Speaker 1: Alright. Alright, here we go. Sorry for that delay, folks. And we'll just jump right in. First thing we have is a public speak portion of the evening. An individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda. We'll be taken under advisement by the board. There will be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. This section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes and any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. Anybody have anything that's not on the agenda? Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna jump in. We're gonna go slightly out of order. So we're gonna start with 1 0 4 central or the other one. Speaker 2: Let's start with Westlake.
Speaker 1: Westlake. Okay. Oh two two Westlake. Okay. So two Westlake Road, the applicant's in Ourone Corporation. This was a request for resection. Six. Finding to raise is one family dwelling and construct a new one. Family dwelling on the preexisting non-conforming lots. So this is not going follow the, do we have those folks here? Yeah. Come on up. Yeah, come on up to Westlake. And now I'm gonna turn it over to Caris and you're gonna guide the board and it's deliberations. Hit it. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. So good evening everyone on two Westlake.
We're here to correct an error in Speaker 3: Essentially calling or thank you or designating who the voting members of the body were from the August 25th, 2025 hearing. So I've gone through and reviewed the entire video. I know there was a question about the vote right after, and I reviewed the vote portion of the video, but I didn't review the entire video. It wasn't until later in the litigation that I reviewed the entire video and found where the there, that there was indeed an error. And here's the, the error. Let me describe it to you.
So at that meeting, the chair designated the panel hearing the matter, which is a request for a section six finding. At the start of the meeting, he designated Ms. Weston Roberts, Mr. Gottlieb, Mr. Enright himself, Mr. Jow, its, and Mr. McKowski, he specifically said to Mr. Blevins, you were on the last one. You're off on this one. Later the chair asked. In later in the meeting, the chair asked staff, did I designate a panel? And the staff replied with the incorrect panel. The staff said, Jekeic, Enright,
Western Roberts, Makovsky, and Blevins Blevins was an error. It was supposed to be Gottlieb. So then at the vote, the chair asked for the vote and he and Mr. McKowski and Member Gottlieb voted yes, Gottlieb was supposed to vote, but the chair said, no, no, you're not on this one in error. Relying on the incorrect information from staff. And so he doesn't count that yes vote. So there were only two votes for yes, Mr. Jow and Mr. Makovsky. He did not call the, the vote for the nose, but it didn't get three votes. It needs the section six finding needs a majority.
So it only got two. So the decision was denied. So what we're here today is for the original panel that heard the matter to revo their matter with, not with Mr. Blevins, but with Mr. Gottlieb to vote as they had voted on 8 25. This isn't a rehearing or a reconsideration. There's no new evidence or new presentations being put in front of the board. This is simply to correct the procedural error made by the board at the meeting. And we did notice it as a public hearing
to give the abutters notice that this was happening. 'cause that's really the only way to give them fair notice. And it wouldn't be fair to just hold the meeting and and not give them notice. So that's what we're here to do today. The chair will open the meeting. Obviously it's a public hearing, so he'll take public comment because he has to, 'cause it's noticed as a public hearing. And then he'll ask the board to vote and then we'll close the public hearing and we'll move on. And this resolution will resolve the pending litigation against the town, assuming the vote goes
as it was originally going to vote in a three to two vote on the 25th of August. Are there any questions that I can answer for anyone? Speaker 4: Question, Mr. Speaker 1: Chair? No, go ahead. Speaker 4: Are the members who are voting allowed to change their vote from their prior vote? Is that permissible? Prohibited? Speaker 3: It, it, I mean, I'm asking everybody to vote. I can't tell you what to do and I can't control what you do. I'm asking you to vote as you had voted on the 25th, because it was an error that the no vote became the decision. It wasn't supposed to be a no vote, it was supposed to be a yes vote.
So I would ask that you don't change your vote, but if you change your vote, I can't stop it. That means the appeal will proceed. And, you know, we'll have a different issue to litigate. We'll have several different issues to litigate, and I'm not sure what the court will do with that. The court may say that first vote, that's the vote that that counts. And, and the court may order the finding issued or the court may say, fine, now we'll go into the substance of the decision. We haven't gotten that far yet in the litigation. We've been focusing only on the procedural issues.
