Speaker 1: Sculpture, literally using it tonight. We have, we're gonna go a little out of order then Usually do, but, or no, we have some unique cases. Wait a second. Oh Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. So we, we, we have some two requests to reconsider. It may be, I'm gonna ask, I guess when they come up, have, have things changed because of the change in the law on these two projects? I'm not sure who I'm looking at. Who's at one 50? Woodland? Not here. Speaker 3: Peter. Her and he is being promoted to panelist.
He will be behind you or running. Speaker 1: Oh, he's gonna be on Zoom virtually. Okay. Alright. And then 13 Sheffield. Do we have, is George here? Speaker 3: George is here, Speaker 1: Here, here. There. They're there. They're Speaker 3: Here. They're Speaker 1: There. Okay. Okay. Alright. Well I guess they'll have to tell us to the extent that change in the law has impacted what we did. I don't know. I I didn't relook at the, I think George just wants, Speaker 3: So this is Speaker 1: To change. It's not Speaker 3: Prejudice. Yeah. So this is not part of the new law because this was taken in before the law went into effect.
So these are actually requests of the applicant to recon for the board to reconsider their vote. To allow the board, to let them withdraw their application without prejudice. Yeah, yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker 3: But to do that, two members that were voting in opposition would have to actually make the motion and second it to allow for the reconsideration. Speaker 1: How, how many? I'm one 50. Will and Dave, Jason, Gale, and Andrew. There was four voting members. How do we vote? Speaker 3: So that is correct. So you and Jason voted in favor and then there was, that one was Gail and Andrew.
So they would have to make the motion and second it Speaker 1: To they They would or they Speaker 3: Would, yes, they would, yeah. In order it to be even reconsidered. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Well let's hear from the, the applicant first and then we'll, Speaker 3: Well, the, it's not open. Speaker 1: Oh, oh no. Okay. We're, this is just on the law. Okay. Alright. So I'm gonna go first here. Well, do we have to have the motion first? They Speaker 3: Have to do the motion first. Speaker 1: Okay. I'm gonna discuss it before it gets opened then. Is that, is that all right? Yeah. It, it just, all this, this is, this is what I, this is what I see. Look, we, we've been doing this for, from, from time immemorial.
We hear the applicant, we hear the, the, we hear the abutters, we hear from the board. And we have a very interactive process. And we allow people an opportunity to go out and have a discussion and to either discuss with the, the abutters after they hear sort of the, the way the wind is blowing at the board level. And to decide whether they wanna go out and have a call, have a discussion, and then come back and, and with an amended plan, or at any point in the, in, in these, these,
these hearings say, you know what? I'd like to go to a vote. We don't force it. We ask, you wanna go to a vote? Or you wanna go out and have that conversation? Do you want to resubmit? Do you want a continuance? Is what we ask. They hear the way the wind is blowing and they want roll the dice, that is entirely their option. We cannot force a continuance. But if you roll the dice, you live with the consequences. You don't get another bite at the apple. 'cause it turned out in a way that wasn't beneficial to Right. Speaker 4: He is. No, they'll Speaker 1: Say it again.
Speaker 4: I think Peter, Speaker 1: Peter. Speaker 4: Oh no, no. Speaker 1: Okay. I don't know what that was. In any case, that's how I feel about it. You, you, you, then you get unlimited bites, right? You come in, you take your presentation, it gets voted down, and then you come in and ask to withdraw it. Because otherwise you get penalized with the two years. But you can't come back on the same project anyways. So you gotta modify it. So I, it hasn't, it's not before us yet. 'cause it hasn't been open. But I will tell you for those reasons, I would absolutely not be inclined to allow withdrawal because the, the applicant did so with their eyes wide open.
With that said, it's up to Gail and Andrew. If they want to make a motion to reopen, I, I don't even know what it is. A motion to allow the applicant to withdraw the application. And it, and it, it is not meant to be punitive. Right. Because that's not the way this board acts. And I think that's why I wouldn't be inclined because the board doesn't say after the first hearing, I'm sorry, I'm going on. The first hearing comes up. The a the neighbors raise doubts. The board is raises concerns.
And we don't say, okay, how do we want, let's vote because, you know, I can hear the way the wind is blowing and I see that this is going to go down and this is gonna be voted down. But I'm gonna allow you an opportunity, a choice on your own to either go outside or to have a further discussion and come back in a month and see if there's some changes that were made to, to satisfy the, the concerns of the abutters and or board. And it gives you an opportunity to, to tweak the project
and still, and still have it approved at some, at some level. But if you say, I'm not doing that, or I've reached the limit, as a developer, that's your option. And you hear the board as well as I hear the board. And if you say, I want the vote, you live with the consequences of the vote. Speaker 5: Just so I'm crystal clear on it. So these two projects that we're talking about right now, we did vote on them and is a, this is Speaker 1: A request. We voted on them and I and we supposed to Speaker 5: Reconsider that, Speaker 1: Not to reconsider our vote. Our vote, our it was they were denied. Yep.
In, in, as the, the law currently, actually, I'm not even sure I was gonna, the law currently stood before a couple days ago. You were, you couldn't bring the thing, you couldn't bring the same project back for two years once you were denied. And so, to be frank, I mean, what is the difference? Because that project wasn't gonna be approved in the first place. If you want to come back, you can come back the next day with something different. 'cause if you'd be a fool to come to submit the same application, right? Yeah. So although maybe there's a change in the board
changing in your neighbors, who knows? I, I don't know. But in any case, you could come back the next day with some substantially modified project, right? Yep. These applicants are asking this board to allow them to essentially step back in time before the vote and instead of having the vote be recorded as a denial to have the them withdrawing prior to the Yes. Speaker 5: And so the benefit to them is that then they could quote unquote come back the next day
with another design. Speaker 1: Yes. Without delay, with the same, Speaker 5: Without delay. The which, the same design, which would be just to be sort of blunt, could be a big waste of time. Speaker 1: Well, that we're, we're, we're not. Okay. That's up to the applicant. Yeah. So, but it, it will, it will take, actually it will take two to tango here. It will take one of you to motion the board to allow the applicants to withdraw the application. Let's call it that for now. That that's what, that's the net effect.
Speaker 6: And this Speaker 1: Will be recorded in the annals of history as a, as a, as a withdrawal. And not a denial. Not a Speaker 5: Denial. Speaker 1: It Speaker 6: Just to be again, super clear. The applicants can come back with the same proper, same lot and propose a different project which is shorter, smaller, whatever fits better in the neighborhood. And that has nothing to do with this vote right now. They can still do that. Yes, they can. Okay. Even with our Speaker 1: Denial, even Speaker 6: With us not approving a withdrawal with prejudice. Speaker 1: That's right. So I'm not sure exactly
what the benefit is, but it is what it is. Here we are. Speaker 5: So we and we as a board have never been asked this request to consider before. Speaker 1: No, Speaker 5: No. In the history of the board. Speaker 1: No, not since I've been here. Not Speaker 7: Since I've been here. Okay. Speaker 5: I mean, so far just, I'm not super inclined to, to consider it then Speaker 1: May I ask a quick question? Yeah. How many times did the applicant have an opportunity to, I, I may, I would know how many times did one 50 Woodland come before this board? Think? Three or four. Speaker 8: Four. Four hearings. Speaker 5: It was continued four times. Speaker 8: It was continued Three times.
Speaker 5: Three times and then Speaker 1: Down. So your client, this is four, Speaker 8: The last month was four. Speaker 1: So four times this would be, oh, continued three times from the first hearing. So one, two. Yeah. Speaker 5: So if, if they can come back, well, again, I understand that correctly. If they can come back with a different design, very different design on the same lot the next day is what I'm hearing then if we sort of set this precedent of going through this each time, I don't think I'm not inclined to do it. What's Speaker 1: The vote? What is the denial worth? If you can just undo the denial the next week, the next
Speaker 7: Month, Speaker 1: I, Speaker 5: What is the, I'd be curious to hear from the applicant of any why Speaker 1: Thought worse, we're not gonna do it. Okay. Speaker 5: I think I am. What? I'm good. Speaker 7: Okay. So in light of the new changes though, can they come back with the same project now? Speaker 1: No. Speaker 7: And and and how much, how much? 'cause I brain dump after something and I don't recall. No, I don't either. What they were, what they were, Speaker 1: I I don't remember either. Well, I can tell you right now Speaker 7: Was only lot size and frontage, Speaker 1: The lot size that's out. Frontage is good. Deck was no good, but that's out.
The front setback was okay, but they can't be gone. The side setback was Okay, I got it. The other side. Okay. Speaker 7: I meant Speaker 1: It says rear. Okay. Was this, was this a corner lot? It must have been. It must have been, yes. Yeah. So there's no beer. One 50 was the coverage was okay, the height was okay. So Speaker 7: Theoretically they could come back Speaker 1: With that project, Speaker 7: With that exact project. Speaker 1: Yeah. And it gets approved. Yeah. It, it wouldn't need to It gets by, right? You can build it.
Yeah. Pretty clever. Yep. So again, I mean this is just quirky now because of the change in the law and the way it's working like this. But it'll have to be a, it'll have to be a, it'll have to be a different house. And that's why you've never seen this before. I mean, look, 'cause the law changing, opened the door for this Speaker 7: Mr. Chair. Owen, what's, what's the rule? Can they come back? Can they submit for a building permit? Speaker 1: Well, it'll, it'll be up to the building department depart to determine, I suppose, you know, maybe, maybe the, the, the building maybe I don't, there's,
there's no case law on this yet, but maybe the, maybe the answer is that it's an as of right project now. Yeah. And an a as of right project is not the same project, I suppose I I I, yeah, that, that project could, if we, it never came before us, that project would not have to come back before us as currently configured. That's the new world order. I don't know if, if everybody, anybody here in the assembled or watching at home, there has been a massive upheaval
of zoning law in Massachusetts that was passed with the budget. And Governor Healy signed into law. Two massive changes, seed changes in, in land use law in Massachusetts that is going to be significantly reduced. The number of cases that need to come before this board and, and, and I would say result in an, an substantial amount of building, residential building. And that's what the whole purpose of the law was. The intent is to get more housing built.
