narrow. Right, right distance. So, So this is on the west side of Arbor. The house is on the west side of Arbor. The, I'm sorry, yeah. Park on the east side of Arbor. Right on the East side Park. On the east side of Arbor. That's, and then the other thing is you got, you got a lot of trees. Some of them are old, some of them are young, some of them are lousy. But you know, we've already save as many
164
01:45:55.605 --> 01:46:29.605
as you can. Okay. Okay. Thanks very much. All right. And just for your, like your criteria, there are other houses along Bacon that have been improved more recently. I think 34 Bacon was, was done. Right. Similar type of, you know, construction. Adding this, adding the second floor, the other part of the neighborhood goes back into Arbor where there's a, you know, everything is like, is two stories or 3,500 square feet. So there's a, there's another neighborhood
165
01:46:29.705 --> 01:47:02.205
and this is, this is not detrimental. This is being improvement. Thanks. But if, if we get the parking right. Yeah. Good Enough. Thank you. Definitely. Anybody Else? You're on 52 Bacon. Okay. Seeing none. Anyone have any comments here? No one online. Okay, thanks. I Just have one question. I, I understand I, I don't know, it might be the job of the planning board, but I noticed there's Stonewall around the front of the property and I I, is that going to be disrupted at all or is that gonna be protected?
166
01:47:02.505 --> 01:47:35.805
No, it'll be protected. What I would like to do is actually just clean it up, maybe do some planting there. Yeah. To dress it up a bit. It's a, we're gonna get a Kylie visible Location comment on that. Come on Up. I want it to look nice. Yep. So Paul raised 17 Arbor Circle again, the stone wall, that's kind of like a little bit of an arc there. That's actually part of the town's legal right of way. So if you actually look at the lot plan here, that plot plan was filed with the materials, the, the, the, the lot for 52 bacon curves. It does, you know, at that point
167
01:47:35.915 --> 01:48:13.565
because the, the legal right of way, not the improved right of way was designed to flare out much broader than it did. But because it's a heavy intersection forced kids walking to Lilja school, they didn't do that. So the intersection's tighter and boxed, but that's actually town owned property. Thanks very much. Appreciate the clarification. Anybody else have any thoughts, comments, questions? Mr. Chairman? Yes. I, I didn't see driveways on the plot plan and it doesn't sound like you're changing the driveways,
168
01:48:14.105 --> 01:48:51.805
but I just wanna make sure that when we approve this plan and you can build it as substantially depicted on the plans, there's no driveway. So what we're approving is no driveways unless we wanna make a note and say that the driveways will remain where they are existing today. So, so I can address that. The one on the front would remain, the one off of Bacon Street would remain where it is today. The one on it does need to be repaved though. It's, it's in disrepair. And same thing with the one on Arbor Circle. The only question I have is
169
01:48:52.425 --> 01:49:29.385
can I widen the driveway on Arbor so that it's two cars wide? I wouldn't change the curb cut, I would just like to flare it so that it can fit a second car there actually to ball's point it gets more people off the road. Yeah, you have two, there's existing two existing driveways today, correct? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and what's the width of the driveway off bacon, It's probably about 12 feet. And the driveway on arbor, It depends if you include the leaning retaining walls or not. But at the ground it's about 12 feet. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. And you wanna widen it to what
170
01:49:30.515 --> 01:50:03.405
About 18 feet? Yeah. Yeah. Just up to get another car beside, you know, two side, two side by side in the driveway. But like I said, without changing the curb cut. If I may a second, I would prefer that because my fear is my driveway about that driveway and they never use that driveway. So it's fine for me but it will become, and we talked about it, if it's wide then there's two cars there and there's less apt to be one car in the driveway and one car outside of the driveway on our, yep.