Speaker 1: So not to belabor the point, but we heard all the evidence. We heard all e everyone had to, to say about it, it went to a vote. There were three votes in favor only two of which were recognized. Okay? It was you, me and Ari voted yes. Ari's vote was not recognized. Alan's vote was recognized in error as a no vote. And that's why it failed. So I think at this point we're, we're not gonna hear evidence from the get go on this project. It already went to a vote. It just got it.
It, it just, it just got recognized in an incorrect manner. I see no reason to re to re to rehear it. Okay. With that said, if, if I'm curing you correctly, I do need to hear from anyone who wants wishes to be heard. I don't think we need to hear from the applicant yet, but I'll give you an opportunity if the need arises. Anybody here on two Westlake? Okay. Come on up and give your name and address for the record, if you will, Speaker 5: To check Speaker 1: Yeah, right. Yeah. Speaker 6: I'm Peg Brockel five Irving Road in Natick.
I live Kitty Corner across from two Westlake. I spoke at the previous hearings on this topic. I appreciate being invited to the meeting, but I find it interesting that we would be invited to a meeting but not allowed to speak, ma'am. So I appreciate that. Ma'am, Speaker 1: You're, you are speaking. Pardon me? You are speaking. Speaker 6: I am, I am. But I just think, I just wanted to make the point that I think if you're gonna invite people to the, to a meeting that we should, it shouldn't have even been a question. Speaker 3: It's not a question, a question. Speaker 6: I apologize if I'm out of order. Thanks again for your service to the town. I volunteered a lot. I appreciate it.
This project, as it's redesigned from the first one, which is still confusing when you look on the website for the architectural and site plan, plan documents, the house is still too big for the site. I know the house is not too big compared to other new construction that you've approved throughout the neighborhood. This is a corner, very busy corner. This property is up on a Knoll multiple. There's a couple of mature oak trees that are there. It's too big for the site. It's gonna imp the way the garages are situation would, I'm still confused. Is it now Irving Road or do the garages face Westlake Road?
I would like an answer to that. Speaker 1: We're not gonna, we're not gonna engage in, in, in any, oh, Speaker 6: You can, can't answer the, I just would like to know which, which site plan shows which Speaker 1: I, I, I don't know. I don't know. We're gonna listen to what you have to say. We're not gonna hear any new evidence. Speaker 6: I just was asking a question about the drawings. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Anyway, thanks. Speaker 1: Anybody else wish to be heard? Okay, seeing none, we're gonna, well, we'll, any questions here from the board? Okay, we're gonna close the public hearing and we'll hear the same motion. Speaker 4: I would move that we approve it.
I don't know if I have the exact same language and conditions as the prior Speaker 1: Decision, but were there any, were there any conditions on Oh, that weren't because there were no, there were no conditions. There Speaker 3: Were no conditions. It was a vote to approve the section six. Finding good Speaker 1: Enough. Speaker 4: Okay. And I would move that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Speaker 1: I'm gonna stop you for one second, I apologize. It's, it's Gail. Ari. I'm gonna make sure we get this right. It's Gail, Ari, myself, Jason, and Andy. Is that right? Correct. Okay.
One more time, Amanda for the record. It's Gail, Ari, David, Jason, and Andy. Okay, now you're on Speaker 4: Moving that we close the hearing. Well, you closed the hearing already that we approved the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the previous nonconforming use in structure provided spilled substantial conformance with plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submitted letters to the board for this hearing. Speaker 1: Second, second is Ari. And so we'll do both ways. All those in favor? Okay. Three and all those opposed.