And this, this is the intent of a legislature is to reduce the, the number of cases that need relief. And the way it did, it was before anytime a lot was too small, which most lots in Natick are, I'm talking about where existing stock is. So this is alterations, enlargements and reconstruction of existing homes. If you buy an empty lot today, you gotta comply with today's zoning. So this is, that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is existing houses, which is the vast, vast majority
of the cases we see are enlargements additions, tear downs and rebuilds of the existing stock. And if it was on the lot was not big enough, you had to come before us. If the lot didn't know a frontage, you had to come before us. If the lot wasn't deep enough, it had problems with any of the setbacks. The building coverage or the building height had to come before us. Right. And if there was an existing non-conformity, meaning the lot was too small, a better example would be the setback. You were in the front setback by a foot. You could make, you could go 10 feet further into the front
setback as long as this board made a determination that it was not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conformity. Right. And that's what we hear testimony from everybody. We hear about how this project is going to impact the neighbors, the neighborhood. And then the board passes to make a determination in its, in its wisdom, if you will, about whether what was being constructed was or was not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconformity. What the change is is that the only ones that now we are gonna have an opportunity to
make a determination on that you require relief on, at least as far as section six is height and setbacks. So if a building complies with heightened setbacks, despite the fact that everything else is non-conforming, provided it was non-conforming at the time before the application, that this board will not get a crack at that. So the things that you couldn't have changed. And so in this particular case, using one 50 Woodland as an, as an example, the lot is 16,000 square feet. The latier requirement in, in
that district is 40,000 square feet. So we would have an opportunity to, to determine any changes to that lot because of the, because of the, the lot was too small. It had frontage, it did not have enough depth. So we would, it's 38 feet short. We have to make a determination on that because of that. The front setback was, in this case it was compliant. It was 40 feet is the requirement. And they were gonna make, the setbacks will be 41 feet. The, the side setback requirement is 20 feet, it was gonna be 34.
The rear setback was 20 feet. I'm sorry, the other side setback is 20 feet and they were gonna make it 30.6. The building coverage, no more than 20% covered. 15.7 is what they proposed. And the building height is no more than 35 feet. They proposed 29.52. If that case, if that exact project is put for the building commissioner tomorrow, he gives him a building permit. All things being equal plans complied with the requirements of the building code. But it does not come here that before the new law that came here had four hearings
and was denied. Tomorrow we won't even see the project. That's one, that's the first thing. The other thing is variances, which are very, very difficult to get in Massachusetts. They totally upended the way variances are now determined. So using my example, if you have an existing house that is compliant with side setbacks, so it's requirements 20 feet, you're 20 feet, you want to go to 15, you gotta come before the board and ask for a variance.
A variance used to be something that you had a hardship that was derived only from one of three things. Soil conditions, topography or the shape of the lot. So if you had a flat lot with good soil and a square or rectangular shape, a variance was as next to impossible. The law of the case was the variance is in opposite. You can't get one for that. They've got rid of all three of the requirements. There's no soil, there's no topography and there's no shape.
Those three things are out. Now all you have to do is demonstrate a hardship as long as it's not self-created. Speaker 6: So then the point you kind of somewhat mute, you give up to the question of reconsideration. Correct. If they do not want to move forward with the first and the second, then we have the answer to the reconsideration request. Right. Speaker 1: We don't have a request to reconsider. Speaker 6: We don't, that's my point. I think that Speaker 1: We don't have, well that, that to my knowledge, that's not before us. Right? It's not a reconsideration of the original vote. Speaker 3: So what it is, is a reconsideration. Yes, yes it is. But they're requesting a reconsideration for you
to open the meeting to allow them to withdraw the application. They're not asking you to reconsider it, to approve it, it is just to reconsider. So they, your vote to allow them to withdraw without prejudice. Speaker 1: Again, I say you live with the vote, the vote is the vote, you live with the vote. They can come back tomorrow with a new project that is compliant and the building commissioner will make a determination. It's totally within his purview, not ours, about whether what's being submitted does or does not, does or does not have to be different than what was denied here.
Because it's now as of right, I mean that is a very, very unique circumstance. I think that that such a substantial loosening of the requirements has occurred here. Although one question has arisen. Did you do that? Which one did you look at that question alteration? Oh Speaker 6: No, I haven't found Speaker 1: It yet. Okay, so Amanda thi this is for Caris and I I may, she may just watch the tape, but, and I don't have it in front of me, but my recollection is that
original section six said for alterations and larges and reconstructions, right, everything came before the board, right? That was noncompliant. Any kind of extension or as long as it was an introduction of a new nonconformity, section six said, you know, lot frontage, depth setback, et cetera. Whether it was an alteration, an extension and enlargement, you know, making it taller and wider and larger and reconstruction, which I always took to be
a leveling and rebuilding, right? That's Speaker 3: Correct. Yes. Speaker 1: I think, and I may be wrong about this, but I think that the new language leaves the word reconstruction out, Speaker 6: Correct? Speaker 3: It is, yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. So the question is, if the leg, did the legislature intend for this to apply only to enlargements and alterations and not to reconstruction? It would strike me as odd if that were the case. That being said, you know, the sort of, you know, the hallmarks of, of statutory construction is
that the legislature does things on purpose and that every word must be given a fact and that the, the, the deletion of a word that had meaning has meaning. Speaker 3: Yeah. But there was language within it, a few sentence earlier about the use. And so it would be a use for use. Speaker 1: I don't think that answers the question. I think what the, the, my reading of the statute was structure and use. It used to so use and structure but but not, in other words, if you take a house today and do to, you know, this is the house today, nonconformity
as setbacks, you can go like that and you don't need to come up you lot coverage. Right? Do this that, that you know, exacerbates the degree of locked coverage violations, but the setbacks are good, right? So that's all day long. That little speech I gave that doesn't come before us, but now you knock it down and rebuild it larger. Does that come before us? I don't know the answer. I'm raising the question. Speaker 3: So in our conversations with counsel, it would,
because the existing structure is still there Speaker 1: In my first example was an, it was an extension that violated a lot coverage that does not come before us. Speaker 3: Lot coverage, correct. Coming It was in the setback area. Speaker 1: Not in the setback. Okay. This is not in the setback. So just the lot coverage exacerbation of the existing lot coverage non-conformity is not coming before us. But that same problem is instead of an extension of the existing non-conformity, it's a knockdown rebuild on a larger footprint that under the same facts, not
because the word reconstruction is out. Does that change the analysis? And that's the question. I don't think we need an answer because that's gonna be up to the commissioner. Either this stuff is coming before us 'cause he'll deny it or he won't. And people will make a determination about whether they do or they don't wanna appeal the, the issuance of the building permit. So that's it. Okay. Do we have here anything? No, I'm not in a, no, I'm not gonna make a motion to request or reconsider. Speaker 8: No, I I in fact, I was actually gonna use some of the phrases you used in your explanation.
I won't bother to repeat them. I appreciate that. I, you, you covered it for me. Speaker 1: Okay, good enough. So we don't have it there on one 50 and then on 13 Sheffield, David, Jason, Rob, Gail, and Jeff. And how did we vote on that one? Speaker 3: So only I believe you and Jason voted in favor of it and the other three Speaker 1: Did not. So now we have Jason, Rob, and Gail. Jeff, Rob. Rob. What did I say? Jason, Jeff, Rob. Oh, I'm sorry. Jeff, Rob and Gail. Right. And so now you, are you inclined? I feel the same way.
Are you inclined? You need to come back to the different project. Gail, you and Cly. Okay, so we neither one of them. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then so now before we get into the new projects, any individual may raise an issue that does not include on the agenda. It will be taken under advised by the board. There'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. This section agenda is limited to 15 minutes. In any individual addressing the board during this section agenda should be limited to five minutes. Does anyone have anything that's not on the agenda? Okay, seeing on the fir, I guess I'll read this although we covered it, but projects subject to amendments to MGL chapter 48, section six on July 9th,
governor Moore Healy signed the fiscal year 2027 budget. It was house bill number 5 5 5 5, which included amendments to 48 Section six. The amendments affected several applications originally scheduled for the July 27th, 2026 zoning, board of appeals meeting. Under the revised statute, residential projects located on lots that are nonconforming solely with respect to lot size, shape, frontage, lot coverage or floor area ratio, which we don't have here are now permitted as of right and no longer requires relief under 48. Section six. I think this raises the question just
before we go on that Jason said it's odd that they consider that they don't add lot depth. It's not in there. Okay, so I guess technically lot depth would be coming here. I don't know. So that, that's for the building commissioner. Again, these project may proceed through the building permit processor with the without zoning Board of Appeals review. They are 39 Beverly Street. If you're here on that, if you're here on that, that project's not gonna be heard by the board. The next one is three Bunker Lane. That's not gonna be heard by the board. 32 Longfellow Road.
That's not gonna be hurting by the board and last six Concord Street. That is not gonna be hurt by the board. Okay, now I have something here, a note. It says, hi Amanda, this is from Vincent Sarky who's one of the building inspectors. He's a zoning officer too for the town. Hi Amanda. I just talked with Dave. That would be the building commissioner about six Concord Street. It's a corner lot. And the, he's saying, I talked about the six Concord Street corner lot setbacks. He has confirmed, meaning Dave, that corner lots
and Neek have two front setbacks and two side setbacks and no rear setbacks. That's the way the board is always interpreted by, by reference to the commissioner's determination. He said that this was determined many years ago and has never been an issue. Thanks Vincent. Soki. So it may be that you disagree with that. That's the way the board treats these cases to fronts and two sides. And in this particular case, as, as regards to six Concord Street, it would have an impact if they were
rears instead of sides. The side set, the rear setbacks 25 I think, and the side setback is 12. So you get 13 more feet. We don't make the rules, we follow the rules. If you think that that's not the way that this lot should be determined and that the commissioner is doing it wrong, there's another avenue of appeal. And the way that works is and monitor the issuance of the building permit. You appeal the issuance of the buildings permit, or ask the building commissioner to make a ruling that,
that it violates the, this case, the side setback, which should actually be arrear setback. I presume that he will follow his normal dictate the, sorry, his normal method of determining corner lots. And the request will be denied. That can then be appealed to this board. Then I don't know what will happen. But I'll just give you some sense. Again, we don't make the rules and we also don't do a bunch of legal research. We follow the way the build this town has, has done its zoning for years. And it's the, the, the, the, the code is silent on this.