171
01:50:03.705 --> 01:50:39.285
So my opinion would be if it's two cars in the driveway, it's less likely that one car is parked on the street. I don't, I don't know how we know if there's an overnight parking van on that street, but I don't believe so. So I'd rather them be in a driveway than outside only in Snowstorm. Yeah. So for me, but for me, if there was only one car driveway on Arbor that you know, comes out of my driveway, I'd rather have them have a two car driveway, one less car out On the street. Sure. Okay. So that'd be an improved condition. Okay.
172
01:50:39.475 --> 01:51:25.205
Anybody else on the on the board have any thoughts? I think we'd probably be inclined to condition it on the second driveway, not exceeding 20 feet. Okay. Off of Arbor and, okay. Anybody else have any comments? Okay with that we'll close the hearing and we'll hear a motion. I would move that we approve this project based on our find that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the pre-existing non-conforming use and structure provided built and substantial performance with plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submit letters to the board with the condition
173
01:51:25.205 --> 01:51:58.045
because there's no driveway shown on the plot plan that the applicant will maintain the driveway off Bacon Street in the existing location and will maintain the driveway off Arbor Street or circle in the same location allowing the applicant to widen the driveway up to 20 feet off of Arbor Circle. Second. Jeff, this, that was Jeff And all those in favor? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You're all set. Excellent. Thank You very much. Okay, thanks very much.
174
01:51:58.825 --> 01:52:39.885
And last but certainly not least is 30, I'm sorry, three. Well, Walcott Street, the applicant is David Beyond DeLillo. It's a request for a section six finding for the demolition of a one family dwelling and the construction of a new one. Family dwelling on a preexisting nonconforming lock. Three walk up. Good. Good afternoon. Good evening. Yes, it's good evening. Yeah, for sure, for sure. A long evening counsel let me just take a look for a second. See the lot? A lot small. The frontage is short, the depth isn't there. The setback, the front's gonna be conforming.
175
01:52:40.025 --> 01:53:14.405
No, no it's, it's nonconforming but will be made more conforming. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I, while you're looking Yeah, Go ahead. Yeah please. Yep. The west setback is nonconforming and will will remain. So it's actually gonna exacerbate the nonconforming a little bit East will be conforming rear conforming coverage increasing but conforming height, conforming and that's it. Okay, so we have bunch, let's,
176
01:53:14.415 --> 01:54:08.725
let's take a look here. It does trigger storm water erosion, minor storm water aquifer recharge. So just a quick question. Is this packet available in the portal? 'cause I didn't see it. No, it it's not, it has not been put in the portal. So that means none of the residents or anybody else who'd like to look at that have the ability to look at it. We're the only ones who can look at it Existing. Well I just gave it to the folks back there. Right. But I mean anybody else who is in the neighborhood? Anybody who is watching online, if anyone, nobody else can view it. Are you talking about this package material?
177
01:54:08.745 --> 01:54:52.925
Yes. What He just passed out. Okay, so this is a, that's my concern. This Is part of a presentation. So we'll let, we're gonna let him present it and then you can ask questions. Hold on a second. Can I get that briefly? Okay. Have at this. Okay, Good evening. My name's Neil Glick. I'm an attorney and I represent Revive Property Group Inc. The owner of the property of three Walcott. And with me is David beyond DLO and who is with Revived Property. This project involves a construction of a new single family residence similar
178
01:54:52.985 --> 01:55:32.005
to several other newer homes in the neighborhood. And I listened to the previous commentary from the public and in doing so, I checked the property card and the existing house on the property is 106 years old and like the other one you were just talking about, the dwelling value is about 10% of the total appraised value. It's not in good shape and it is vacant right now we're in an RG zoning district.
179
01:55:34.105 --> 01:56:09.965
The project creates no new nonconformities. We're here for a finding under chapter 40 a section six and sections five and four of the natick zoning bylaw that the project is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to the neighborhood. And it is a non-conforming use. The lot of course is also 106 years old. It by far does not comply with current zoning requirements.