One, two. So it passes your all set. Thank you. Good luck. The next matter up is five. Oh no, we're gonna go out of order. The next matter up is the last one on the list, which is 1 0 4 West Central Street. It's VJO Realty, LLC. The applications request for a variance dimensional and section six finding for the demolition of a commercial structure and the construction of a new one. Family dwelling on a pre non-conforming lot. Now do we wanna set this one up? Speaker 3: I asked the applicant to set this one up, but let me just say that this is part of follow up from a discussion
that we had an executive session at the beginning of the year. Or was it last year? I Speaker 7: Can't it year ago actually. Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. It's been a long time. And this is the last approval that is needed to effectuate that discussion that was had back then. And that's all you Speaker 1: Can speak to about the litigation and the resolution of litigation by way of this. Yes. But before you do, is this is new, correct? Okay. Speaker 3: This is new. Okay. So this Speaker 1: Is all you, so it's gotta be Jason, David, Jeff,
Gale, and Andy. Okay. And you're on. Great. Speaker 7: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Go, go Speaker 1: Slow. Speaker 7: Yeah, Well, it's a long, it's a sort of a long and complicated history, but I'll try to be as brief as I can. For the record, Patrick Moynihan, the firm of McCormick SUNY in Boston. I'm also a resident of Natick 53 High Street. I have the pleasure of representing both VJO Realty, who is the property owner, and also 97 Bacon Street Realty,
which is the applicant or the designated developer. The folks from 97 Bacon Street are here behind me. And joining me at the table is Rob Trolow, who is the principal at Innovative Facilities Design in, in Natick. And he is the architect of record for the project. So anyways, trying to be a brief overview of long and complicated history of the site. I'm, I'm sure you've had an opportunity, are familiar with the site 1 0 4 West Central Streets? It, it was a long time auto repair shop
since actually the 1920s. It originally, the, the property was originally an L-shaped lot on, on at one, oh on West Central Street at 1 0 4. And then it curved around and went out to Cemetery Street in 2018. This is how long this has been going on. In 2018, the site was put under agreement with Chadwick Holmes, who proposed a three house development to include 1 0 1 0 4 West Central, 1 0 2 West Central and Cemetery.
A five cemetery Street. The, it was a, the, the lot, the lots were divvied up whereby the Cemetery Street lot went from, from Cemetery Street to the rear of, of the existing, what was the existing property at the time? 1 0 4 was cut off at the edge and then there was additional property added to 1 0 2 West Central Street. And again, the idea was for a, actually originally it was gonna be a, a three house subdivision. The boards that were required to give approval
gave the necessary approval, at least as it related to this board. The zoning board of Appeals gave approval for the development and then later the Historic District Commission gave approval, as did the Conservation Commission. The proposed project ran into difficulty with the planning board and after almost two years of back and forth between the developer and the planning board, the developer essentially gave up with, you know, the idea of this three house subdivision and essentially received approval to split 1 0 4 again
to provide an extension to 1 0 2 and then, and then split up the remaining between 1 0 4 and five cemetery, which resulted in a new house being built on five Cemetery Street, the existing house at 1 0 2 staying, and then the garage that has been there since the 1920s staying. And after that was done in 2020, the developer marketed the two houses, 1 0 2 and five Cemetery Street and sold those houses and marketed the garage. The Autobody Garage is just that
and sold that to my client, number one Van Jo Realty. This was after the building Commissioner had rendered an opinion during due diligence on the, on purchasing the property rendered an opinion that the property was, excuse me, that the use was pre-existing non-conforming. And therefore, even though it's in a residential single zone, that they have the ability or the right to continue to operate the, the garage. So in 2020, July 31st, 2020, my,
my client, banjo Realty bought the property and between 2020 and 2021 was beginning to develop or, or work on the property to, you know, have it function as the continue to function rather as the garage and the neighbors who, in fairness to the neighbors, these are the people that actually bought the houses that were created five Cemetery Street. They bought five Cemetery Street and then 1 0 2 was sold off. And, and so these were new neighbors
and they were under the impression that the garage was actually gonna be demolished and left vacant. Clearly that was not the intent of the seller at the time, which was coaching carriage of the buyer, which was vjo nor the town. I mean, the town basically said that this was preexisting non-conforming. When the neighbors saw this activity, they went to the building commissioner, he, he again determined and made a ruling that this was a preexisting non-conforming use. And the neighbors appealed that ruling to this body. In August of 2021, this body
rejected that appeal and found that it was in fact a pre-existing non-conforming use. Shortly thereafter, in October of 2021, the neighbors filed a suit naming Banjo Realty, my client and the town of Natick. The, that's when I first became involved in this. And I was, I, I'm of the opinion, well this ought to be a pretty easy suit. The town has, the town has taken a position as preexisting non-conforming. The zoning board of appeals rejected based on the facts that they had heard, rejected.