So it's a determination by the building commissioner, the zoning officer, and, and we have followed that and our deliberations for, for eons. If our determination was that the building commissioner did it wrong, then that's one thing. If our determination is that the building commissioner ruled correctly, then our decision is appealable to disappear or land court. Okay? So there you go. If you're here on any of those projects, you can stay, but you don't need to. The first case that's up, Mr. Chair. Yes sir. Speaker 9: Question. Will you be getting back to three Bunker Lane? Speaker 1: No. Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 1: Why? For all the reasons that I just said. Okay. It's no longer are you the applicant's? No. Okay. That project is compliant with today's zoning. It does not need relief from this board. Okay, Speaker 9: Wonderful. Speaker 1: Thank you. I think you can expect that that house will be built in accordance with the plans that were submitted, Speaker 10: But we also got a notice saying this is gonna be on the, Speaker 1: This, this, the law changed in between the time that you got the notice and today. Okay. Imagine that July 9th. Speaker 10: Is there any plans somewhere that we can see on?
Speaker 1: You can go online and look that and look at the plans. Speaker 10: Where would you find that? Speaker 1: You can go to the building department or map, right? Yep. Building department and follow the link to that address. And then you can see there's a, there's two tabs. One tabs is files and it's got like 15 or 20 files in it. You can scan down and look for plans, double click on 'em and they'll all be there. Speaker 11: All righty, Speaker 8: Thank you. All right. And, and if you need help reading them, 'cause in my opinion, it's tricky. If you've never done it before, there are folks in Amanda's department who can definitely help you. They're very nice about that. Speaker 11: Awesome. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Nice to see you folks. Yep. The first public hearing for tonight that we're actually gonna make a determination on is 27 dash 29 Forest Avenue. The applicant is Chris Kati. It's a request for a section six finding for a demo of two one family dwellings and the construction of two new one Family dwellings on abuse and nonconforming law. Okay. Hi. So let's take a look here. One moment. Now I have to just reorient my, my my my way of thinking. Speaker 11: Just, I mean, my understanding on that law was
expanded or altered. You know, I don't see new construction and I read it, you know, up and down. Speaker 1: So is that right? Well, it's all gonna come down to what the building commissioner, Speaker 11: It is just, it almost seems unfair. You know? I, I don't know, but Speaker 1: You're a builder. Speaker 11: No, it's good for, but like, hey, I, maybe I'll pack out of this and rearrange the houses and call it a day, you know? Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that's what's gonna happen. I think that's what's gonna happen. That's Speaker 11: How it's no, for me it's great, but I'm just, Speaker 1: Alright. Speaker 11: What happened to her? Speaker 1: So I'm, I'm gonna go to your chart here for a moment
Speaker 11: And Amanda, who's on this? Speaker 1: Oh, it's, oh yeah, it's not, it's, it's not, not Ari. So it's, it's, it's Rob, Jason, me Jeff and you. Speaker 11: Because we were all here. Everybody that sat on it before we were all here Oh Speaker 1: No. For all the other hearings. No, this is, this is new. No, no, we've Speaker 11: Done this before. Continue. 29 is not continu, it's a continuation. Oh, it's only one. Speaker 1: Oh, sorry, sorry. I can go Speaker 11: Through the notes. What I changed. Speaker 1: Continue, continue. So again, let's just refresh here. I I'm gonna say it, but you're not here getting the relief on it. The lot area, it's 10,843 on a 15,000 required.
But that's, you don't need, that's not, you don't need relief on that. The frontage is short, but you don't need relief on that. The depth you have the front setback, 30 a requirement. You have 27. Oh, is this a, is this a corner again? Speaker 11: No, this is the two houses on one lot two. So it's kind of a little tricky. But Speaker 1: What am I gonna remember this? Okay, wait a minute. Oh, okay. Yeah. 27. 29, sorry. 39 6. So that's compliant. 1 34, 1 that's compliant to the front. 30.5 compliant. 1 14 9 compliant. Okay, here it is.
It's the side for 29, 4 0.5. Right? There's your problem. It's 4.5. So I'm seeing, oh, did you change this? It's 7.1 now, right? Speaker 11: Yeah. So we improved it, you know what went from, Speaker 1: Oh sorry, 4.5 is existing. I'm, yeah, 7.1 and 7.1. That's right. So that, that's really it. And then your rear is 80 a good oh 3.40, but you're gonna go to 16. Okay. It improves, but, so it's, this is rear and side and then your coverage is okay
and your height is, is, okay. Okay. So this is just the setbacks. Okay. Alright. Alright. So knowing that what, what, what, what if anything's changed? That's what I, that's what I said. Speaker 11: Alright. Yeah. So on the, on the rear house number 29. Yeah. So what ended up moving that an additional three feet forward. So now it's 16 feet off the rear and on one side and, and about 26 feet off on the, on the other side
where the current house is only three, 3.4 feet. Yep. So I ended up removing the third floor dormer that kind of looked into the neighbor's yard to give them some privacy. I removed a shed dormer. We decreased the height from 29.4 to, sorry, from 31.6 to 29.4. So we lowered the roof edge, we lowered ceiling heights, we removed some large windows in the back for, for more privacy. I met with the neighbors. I spoke to 31 forest staff about planting some AEs, eight to 10 feet tall.
And we came up with eight of 'em. We confirmed a six foot vinyl fence for each house. We got a, you know, kind of a front portico. We designed the stormwater system to improve all the drainage. And I updated the existing exterior photos on the, on the portal 'cause I got some complaints about that. And then for number 27, the front house, we shifted that three feet to the south in talking with the neighbor. So we decreased the height of that house three feet by lowering the roof pitch and ceiling heights. And we played with the front facade, you know,
to make it more in keeping with the neighborhood. Let's see. And we did the vinyl fence in the storm water. Speaker 1: Okay. Gross. Okay. Speaker 11: So we did a lot. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. That, that, that, that's right. I, I think that, I think that's an accurate description from my perspective. Okay. Okay. Well let's find out the folks that you met with and see what they think about it. So who would like to be heard on 27 29 Forest Avenue? Come on up and, and just give your name and address. Speaker 12: Yeah, sure. My name's Mark Ula. Liz Milch, my wife. We're at 28 Forest South. We didn't speak in the last hearing,
but we wanna speak up today. Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 12: So at first I've been a little confused about some of the information. So it seems as though that we're, we're dealing with an RSA, not an rg 'cause the square footage on the plot plan. So it's 12,000 square feet and it says, and then I believe the application is an RSA and it says 15,000. So that was one of the first things. But I believe you already cleared that up with your previous summary. Speaker 1: I'm, I'm looking, I I didn't, I didn't speak to that today, so I, I don't think I,
Speaker 12: The last plan on the bottom, the last plan says acquired is 12,000 square feet. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So I Speaker 12: That's r Speaker 1: This is, that's not RSA, Speaker 12: Right? Speaker 1: This is from July 23rd. Right. So the zoning information on this plan doesn't fax, say RSA. Speaker 12: Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you for the clarification. Yeah. And then one of the questions that I have that I'm trying to wrap my head around, which is the town's discretion about non-conforming building or non-conforming pre-existing use.
And I think the colloquial term is grandfather. Correct. And if they, these properties are raised and torn down, I'm questioning, do I need clarification? Does that remove the protection? No, Speaker 1: No. If you tear 'em down and don't do anything for a while, then yes, you'll lose the grandfathering. Speaker 12: Okay. And so there was a pending question that was, I think Gail brought up last about the square footage for the driveway use and whether or not this falls within the condo complex or whether or not the, the amount of driveway, whether there could
or couldn't be a shared driveway. In this circumstance right now there's currently a shared driveway. One of the benefits by the builder was, is that the reduced the nonpermeable space. I just don't know whether or not there was some question about how big iffa was going to be a shared driveway where, where this property Speaker 1: Stands there, there's not, right now the way this is plan is drawn is there's a driveway on sort of a right-ish side of the lot and access is the front house and a driveway on the left side of the lot that accesses the rear house. Speaker 12: Yeah, Speaker 8: They're they're no longer shared. Right? Correct.
You you split them. So it's no longer that. Speaker 12: Well that leads me to my next concern, which is the detrimental use and nuon nuisance of the headlights and the driveway of the 27 will be pointing directly into our living space as it's proposed. Right Now, Speaker 1: Just refresh my memory, where you were Speaker 12: A forest ave directly across the street. I have aerial photos. Speaker 1: You're saying if a car backs in, or I mean pulls out forward, Speaker 12: Pulls out forward or pulls in, those lights are going right in into our home, our bedroom and Speaker 1: Front.