180
01:56:09.965 --> 01:56:51.405
Nothing we can do about the lot. It's only 5,502 square feet whereas 12,000 is required. It has 60 feet of frontage similar to many of the other houses on the block and in the neighborhood, but not in compliance with your existing requirements. The existing structure does not meet front setback and one of the side yard setbacks as well. So as I said, there's nothing we can do about the lot except work with it
181
01:56:52.025 --> 01:57:33.645
and try, as my client has done to design a house that fits on the lot and meets the neighborhood, meets the other houses in the neighborhood, we will still have a front yard set back non-conformity. Although the proposed project reduces that non-conformity by by 4.78 feet. And we also reduce the
182
01:57:34.675 --> 01:58:16.645
side yard setback, non-conformity of the existing project existing home by 1.41 feet. All of the other dimensional are comfortably met or exceeded by the proposed project. And with regard to the front setback requirement, draw your attention to exhibit B of my memo, which shows several photographs of the street scape of Walcott Street. And what we've done is we've labeled three Walcott,
183
01:58:16.645 --> 01:58:59.725
five wallcot, and seven wall cut right in a row. And you can see that none of these houses meet the current front yard setback. They actually create a very nice pedestrian streetscape with front porches and we're keeping that. So we're, we're keeping within the, the neighborhood streetscape or built environment if you will. And exhibit C shows the project in green.
184
01:59:01.065 --> 01:59:44.445
And in blue you'll see five houses that you've recently granted similar relief to right in the neighborhood for similar type, similar type nonconformities. They're all outlined in the memo. So again, we think we are, we, we know we are complying with the neighborhood size, scale and street scape if you will. Can you just help me with one thing here,
185
01:59:45.305 --> 02:00:21.485
I'm looking at the chart here. I heard the numbers about the front yard setback improving. It says in the chart existing eight feet proposed 20 feet, so that would be 12 feet, but I don't think that's isn't proposed existing. 16 or 17 ish. And the proposed is 22 ish, is that right? The existing, if you look at the stamped surveyors existing and proposed survey Yeah that's the existing is 16.84 feet. Okay. So the chart, the chart says eight,
186
02:00:21.865 --> 02:00:54.885
The chart is an error 16, 8, 4 and then 21 and the proposed is back to 21.62. So we are moving the property, the, the proposed project back a few feet. Got it. Although as I said before, we didn't wanna move it too far back because we want to keep that street scape, we want to keep that Wall Street. It's like a full building alignment on The block. Exactly. Yeah, exactly. Alright, well let's find out if anyone has anything to say about it.
187
02:00:56.575 --> 02:01:33.445
Three Walcott Street. Any, hi there. You just have you give your name and address for the record. Yeah, I'm Terry Miller. I'm at five Walcutt. We did see these plans by the way. David gave 'em to us a while ago. So I had the original ones and we shared them with all the neighbors and we all looked at them and basically no one has any objections to this. It, it's gonna be, you know, something had to be done with that house. It's a, it's a real disaster. My, our, our only concern was with our driveway 'cause we share the driveway and have, we've been here 50 year, 50 years this summer. So we've done this for a long time.
188
02:01:33.665 --> 02:02:07.765
But we've talked to David a lot about it and, and I I think we're good on how we're gonna do that. You know, it is close, it's, it's, it's gonna be, it's not as close actually to our property as the existing house is 'cause they put in on a kitchen addition there. So I think we'll be okay with it, you know. We'll I know we'll continue to talk about, and we've talked about landscaping in the back and all kinds of stuff like that too. So I'm confident that we can keep the communication open and we'll be fine with it. Fabulous, thank you. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. So the, the curb cut stays The same as it is on the existing conditions Site plan?