Why is that different than today? Speaker 12: There's the driveway is parallel. 28 Forest Avenue. This one would make it vertical to 28 Forest Speaker 1: Avenue. How? Help me, where's 2028 doesn't show up on this plan? So here, here's the lot. I Speaker 12: Have pictures here if you want to look at Yeah, Speaker 1: That be, oh, here we go. 28. Speaker 13: Why are you not, did Speaker 1: I do just, just help me to understand then you Speaker 12: Or directly across the street from 27. Speaker 1: Right? So when this guy, when this guy pulls out the driveway, he's shining at you, right? Yep. And when this guy backs up
to the pull out, he's shining at you. Yep. So it's essentially it's the same. No Speaker 12: It's not. Speaker 1: Why is it different? Speaker 13: He's building a new driveway. Speaker 1: I, I understand. But Right. Speaker 13: So that's the Speaker 1: Concern. Is it the, the difference between this, this stepped area here and this, the, Speaker 12: That driveway in 27 right now is parallel to 28 Forest Avenue. This here, that little mini driveway? Speaker 1: No, no, this here. The turnaround. This here. Speaker 8: Oh, the turnaround. Speaker 1: Yeah. Come, come on over and show me. Speaker 12: This is the current driveway. They both share entrance in here. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 12: And oriented here.
This current driveway is just opposite position to our driveway. So we don't get any light interference whatsoever. But the proposed driveway here would be shining right into our home. Speaker 1: I see. Okay. Okay, I see, I see your, I see your point. But Speaker 5: It's the same number of cars and you're still, Speaker 12: It's a larger density. We can't guarantee it's the same number of cars. Speaker 5: Well, just so I'm clear on it. So the existing, I'm looking at the existing plan, there are two structures there. Now they share a driveway. So let's say there's one car per residence, it's two cars coming out. So you're saying it could be more cars now coming out? Speaker 12: Yeah, I don't know. Speaker 1: The idea could be more
cars coming out could be more Speaker 5: In someone if the house has stayed and different people move in Speaker 12: I guess. Right. So what we haven't had any good faith from Mr. Kati yet. You know, we haven't had the opportunity. He didn't know that we had have a challenge with the light use this evening. He's shown good faith to the other neighbors by having discussions about solutions. Speaker 1: Well, so just to be fair, before we start accusing people of not having good faith. No, I, Speaker 12: That's I need Speaker 1: To stop you. Lemme stop you. Okay. 'cause you just said he isn't shown good faith. I'm gonna stop you again and say this, you didn't mention anything about the light last time. Okay? And so Speaker 12: You misrepresented my language.
I said, you said good faith said we didn't have the pleasure of it yet because he didn't know that we had a problem. Speaker 1: No, no. That's not what you said. But that's okay. He now hears you. Yep. And so do we can hear you. Okay. What else would you like to tell us? Speaker 12: We'd like to propose a Speaker 1: Solution. I hear that. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Anybody else wants to be heard on 27 29 Forest? Yes, sir. Speaker 11: Just to answer quickly on that, I mean Sure. The, the two driveways are roughly 12, 13 feet apart. So if out of the existing driveway, anyone turning left is gonna shine lights in, in any, you know, if they're turning right, they're gonna shine lights in the neighbors so you know the other neighbors.
So, so, okay. Speaker 1: Yes sir. Yes. Your name and address if you would. Speaker 14: My name is Dave Richardson. I'm at 25 Forest Avenue directly abutting to the south of 27. So thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the board, Ms. Loomis and town staff. Originally we brought our concerns that the, the new build would, you know, thrust our building, our our house rather into perpetual darkness. And the fact that it's gonna be, it would be 10 feet taller and, and be so much closer to our house. So we, we discussed these concerns with Mr.
Kati and I wanted to thank Mr. Kati for working with us. You know, I originally asked to lower the structure by tenfold feet. Sometimes you gotta shoot your shot and Mr. Kati was able to reduce the height by three feet and we appreciate that and also worked with us in moving the house to the south of further away from our structure. All of this is gonna help with the incoming sunlight into our south facing windows on that part of the house, which as I mentioned before in the previous meeting, do a lot of work during the wintertime. We have an older house, so those south facing windows really
help help out with our heating bill. So in light of these changes at that, Mr. Ka has worked with us, we are comfortable supporting the project, at least as it stands in the plans today on number 27. And that's, that's what, that's what I came to say. Thanks Speaker 1: Very much. Thank you. Who else would like to be heard if anyone on 27 29 Forest Avenue. Okay. Board questions, thoughts, comments, Speaker 3: Concerns? Mine? Speaker 1: There's no, oh, thank you. I I'm never gonna remember that, but thank you. I should say, just for the record, anybody who is on Zoom,
there's a raise hand function, is that correct? And if you just indicate that you are raising your hand, we'll get to you after some prompting by you, Amanda. Okay. Anybody have any questions here? Thoughts, comments? The neighbor at 31, what was gonna be on the zoom call? She, she's not on. Speaker 3: Oh, someone just raised your phone. Yeah, hold on. They're going in and out there is a hand raised. Speaker 1: Okay. Is there a name to associated with it? Speaker 3: Kathy Lee. Speaker 1: Okay, Ms. Lee, can you hear me? Speaker 3: She just needs to unmute
Speaker 1: You just need to unmute yourself. Hi. Oh hi. How you doing? Speaker 15: Fine. Yes, I'm sorry I can't be there in person, but Speaker 1: No, no problem. Just before you, before you speak and we know you're this Kathy Lee, what's your address? Speaker 15: So the address is 31 Forest. So you actually can't see it on the pictures because it's very treat. So if you take the, the lot 29 and sort of go back, it's in the corner there under the trees. Speaker 1: Got it. Speaker 15: What Speaker 1: Would you like to tell us? Speaker 15: It's probably the lot that's closest to the, the,
obviously the, to the back corner and then also to the side. So I met with Mr. Kati. Our, my concern was just privacy because with the new house, the windows looking down on my front door, the, on my front door, he was, I really appreciate him making those windows smaller so that it's not looking right down on my front door. And I spoke with him about adding a fence to create more privacy in that back corner and also adding arbor. I have Arbor, ie. Going, you'll see my arvee going all the way down my driveway.
And for him to continue those back around the corner, I really was proposing that when I spoke in person last time. Sorry. And you had suggested putting it in writing and I was like, oh, I'll just talk about it. I do, I would request that it be something that be required. Sure. Just, just Speaker 1: Clarify, sorry, just clarify with me that the arbor will run down the south side of the laws and we'll turn to the,
Speaker 15: To the west, Speaker 1: To the south side, turn to the, to the north. Right along the west side. We will be traveling west and then take a right and go north. When they got to the corner, you said around the corner, correct? I just wanted to define what Correct, Speaker 15: Correct, Speaker 1: Correct. Yeah. Okay. And how far, how far do you carry it? Across the rear? Speaker 15: It's about, yeah, we're talking about like eight arvid. Right? So I have them all the way up until a stopping point. And he has, he has said that he will continue them. He originally had said a much lower height, but
because my privacy issue has to do with the second floor I've requested they be at least 10 feet tall. Speaker 1: Okay. So 10 feet are right from where they stop now to the rear of the corner and then they're gonna bang a, a, a west a north, they're gonna go north for how many go north? How many how many trees to the north? Eight Speaker 11: Total. So say five and three. Speaker 1: Five and three. And I was Speaker 11: Proposing like eight foot to 10 foot species. Speaker 1: Got it. Do you hear that eight to 10 foot, is that sufficient? Speaker 15: So he originally said fif, you know, agreed to 15 and then he keeps going back six to eight.
So I've said 10, he's saying eight to 10. I would prefer them to be 10 foot minimum. The ones that are currently there are about 25 feet. Right. Can you, Speaker 1: Can you live with 10? Speaker 15: I can live with 10. Speaker 1: She can live with 10. Yeah. I mean Ms. Lee can live with 10. Mr. Capi, can you live with 10? Speaker 11: Yeah, I think that's how they sell 'em. Eight to 10 feet or 10 to 12 or, Speaker 1: Okay. So so the eight in the eight to 10 range, you'll pick the tens. Correct. Or in the 10 to 12 range you could pick the tens to Speaker 15: Let's go with the tens. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Anybody else have
any thoughts here on the board? I mean, I, I think would our Speaker 7: Vid solve your problem? One or two on your front yard? Speaker 12: Yeah, you can block the line. I don't want our vids on my front lawn. Speaker 1: Not your lawn. Their lawn, Speaker 7: Their lawn. You can't, you can't put 'em in the driveway. No, I was talking in your, in your Oh, oh Speaker 12: Yeah. The orientation of the driveway putting out of s isn't gonna help him get access to that driveway. Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean you can't put 'em in the middle of the driveway. So, so, Speaker 12: But putting the driveway parallel or moving the garage to the other side of the door or having a side loading garage would solve that problem.
But then that comes into a shared usage for the driveway. Speaker 1: Right? Right. I'm of the mind here that, you know, you're, you're, you essentially are dealing with the precise issue. That's an existing condition. The, there's this shared driveway on the left side of this lot, people pull out if they go right, maybe there's no light spillage if they go left. There certainly would be the same, in the same manner as the, the driveway here. Whether they're coming out of the left driveway or the right driveway. As you look at the lot, I think the net impact on, on the, I
Speaker 12: I would argue sir, that we have things that block the lights from the driveway to get into our house when people turn in and out of that driveway. Yeah. So when people are coming out of the driveway, we've got a fence, we've got gardens, we've got trees that block that. Speaker 1: What about Speaker 12: Ubs? Don have low blockage at all? What Speaker 1: About some shrubs and lower shrubs? You know, because the headlights are relatively low. Speaker 5: If I could, I mean, isn't it true that there, you're always gonna have to drive in and back all the way out. There's no way to turn around in these driveways. Right. In the new, the proposed So isn't a non-issue Speaker 6: Unless you're back into the driveway. Into the driveway,
Speaker 1: There's still lights. But I don't know if anybody who ever does that Well, but Speaker 5: I mean, but headlights are a lot worse than, I mean, lights don't Speaker 12: Exist now to, when they will exist will be a detriment. It'll be something that we're gonna have to deal with detriment. So we're proposing, we don't want to block him from trying to do what he needs to do. We're proposing a solution which is make the driveway parallel and then that may increase the size in order to get a turning radius to get into whatever garage, or move the garage to where the front door is now currently, which will be, will be lined up more aligned in our yard,
not our home and or side, the garage. But then again, that brings up the question about the square footage with the shared driveway use of whether or not there needs to be a special permit. Speaker 6: May I ask a question? I'm curious from your, from your vantage point, these headlights are gonna come into what section of your house and how are they gonna affect you? Where front bedroom, front bedroom and the living room, bedroom and the living room. That's where the light's gonna come. Okay. And drapes. Speaker 12: Drapes, Speaker 6: I'm just wondering drapes, blackout, drapes, brick out. So
Speaker 12: We have to make sure drapes are closed so that we're not impacted by the lights. Speaker 6: Okay. And I'm just asking, Speaker 12: I Speaker 16: I, I personally don't have drapes in my home. We have shades. Gotcha. Speaker 6: But, Speaker 16: But, and I'm not gonna put up drinks. That's not my aesthetic, but, okay. Speaker 6: Thank you. Appreciate it. Speaker 1: Anybody else here have any questions, thoughts, comments, concerns? Okay, hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. And Jason, you wanna do that voodoo? I can make a motion. That'd be great. I Speaker 17: Can move that. We approve the project based on a finding that it's not, not substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood than the pre nonconforming use and structure provided built and substantial conformance with the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submitted letters to the board. And I guess we discussed that the developer would put at least eight arvid trees, minimum 10 foot height along the south side and the west side of the property running around the corner to better shield the privacy of 31 forest Speaker 1: Is the pla Is the vinyl fence shown on the plan?
I don't see Speaker 17: It. I didn't hear about a vinyl. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, that was part of the, the narrative. So okay, we're gonna do, Speaker 17: Is it gonna be a new vinyl fence? Speaker 1: Yeah. Six foot vinyl fence Speaker 17: On the south and west. Each property will Speaker 1: Get wrapped. Speaker 17: Okay. Was that shown on the plans or do we need to Speaker 1: Not the new fence? No, but no, but we can put a requirement of a six foot vinyl fence. Wrapping both Speaker 17: Wrapping both proposed projects. Yep. As amended. Speaker 1: As amended. Okay. As amended. Oh, I'm sorry. One more thing. Is the, okay. No, that's just for somebody else as amended. Second.
Second, Jeff. Okay. All those in favor? One the members. 2, 3, 4, 5. You're all set. Thank you. Okay, thank you. The next project is 34 Fairview Avenue, grace Kliman and Lorraine Hogan. And Brian Allen. Request for a section six finding for the construction of a magician and an open air porch under the front of a previously nonconforming one. Family dwelling and lot we, hi. Come on up. We're here. Brian is online and he's gonna present, so Okay.
Yeah, sure. Come on up. Us up here but happy to sit. Come on up. 34. Alright. Before we, before we, I guess we can you are, I'm Grace Kelman. Speaker 18: You are? And I'm Lorraine Hogan. Thank Speaker 1: You. Okay. And we have Brian on, on on Zoom. Zoom. Okay. He says he's ready. Hello Brian? He says he is ready. Can you hear us, Brian? Yes, I can hear you. Yes. Great. I'm joining on video here. Let me just take a quick peek here. So the lots, it is what it is. The frontage is what it is.
The depth same, the front yard setback. You know, I, I I suppose you, you know, this is an aside, it's not regard to your project. I skip, I'm skipping these things because we're not, you don't need relief. That being said, you know, whatever is on the lot is as it always has been relevant for determining detriment IE in any given project, a lot that is 15 thou, sorry, 7,000 square feet in a 15,000 square foot required lot. That's, that is violating the setbacks.
You know, it is not untoward for the board to say if your lot was bigger, this wouldn't be a detriment. Right. So I just That was not for you? That was for me. Okay. The front, sorry, the front fine. The side. It's, nothing's changing there. So what is change? Are you going up, is that what's happening here? Speaker 19: No, we're, we're actually filling in the existing porch, which has a existing concrete foundation under it. So this seven four by 17 nine structure, the proposed edition, that's an existing open
air porch currently. Speaker 1: Okay, I see. That's why the numbers aren't really changing in the chart. Speaker 19: Right, right. And then we're doing a, they like the port, so we are doing a small porch edition on the front as well, but they're, so we're doing a four, four block. Speaker 1: I see. But it's gonna be, it's gonna be like code with the existing front Speaker 7: Set. I think this one is great things. This might could have been easily lumped in the other ones. You mean 'cause they're not, they're staying within setbacks? Speaker 1: No, they're within the front build box. They're the front is, they're already the front the front's 20. Yeah.
Speaker 7: Oh, I'm sorry I missed that. No, Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Speaker 7: It's 30 to Speaker 1: 13. 30. 30, 30. And they're 18 too. They're Speaker 7: 18. I'm sorry, I missed that. Yeah, Speaker 1: But again, I mean this is, okay, I, I get it now. That's explaining the number, the numbers, Speaker 19: Yeah. It's an older home that they've added onto in the back, but it's small. So they're just trying to gain some more additional square footage. And the front porch is a similar size of what they're looking for. For a mudroom. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Good enough. Alright, I get it. Thank you very much for that. I, you may have a lot more to tell me.
I, I, which may become relevant as we move forward, but I'm gonna just find out anybody here on 34th Fairview Avenue? Yeah, I didn't expect so. I mean, for me, this is very easy. It's a very modern nothing there, nothing there. There's very modest. It's new's. No detriment. I can't, I mean there's just, it's very, very simple. Anybody here have anything? Anybody here have anything? Let's go right to a vote Speaker 17: Move. We approve the project for 34 Fairview app based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming use and structure provided.
Some built and substantial conformance for the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submit letters to the board. Speaker 1: Secondly, I'll second all those in favor. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You're all set. Great. Thank Speaker 7: So much, very Speaker 1: Much. Okay, sure. Thank you. Of course. Thank you. 10 Walcott Street. The Aate applicant is Hank Reeves and Scott Holcomb. It's your request for a section six finding for a standing tear down of a one family dwelling and the construction of a new one. Family dwelling on a preexisting nonconforming lot. Hi. Hello there. How you doing? I'm yourself. Great. Okay.
10 walkout. Same drill. Take a look. Okay. Locked up front. Is the depth front yard setback? Same side, same side. 8.92. Is this a corner? No, what is this? What is 8.9 dash 12 and the 8.9 dash 12 for the, I think for the, the east setback measure 12 8.9 12.
Oh, I see. Existing 8.9. Yes. Speaker 20: Existing Speaker 1: And then it's gonna be 12. Speaker 8: Yeah. So can I, just to ask, it looks as if the, the checklist is wrong under the existing column because it lists the current building height is 34 feet and it's a one story bungalow. Speaker 20: It's not existing, is not 34 feet. It's, Speaker 8: But that's what the chart says. So it's an, it's a typo is what I'm saying. Yes. Do you know what the existing height is? Speaker 20: It's a four and a half. So Speaker 8: You don't know the existing height? Speaker 20: Not ex, not a hundred percent, no.
Yeah, I can guess on a four and a half. Speaker 8: Well, I mean obviously it's easily under the Yes. 40 foot limit. Speaker 20: Under no, Speaker 8: And also I saw a different number in the, on a different page, I believe right here it says the proposed height is 34 feet. But isn't it somewhere else? Doesn't it say 37 something? Speaker 20: So Yes. Yes. So what ended up happening is when the architects were going through it, they were considering raising the first floor ceiling height. So we had amended the plans and added a page that reflects the newer height.
Speaker 8: And so the new height is exactly what Speaker 20: It'd be like 37 and some change that Speaker 8: Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. Just wanna make sure I have this correct. Speaker 1: Okay. Lemme just make a note of that. I threw my pen, Speaker 20: Correct? Yeah, the old plan showed the mean height. So if we just got an updated one showing the, the true mean height now. Speaker 1: Okay. So, okay. That's good. Is fine. Okay. Alright. Thank you. And, alright, so I I I, I understand
what we're trying to do here and you know, the, the, the, the renderings are, are under, the elevations are, it's deceptive. It doesn't look like a 37 foot house. Oh, that's the demolition elevation. That's wise. Here we go. That looks like a 37 foot house. Alright, I, I get it. What, anything else you'd like to tell us? Speaker 20: Pretty straightforward. The plan's pretty straightforward. You know, keep existing foundations, keeping the first floor deck and just rebuilding. Speaker 1: Okay. Good enough. Who would like to be heard if anyone on 10 Walcott Street.
Okay. Seeing no one. Anybody online? Huh? I came to you on that one. Speaker 13: No one Speaker 1: Today. No one today. Okay. Anybody have any questions here on 10 Walcott Street? Speaker 17: Mr. Chair? I'm trying to find any height calculation by an architecture engineer. And the only thing I find on one set of plans shows the approximate 37 feet, six inches from grade to top of well peak of roof. So I'm trying to get a handle on
what the actual height of the building is. Speaker 20: It's on page A three or a four. Speaker 17: I am on a three, Speaker 20: I think. Yeah. So there's a, a side elevation, two shots of that, that show the floors and the actual from peak to flat grade, it's a flat lot Speaker 17: And it's 37 and a half feet. Yeah. Okay. But the chart says 34 now. Speaker 20: No, so there's, there's a, an uploaded page that is probably not in that plan. Okay. But as an attachment on the application that
updated that particular page to show the true height. And I believe that's what you were referring to. Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah. There's a, there's a PDF Jason that's just a three and a four, just two sheets. Oh, okay. That shows on a four, that's where, well I think he has it on a three as well. But the approximate 36, 37 foot six inches to grade Speaker 1: Roof bridge. And there's no grade changes Speaker 20: Proposed. No grade, no exterior, anything. The lot stays the same foundation is staying? Yeah, it's all just within the confines of the footprint. Okay. Speaker 1: The foundation, I'm sorry,
is staying the same, you're just going Speaker 20: Up, up, up, correct. Yeah. 'cause Speaker 8: There were questions about that in the letters from the town engineer and so on, about whether or not that was for sure. Speaker 20: Yeah, the foundation is staying. Okay. Yes. Good to know. How far Speaker 6: Back are the dormers from the front elevation? Speaker 20: They'll be right in line with it. I believe so. Yeah. Speaker 6: Depends on which side. Maybe six feet and H eight. Okay, so there's Speaker 20: This Yeah, I believe it's in, it's in line with the front, but in the back it fades away. Speaker 5: So on. So a flat, flat site on the site plane.