189
02:02:07.795 --> 02:02:48.685
There's no, no change there. Yes. I believe the curb cut does stay the same. The curb cut. So actually it diesel to accommodate just the, the new garage that's, and I know that's not, I don't think that might, yeah, I don't think that's clearly marked on those plans beyond the fact that it says just, oh, proposed driveway in the proposed plot plans that that's the curb cut. It's showing paved, shared drive. See, lemme see if I think the entirety of that,
190
02:02:50.115 --> 02:03:28.845
that like segment that says proposed driveway is going to need to be curb cut if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, I didn't see the width of the driveway. Can you tell us what that is? Yeah. Width is going to be 20.31 feet. Well that's the width of the garage. Driveway's a little bit bigger. That's right. And, and you know the limit is 21. I think there's an existing driveway there that's in excess of 21, right? It's shared. Well it's a, it's a shared driveway so it's different. Okay. Alright. Okay. Alright, thanks.
191
02:03:29.425 --> 02:04:10.045
Do you want to, okay, all set. Alright, thanks very much. Okay. Thoughts, comments? I'm trying to make sense of this shared driveway. Is there an easement or something or that It's, it's not a legally shared driveway in terms of an easement or any recorded instrument? Oh yeah, It's been, is there More property line going down the middle of The paved area? Winding it out to, yeah. Isn't there a restriction on, I mean isn't there supposed to be a two foot that's another 12 feet? There's supposed to be two feet between the lot line
192
02:04:10.385 --> 02:04:46.045
and the driveway according to It's this is an Existing issue. Well we've got way more than two feet between the lot line and the driveway. Well, I mean I know it's an existing condition, but isn't that something that's supposed, you know, we try to ameliorate when there's new construction. Amanda, do you have any, I mean there's an existing non-conformity there, which is grandfathered. Right? Well, so we don't try to, we don't try to eliminate all the nonconformities. Right. That's what I was gonna ask. In fact, they have more leeway because there existing,
193
02:04:46.095 --> 02:05:22.765
there is an existing nonconform, right? Yeah. It is an existing, yeah. So I, I think that's not an issue for us. Okay. It's certainly not an issue for the building inspector, that's for sure. He's not really looking at that driveway, Amanda. Right. He's not really looking at the driveways. Yeah. Okay. Alright. Anybody else have anything? I mean, I think this is pretty straightforward. It's not, it's not certainly not substantially more detrimental. It's looks reasonable in scope, size, massing. You don't hear anybody have any, any issue with it, so I'd be in favor the contrary.
194
02:05:22.855 --> 02:05:58.165
Quite the contrary. Rob, any thoughts? Thoughts? Jason? I have no thoughts. None. Not unusual. That's my wife would say. Jeff, same process. Jason, Andy, Dito. Gail. Okay. Jason. I move that we approve the project based on a finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than preexisting nonconforming use and structure provided it's built and substantial conformance with the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submited letters to the board. Do you wanna say something about that driveway? Is that shown the plan? Clearly shown the Plan? Well, the, the edge of the pavement is not
195
02:05:58.165 --> 02:06:42.045
shown as far as I can tell. That's what I Yeah, that's This is existing. Yeah. So it's Gonna be that much wider. Yeah. So the, the drive, the driveway. Sh can we, can we show you this for a moment? He, Jason's taken, that's the garage. So essentially that's the driveway right there. Somewhere in here. That, that right there is the lot line. Yes. So the driveway here, right? Like to to the edge of the, the edge of the house. Yeah. Okay. So just see if you can verbalize that. Yeah.
196
02:06:43.005 --> 02:07:26.605
Amending my earlier motion. We just wanna describe the limits of the driveway and it looks to be that the driveway at the Walcott street will be widened to accommodate entry to the proposed garage. Great. Okay. Something like that. So okay. As amended. A second. Second, Jeff. All those in favor? One. Jason, 2, 3, 4, 5. You're all set. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Good luck Amanda. Any business with you? Novis. Thank you Amanda. Thank you to the zoom. Oh.
197
02:07:26.705 --> 02:07:36.885
And move to close the hearing. Close the Meeting. Adjourn. Adjourn the meeting second, Jeff. All those in favor? Yep. Okay. We're adjourned.