I see there are no contours or there's, where's there any elevation? How do we know? How do we tie, how do we believe you Essentially, like there's a flat, a flat site. Speaker 20: You could walk and see it. Or I have some pictures. Speaker 1: Let's Google. Google maps it. Let's go Andrew. Speaker 20: Yeah, it's pretty flat. It's flat. It's flat. I used to live in the neighborhood. Speaker 5: I believe that it's flat. Right. Speaker 8: But it should be on the great elevations. Speaker 20: Should be, yeah. Sorry. The, the site engineer didn't put on, Speaker 8: We also would ordinarily have comparison to the plot plan of the existing house with the proposed, you know, the S id.
Gotcha. I know that there is almost no change, but it's, you know, understood. Speaker 6: I still Speaker 1: Just understood because, because I, I suspect that the project is gonna, because it's on this existing footprint that the, if the board were inclined to, to vote in favor of it, it would be, there could be no, there could be no grade changes. Right. In Speaker 20: Other words, there will be no grade changes. I understand. Speaker 1: There shall, there shall be no changes that way we Speaker 20: Oh, I understand. Totally. Speaker 1: We can kind of get around that issue. Oh, okay.
Speaker 6: Did the neighbor to your left, as you're looking the front of your house, speak to you about this at all? Speaker 20: Now the house to the left looking at it is a double, is a duplex? Yes. That's, Speaker 6: No, that's to the right. The other one, the brown sort of Speaker 20: Oh, the mul, the Yeah, I have a picture of it. No, I have no, we haven't spoken to them. I haven't spoken to anybody about it. No one's brought up any issues to me anyway. Or the homeowner, Speaker 6: Because you're gonna be blocking their morning light pretty significantly. Speaker 20: Yeah, the picture I took today shows, lemme see if I can bring it up Speaker 6: Here.
This can be sort of weird to go that little tiny footprint. Speaker 20: There's the house right up the street that has the exact thing. Yes. Speaker 8: And it's kind of infamous. Speaker 20: Oh, is it? Speaker 8: Well, Speaker 20: Yeah, the other, the other house which towards Speaker 6: 27 or towards, towards, Speaker 8: Towards south main, Speaker 20: It's not gonna be much different than that house to the right. 'cause they have a, a two story and then they have that hip, probably a six or seven pitch roof. So I, I can't see it being that much higher than
that property. Speaker 6: It will be, it's a full story higher and it's easily more than twice the height of the current building. It's a very tall building for that narrow little Speaker 7: Lot. I think some of it is just, and it's not so much the overall height, but the, the dormers are, are out and that, you know, if you're on the side of a house with, you know, the gables on the, the front back and you're, you're looking up over the roof and we have the gables, large gables, you don't, it's,
it's a, it's a straight wall all the way up. Speaker 6: And the reason why you have those dormers on the third floor is so you can have that master suite on the third Speaker 20: Floor. Yes. Because originally they were, they were looking to possibly bump out in the back of the house, but that just creates more issues. So they remove that. Speaker 6: What kind of issues? Speaker 20: Well, lock lock coverage will come back. They have the setbacks on it, but it'll create more of the side setbacks if we follow that footprint. So instead of doing the two stories, remove that back addition and just added living space up onto the third
Speaker 6: Here. The total square footage of the living space is, Speaker 20: I'd have to look at what's, what's the footprint? Do the math. Speaker 6: I'd have to see. Lemme just multiply that by three. The footprint is how much? Well Speaker 20: The, the first second floor sets back a little bit. Let just pull it up here. Yeah, you'd, you'd be able to see it better on your screen that the plans and Speaker 6: What I have, this is 10, 10 15. Where's the 3, 5, 4 plans? What is it? Speaker 20: It's 2026 by 36 is the first floor. Speaker 6: Alright, we'll just Speaker 20: And then the five Speaker 6: Times Speaker 7: 26. Nine, 10
Speaker 6: Times two plus the, plus the suite masters. Speaker 7: Well you're trying to get the footprint to figure out the lockup. Yeah, it Speaker 6: Was just a, yeah, Speaker 7: So it was a lot. Speaker 6: 6 66 unfortunately. So Speaker 20: First two floors, I'd have to see the third. 'cause I know the third is smaller than the, than the other two. Speaker 8: So this is sort of a delicate question, but when I visited the site, I was struck by what a narrow lot it is and how, you know, you can see why they just put a bungalow in there and there used to be smaller houses around it.
But when I looked at your drawing of, of the elevations that you provided us, the house that you're picturing it, it looks more proportional, you know, closer to a square shape than it seems like it would end up to be. Are you asserting that the drawing you provided has the exact proportions width to height as what you would actually be building? Because it looks like, given that it's three stories tall, it's gonna be narrower compared to its height than
what we have in the image. Well Speaker 20: The, the footprint is 36 by 26. So following it all the way up the roof lines would be that. But on the third floor, there isn't as much living space on that Speaker 1: Either. Either it's drawn to scale or is not. And well, Speaker 8: Yeah, that's what I'm asking is that, are you asserting that you did make that drawing to scale? Because not all the dimensions are on it, Speaker 1: But I but but isn't the stamp all that's required, I mean Right. Are they Speaker 8: Stamp? I'm talking about the side elevations. So the front right.
It just, so I just, I just want to confirm that that's what you're saying is that that is how it's going to end up looking proportion wise Speaker 20: As, as the plan. Yeah, I didn't, I didn't draw the plan. So Oh, we're just implementing the plan. Speaker 8: Oh, this is an Speaker 20: Architecture, this architect and engineer are the front, front rear elevation is drawn to the same scale as the side elevations Speaker 8: It because that lot is so narrow and this house is gonna be so tall, almost 40 feet. It doesn't look right to me. But I'm assuming I could be making a mistake here and that's why I'm asking.
I'd like to make sure, because right now it's got sort of typical proportions for a three story house. Doesn't look unusual, but it's, it's what, 25 feet wide? 26? 26, 26 feet wide. It just, it looks like it doesn't quite match. So that's why I'm asking Speaker 1: Andy, I'm not, yeah, if I were voting, I would vote yes to on this project. I'm not, I'm not voting. Thanks for that. I was, I was more or less asking Did you cut to the chase to weigh in on, on on, on Gail's comment? Did the plans vote out they nope. Ga or they did not? Nope.
Okay. Okay. So anybody else? Anything? Speaker 17: I just wanna make sure we establish the height. Is it 34? Speaker 1: It's 37. It's 37 Speaker 17: And seven and a half. So the table, the chart is completely wrong. Speaker 1: We modified it. What what Speaker 20: It is is we, before the deadline, they were having these ideas of possibly making it taller. So the architect was able to give me that one page as a supplement and that's what I uploaded as an attachment. Speaker 17: All the pages I've seen said 37 and a half feet tall. Speaker 1: That's it. Yes. Speaker 17: But I was confused because the chart you submitted was 34 feet that
Speaker 1: Was not modified, correct? Speaker 17: Right. Speaker 20: That was the original submittal by the chair. Speaker 17: Okay, very good. Speaker 1: Okay. The hearing is closed, if you would, Speaker 17: I would move that we approve a project based on a finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the pre-existing non-conforming use and structure provided. It's spilled to substantial conformance with the plan submitted and any requirements from the town departments, which have been letters to the board. And I think we had talked about the fact that there will be no changes to the grades. Correct? Correct. Speaker 1: And, and with that condition. Second, Jeff, all those in favor?
1, 2, 3, 4. All those opposed? Four to one. You're all set. Thank you. Okay. Good luck. The next matter is 43 Oak Street. It's Kera Wilkie, a request for a variance, which is, this is the first variance under the new regime. I'm sure you are glad to hear that little, some speechifying beforehand. Right. It changes everything but the demolition I replacement of a carport within the front. Yeah, there's a mis word missing, but I, I think it probably means setbacks. Wow. Alright, here we go. Let's see. 40,000.
Speaker 21: Good. So this is an ex I am trying to replace in kind a carport that collapsed because of snow. Wanted to rebuild, applied for a permit was denied. It was never permitted. So just trying to do the right thing and go through the channels. It's an existing structure. It is 10 or 20 years old. I, I bought the place with a carport, so Oh, Speaker 1: It's already there. Speaker 21: I mean it collapsed and it's been removed, but yes, I'm trying to rebuild. Speaker 5: Yes. That's why we have Speaker 1: Building 20 19 2. Wait, I'm sorry, we're on. Oh, oh, there, there it is right there.
2019 0.2 8.21. And to the, Speaker 21: So it's the front east setback that's very close to the road, but that's how the existing ones the preexisting. Speaker 1: I'm missing something here. Speaker 8: That house is Speaker 1: Interesting. Speaker 8: So I'd just like to comment at this point, I, I visited this site and I thought, holy moly, how did they ever build that house on the top of that stone wall to begin with? And I can certainly see why you would wanna restore the carport because right now for folks who haven't seen it,
it's like it's, there's just barely this carve out where you can put your car right next to Oak Street. Roaring past. Yes. Speaker 21: It's a retaining wall. It's very strange. Speaker 8: Yeah, it's funky. And I can see why you'd want a carport. Speaker 5: So the image you have here that has some of the white dimensions, it's just this timber frame. That's what fell down. Speaker 21: That's what it's a rendering of what is proposed. I think they use Google Maps to sort of just map out the render. Speaker 5: That's a good rendering. I mean it's, I thought you built it. I thought, Speaker 1: I thought you were here. Speaker 8: Forgiveness, Speaker 5: Not
permission. Okay. Speaker 8: I like the little diamond motifs that match your facade. Speaker 21: We'll see if they can build that. That's how it was. Speaker 7: Oh it was? Oh, okay. Speaker 5: Got something Speaker 7: Cool. Yeah, really good render. It'll Speaker 1: Have a rebuilt. Speaker 8: So I just saw one comment from the engineer saying that you'd wanna hand dig any of the footings for the, for the pillars for the columns because of the proximity of the sewer service. Got it. Is that any, you
Speaker 21: Know, I didn't see that comment, so I will Oh, okay. He wasn't saying Speaker 8: Communicate that saying don't do it. He was saying don't use equipment to dig the footings. Got it. It's just, Speaker 21: Okay. That's something I'll just have to Speaker 8: Communicate. And for all I know, you know, maybe it doesn't really apply. But that's the letter that's in the file. Speaker 21: Yep, that's Speaker 7: Right there. That, that's a rendering right there. That's the original. That's the original. Oh, okay. The Speaker 1: Rendering looks like that only. Speaker 7: Sure. It's pretty good rendering. That's shed roof. Evidently not. It's the blurry.
Speaker 1: Anybody here to talk about this project at 43 Oak Street? Okay. Nobody's here to talk about 43 Oak Street as I anticipated. I'm fine. Speaker 7: Do we need to apply the new one? Speaker 1: Oh, it's a variance. That's right. Hold on a second. Yeah, we do. Yeah, we do. Okay. So, right, right, right. I'm sorry, let me, lemme go back, lemme go back to the charts for a minute. Speaker 5: You don't need just one clarification because there are a couple of, there's three views, right? There's one the existing view and then there's the one that I guess, oh, lemme just do,
there's one and then there's one without the cross bracing or the dangle bracing. Yeah. This Speaker 21: Is the one I think, I think there are two. Those are two design options. Okay. Yeah, I think that's all that is Speaker 5: Essentially the very similar except for the, the knee braces. Yep. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 1: So this is going, Speaker 5: So they didn't have, Speaker 7: So what does the motion look like? Speaker 1: Where, where is, it's the same thing we, we we're gonna talk about hardship, not where the hardship derives from. So where is it shown on a plan? Speaker 21: So I, I don't have plans per se.
This is what the, the proposed builder gave me in terms of the dimensions. I've got a plot plan done. Here we go. A survey. But Speaker 7: Well there is plan. They have existing carport to be replaced with new carport. Right there. Right there. This is wall is this. Speaker 1: And if you were to take a photograph of what's there today, is there any remnants that there was a carport there? Speaker 21: Just footings that are still Yeah. Existing. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Let me just take a quick peek here.
That was built without a permit, huh? Speaker 7: Pretty ballsy. Unbelievable. I believe it. Shocked. Can't believe anyone's ever that site. Anyone would ever. That's hard to hide. I mean, you've seen the Google apps. Yeah. It's extreme, fancy. That was last week. Speaker 1: When did it fall? Speaker 21: February that Speaker 7: Last year Speaker 21: Or January, February, I think. Yeah. Speaker 7: That figures were the cars underneath it. Speaker 21: No, luckily, thank you for asking. Speaker 7: Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. So I Speaker 7: Mean I guess that the question is the rule if it's been there for 40 years, even without a permit should go. But we
Speaker 1: Answered the question. They rebuilt it in February, probably February to Well it's only four months. Yeah, that's Speaker 7: Thing. It's not like it was Speaker 1: Sixth. But that doesn't go to the vari, that goest go to the variance standard. I mean, it goes to whether Dave should have sent him here in the first place. You know, did, did Dave could have said, you know, the, the code says that if you rebuild something after a casualty, you, you don't, you don't need relief. But I don't know. He may have made But you still need a Speaker 7: Building. Speaker 1: You do. Speaker 21: Yeah. The permit was still, you Speaker 7: Don't mean the reason why he's not giving it in
Speaker 1: Any wasn't. Here we are and we're not gonna stop it. So, so we're gonna say the hardship is, lemme take this all down, but the har the hardship here is you have a carport that's been in existence for 40 years and it was damaged in a casualty and it's the only place Speaker 7: Due to the topography. I mean the old lot. Yeah, that's Speaker 1: Old. It's the only place to park because of this very unusual lot, which doesn't matter anymore. And without it, you essentially, you have nowhere to put your car and to protect it from the weather protect.
And this is the minimal needed. It's not self-imposed. Looks good. It, it's, it, it it's not in conflict with the law. The no, the, the, the meaning and intent of the zoning. Speaker 7: We don't Okay. I don't think we need that anymore either. Speaker 1: Derogate from the Yeah, we don't Speaker 7: Need, we don't need that anymore. Either that out. Yep. You kidding? Nope. Jesus. Speaker 1: Well we're gonna put it in anyways. Okay. For all those reasons. I, I guess I made a motion in effect. Right. And so moved. Okay, so then, and it's the minimum needed to for Okay.
Seconded. Seconded here. And so all those in favor? Speaker 7: Oh, do we wait, do we wanna put in anything about the sewer service? I Speaker 1: Didn't hear that. What was that? Okay, so yeah, sorry. Hand hand digging Speaker 8: Has to be, there was a letter from the engineer in the file saying that he would recommend that they not use any digging machinery with the footings because the sewer service is in close proximity. And of course, you know, there's no knowing precisely where it is. And so we have that, he's suggesting
that the hand dig, we can't do any conditions. That was his only comment was hand dig for the ping. Speaker 17: Can't impose conditions on it either Speaker 1: On the variance No. Speaker 17: Or special section six. No. Oh Speaker 8: No, Speaker 1: That right. He's no conditions in either section six or Speaker 8: Never Speaker 1: Mind variance. Speaker 17: Let me, let me read what standard conditions Speaker 3: You can approve with conditions. 'cause they have to record the decision to even make it valid. And then with this one it would be just in compliance with the town letters. That's standard boiler. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. That's, is that okay with you? Yeah, sure. Okay.
Speaker 8: I mean, he didn't require it, but Speaker 1: Sure. Paul. Okay. How bad can it be? I mean, you, you would be wise to dictate. Yeah. Otherwise you're have sewer bill too condition. Speaker 17: Can I read the letter from Murphy Hessey to Lehe? Yeah. This amendment, the amendment deletes language that allowed the permit granting authority to impose conditions, safeguards and limitations on both time and use of variance Speaker 1: Time and use. Maybe Speaker 17: That's Speaker 1: Yeah. Not, yeah. Time and use. Okay. Okay. So, alright. So seconded was here. All those in favor?
I'm sorry. I'm thinking what do you mean? They say time? You mean you need, you have two years to act upon that variance. Yep. Or else? Yep. So it's no Speaker 17: Longer in, I think it may also include hours of operation, lights on and off kind of thing. Noise. Any kind of hours of using Speaker 1: We're gonna come outta the case. Start from scratch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You're all set. Speaker 21: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Speaker 1: Go ahead. Sorry. Yes, Speaker 21: If, if I may I'll follow up with Amanda. Just a quick note. There wasn't a correspondence about an
invoice for the application 5,500, which I just wasn't aware of. Just for, for the, for a project that's being covered by insurance. So I, I know that this might not be the audience, but just as a single earner household in Natick, I just wanted to follow up on, Speaker 3: So that's actually why we send out those emails. That was a fake scam and I responded Speaker 21: Perfect. Speaker 3: Which is why I sent all of those emails to everybody. Speaker 21: Oh great. I'm glad I mentioned it. Sorry I didn't waste the time on that. But how much is Speaker 1: The permit fee Speaker 3: For this one? $200. Speaker 21: Perfect. Thank
Speaker 1: You for you 200. That's welcome. Speaker 3: Yeah, sorry, I thought I responded to that, that it was a scam. Speaker 17: Was that the same one from a Speaker 3: Month ago or whatever? We think everyone gets 'em. That's why we send out, we continuously send out Everybody's getting those. Yeah, whenever, so here's what happens is when we get a permit, once it goes onto the agenda, there's a town fee, which is, but then everyone's been getting emails from these people and they're probably listening right now. And so it's, it is an invoice. It looks very real, but it, it is not.
That's why we email everybody not to pay anything unless, and if they have any questions about it and they've gone as far as if there's a purchase and sale agreement, they'll actually ask the owners to pay these fees as well, even though it is in the permitting phase. And then after the board issues the permits, they actually will ask them for their final fees. Right. And that's another 5,500. Speaker 13: Oh Speaker 3: My god. So it's, Speaker 1: Okay, here we go. The next project is 59 South Street. It's Mim Panorama. Request for section six finding for the construction of an addition to appreciate ninth form instructor. Hello there.
Speaker 13: Hi. Good evening. Speaker 1: I'm just gonna look at the numbers real quick if I could. And Speaker 13: South street clock. Speaker 1: Okay, so your lot's Okay. Your front is, is good. Your depth is good. Your front is good. Your side is good there. It's right there. So yeah, section six for the east setback and that is, is although, so what, okay, what, what, what are you doing? You are, this
Speaker 22: Is a bathroom edition. Speaker 1: Say it again? Speaker 22: Bathroom edition. Speaker 1: A bathroom edition. Yes. So let me just look here for a one moment. Speaker 5: So it's that, that eight by eight protrusion? Yep, that's it. Okay. Speaker 13: You see it? Speaker 1: Yeah. What's the port plan you looking at? That shows right there. There's, I think there p PPP one. Oh, okay. I didn't even see it. Yeah. Okay. Alright. So you got plenty of lot for the lot coverage and that, that, that's not gonna be a 35
foot bathroom, is it? Speaker 13: You could Speaker 1: Shoot hoops in there too. Yeah. Okay. So, alright, any questions here? Is it, no one's here. I'm sorry, that's not the way I should have asked it. Is anybody here to talk about 59 South Street? I don't think so. Okay. Alright. Speaker 22: And the affected neighbor on that side is also emailed in today. He's in support of the project as well. Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, multiple. Alright, good. Ow. Speaker 8: I just have one question. Yeah, go. The Board of Health was recommending that you might, they, they recommended
that you might do some water infiltration system. Did the town engineer said you don't need it, but the Board of Health recommended it. So where did you guys land Speaker 1: That? I, Speaker 22: I don't, I can't speak to that. I was brought into to pinch it for George Richards, who I thought was on, but he may not be any, any longer. Oh, okay. But I don't, I'm not sure if he might know either. Speaker 23: Yeah, I I I wasn't aware that there was anything that had to be done. I'm kind of, there was no Speaker 8: Requirement's, not clear that it really was, especially because engineer said there was no need for additional, but Board of Health was saying, oh, it'd be a good idea.
Okay. But I think you're, I think you're okay then. Thank you. I think maybe the engineer gets final Yeah. On anything to do with Speaker 1: That. Well we won't condition on that in any case. So now we we're gonna add Andy on this one. Oh, we just lost Rob. Oh, Rob left. Yeah, we lost Rob. Just like that. Okay, so if we could, Speaker 17: I just, I I had one comment though. Yeah, go ahead. I kind of wanted to call out your, your surveyor for giving us a certified plot plan that already shows the proposed edition. Is that what I'm looking at? Speaker 22: Yes, yes. Okay. Speaker 17: Not really a plot plan of existing conditions
Speaker 1: Issues further. Speaker 22: No, it's not. So this was this, this building has been started because it was, and they're given a cease and desist and now we're trying to correct this issue by coming for you today. Speaker 17: Alright, got Speaker 22: It. Which is why that, Speaker 17: So that kind of does exist today? Yeah, Speaker 23: Kind of. Speaker 1: So Speaker 17: Not the surveyor's fault. Speaker 5: So the, that bathroom, the master bath, that, that comes out into the side setback. So that's, that's the only change to the envelope. The shell of Speaker 1: The building. Correct. What about, what is this thing over here on the left?
Speaker 5: Is it a porch? Speaker 1: Maybe Speaker 23: Porch. An old porch was demolished. It was kind of rotten and that one was put in its place, but it's Speaker 1: Existing. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Speaker 17: And I, you know, I have to say I was a little bit confused looking at the plans because they're very detailed architectural and engineering plans. Yes. But this is not a new construction. Correct? Speaker 23: It's a renovation. It's just So it's not new? Well I guess it depends on what's called. Speaker 17: Are we, are we tearing down walls and ripping off the ceiling and the roof and the Speaker 23: No, no, the roof stayed the same. The walls stayed the same. I mean the, there was the porch on one side was demolished
and the bathroom bump out was added on the other side. Speaker 17: Okay. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright, go ahead. Speaker 17: I would move that we approve the project based on our finding. It's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming use and structure provided. It's built substantial conformance with plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submit the letters to the board. Speaker 1: Second. All those in favor? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You're all set. Thank you guys. Good luck. I also got one of those scam letters just to let you guys know. Did everybody's getting them? Wow. Geez. Scary stuff.
We'll get another one too. Decision the last pro project is 14th Center Street. The applicant is Harriet Elman, Daniel Burke and Nicholas Arthur. It's request for a section six D filing for a standing tear down of a one family dwelling and the construction of a newborn family dwelling on a preexisting night. Doing a lot. Hello? Hello. Hello. How you doing? Very well, thanks. Well, the good news is there's, there's no one in the back there. Well maybe they're, maybe they're online. Let's see, is nobody online? I can't tell.
There's Bill Roberts. Oh no. Okay. We have the depth, the front yard meetings, Speaker 5: So no change to the footprint it looks like, or maybe even a slight reduction in building coverage Speaker 1: Set back. Speaker 24: I can give you a brief introduction if you'd like. My name's Nick Arthur. I'm the builder and property owner. We are proposing to renovate the first floor of this home. We're gonna renovate about 50% of it and then there's a couple hundred square feet in the basement that's finished.
We're also proposing to renovate, and this is a second floor addition. There is a small addition on the first floor. If you look at the third page, you will see that we are proposing the back left corner about a two foot by 10 foot addition to square off that back left corner. Right now there's a, it, it bumps in. And the reason that we're proposing to square that off is because that room is one of the spaces that's getting renovated and it's in such disrepair. It's not on a foundation, it's on one sauna tube.
So we're gonna square that off as we, as we renovate it. And we are proposing to cantilever the back of the second floor two feet just because the house is not very deep. So when we add that second floor, we can get adequate hallway space. In terms of the outside, there is a site plan that shows the topography and if you guys drove by here, this lot slopes pretty severely from back to front. And we proposed as best as we could the lowest second floor possible just so it doesn't have
that appearance of being up on the hill. So our building height that we're proposing is 25.8 feet and that can be confirmed by looking at the front elevation that shows the roof height at 180 7 0.54. And if you deduct the average and proposed grade, which are staying the same, you get to 25.8 feet. In terms of landscaping, we're gonna be doing landscape repair only. I would say at the most we'll be replanting a few shrubs
and doing a little pruning in the back of the trees. We're not taking down any trees on this property, we're changing the grade, so, Speaker 1: Okay. Grace sounds like you've been here before Speaker 17: Or sat through if your hearings tonight. Yeah. Speaker 1: Right, right. Yeah. Yeah. Well that answers my questions. Anybody else have any questions? I can see there's nobody here. I'm sorry. One before, before you go. I'm not gonna stop anybody online Speaker 17: And, and who, who's voting? There are Speaker 8: People online but no one has their hands raised, so Speaker 1: Oh, okay. We're gonna go, we'll do Alan on this one. Speaker 8: Okay. Speaker 1: So it's 1, 1, 2, 3. Speaker 8: Oh wait, I'm sorry, I had a question.
Speaker 1: Oh, no, no, just ask me who's voting. Speaker 8: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, sorry. Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're honor. Speaker 8: Oh, okay. So yeah, when I was at the site I noticed that yeah, that's a quite a steep lot. It does look like it's a bit of a trick working on that. So what I noticed was, given that you're adding height to it, it, it looked like you were gonna have to do some serious work on the trees. You're saying you're not going to be doing that? Speaker 24: No, we won't have to. There's not, the trees aren't really gonna be getting in the way of adding the second floor other than
doing some pruning in the back. If we were to expand the backyard and remove the existing retaining wall in the back and gain more depth, we would be getting into the trees. But other than some pruning, there's no proposed tree work. Speaker 8: Okay. So when you say pruning, are you talking about removing major bows? Because I mean, there's a significant overhang over the roof. Speaker 24: Yeah, i, I pruning meaning we're not going to cut it down at the base of the tree. Some of the limbs might be more significant than others. Anything that really gets in the way of the addition would be, would be pruned and probably would need,
should be pruned either way if it's overhanging the house now. Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Yep. Speaker 1: Anybody else have any questions? Okay, with that we'll close the hearing, Jason. Speaker 17: Yeah, I would move that we approve the project based on our finding. It's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming use and structure provided dispute and substantial conformance with the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submit letters to the board. Speaker 1: Second how All those in favor? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You're all set. Thank Speaker 24: You. Good. Have a good evening. Good Speaker 1: Luck. Thanks. Good evening counsel. You're in your fee on this one.
You know, do we have any other business with you? Nope. You, you know, I think this new law is going to affect a lot of landers, lawyers Speaker 17: Pocket books. I bet. Speaker 1: Right. Unless did the, you know, just tonight, five of them. Right. Usually as an example. Yeah. 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4 projects that would, that may have or could be coming forward with a lawyer are no longer. Right. Speaker 17: And even this, this last one on Center Street,
if there was a tear down and reconstruction and they moved it a few feet away from the front yard, they'd be within the setbacks as well. So they could have that house or bigger if they were doing a full reconstruction. Speaker 1: I mean, I think the most traumatic one is one 50 will, as an example, was a project that came before us and they tried and tried and tried as they might to satisfy both the board and the neighbors. And it got, and it flamed out. Right. That isn't, we're not even gonna see that. No. And this board didn't deny that many projects. Right. So that one we consider, for lack of a better term,
particularly offensive in terms of its size and scope and the neighbors made a case Speaker 17: And, and now it's allowed by, right? Speaker 1: Yes. That's right. Right. So it goes from, I mean, talk about flipping. That's what I'm saying is such a mag a significant change. It went from something that was denied to something that will be approved as of Right. Yeah. Probe building now I do, is that a question? Speaker 3: I was actually just gonna let you know that out of the eight projects that you were gonna see in August, three of 'em actually automatically
got taken off because of this. Speaker 1: I do want to hear car's comment on that reconstruction. 'cause that is gonna be, Speaker 17: I didn't see that word deleted, but I saw where they put some new text in and didn't retain that word. Yeah, Speaker 1: That's deletion. Speaker 17: Well, no, no. If I, if you want to go into it. I do, Speaker 1: I do. Speaker 17: It's, this is 10, so I redlined both of Speaker 1: Them. Is that, is that a red line statue? Speaker 17: I did this. Hmm. Speaker 1: Oh, you did a compare? Speaker 17: Not I took the, yeah, Speaker 1: It's a little shaggy isn't it? Speaker 17: I say what happened? He asked if we adjourned yet. Speaker 1: Yeah, we should probably, oh yeah. Motion to
Speaker 17: Adur. Move to aurn meeting. Speaker 1: Yeah. Motion to adjourn. Speaker 17: We're not deliberating, we're just talking about the new law. Speaker 1: It doesn't matter, but we're adjourned. Yeah. Speaker 17: So move. Motion to adjourn. Speaker 1: Second, second, second, third. All in favor? Favor? I Speaker 17: Adjourn. Speaker 1: Okay.