What was the contention that in fact it wasn't pre-ex? Well, that it was preexisting perhaps, but that the two year, there's a two year lapse in terms of use in their view and therefore they, it, it, the, the pre-existing non-conformity was lost. It was expired anyway, so on October 21, the, the, the NAVIS filed a suit and we spent two years from October of 2021 until September, excuse me, three years until October of 2021
to September of 2024. And that's three years was spent in discovery, you know, depositions, records, you name it, and also an attempt to settle a couple times with the neighbors, but of the parties, I should say. And, and unfortunately we were not able to come to an agreement. So we went to trial in September of 2024. The court set aside four days, which is pretty unusual for a land court trial, four days thinking we would easily get through it all.
We did not finish in four days. The, the controversies involved here took up a lot of the court's time, the court continued the case to April of 2025. But at the time strongly recommended and I think counsel would, would concur strongly recommended that the parties, meaning that my client v the town and the plaintiffs come together and try to come up with a settlement because in her view, she said the way things are going
and what I've heard so far, neither of you are gonna be happy with my decision in this case. So there was an incentive on, on the part of all the parties to get together and try to settle, which we, after several discussions involving the town and my client, Mr. Gagliardi, we settled with the idea that we could come back before the various boards that re are required to, to grant approval, which would then result,
assuming we get all these approvals, would then result in the abandonment of the auto body, use the demolition of the garage, which I think everybody would, a preexisting non-conforming garage, which I think everybody would agree, you know, doesn't belong in that neighborhood and is an eyesore and, and that, but this was all of course and construct a new home. But this was all of course, contingent on receiving the various approvals from, from the boards involved. If it's not, was not gonna, if we don't receive final approval, then we'll be back in court
and this trial will start up again and we'll see what happens. But we're trying to avoid that obviously. So I'm happy to say that we already received several approvals. The planning board has approved the revised a and R, so that's done and filed and on record the Historic District Commission has approved the project and granted a certificate of appropriateness. So that's done. We, we are currently before the Conservation Commission seeking a order of conditions and we'll that should be done.
We have a meeting on Thursday. My guess is we'll get through with that then. And so here we are, you're the last stop or so to speak, the last stop, at least in terms of these hearings. And you may recall when we, when we met with town council in this board a year, two years ago, no, excuse me, a year ago, may, just about a year ago, this property had been before the board once before in which the board did grant a variance for this location for a house to be built.
And then again, of course it was before you on the issue of the non-conformity and, and appeal of the zoning commissioner's, building commissioner's opinion. And then this, so this is the third time that you will be hearing on the property. So the building commissioner has sent us here to seek variances and, and section six findings for various dimensional relief. The lots now would be considered this lot would now would be considered an a preexisting non-conforming lot
and with pre-existing non-conforming frontage. And the structure obviously is, is non-conforming. We will be seeking findings on a side yard setback to the west that's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And then we're seeking variances for front yard setback, rear yard setback, and building coverage. And as stated in the application, and, and Rob will get into this in more detail, the hardship is essentially, I'm Speaker 1: Sorry, yeah, one Sure. One more time. The, I looked at the chart here,
the variances I see is just the building coverage you Speaker 7: I see. And rear yard setback. The rear yard setback and the front yard setback. Speaker 1: Oh, 24 9. Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. And the front yard 24 6 and the rear yard is 24 9 2. Speaker 1: You said front yard setback, you're, you're Speaker 7: 24 we're proposing 24 feet, Speaker 1: But you're at 24 6 now Speaker 7: It's at 24 6, we're proposing 24, Speaker 1: The requirement being 30. So that's not a new violation, that's just an extension of a pre-existing, so that's six.
Speaker 7: Okay. So that'll be a then that would be a under fine six. That'd be a fine. Okay, fine. Yeah. Speaker 1: So findings as to lot area frontage, front setback and the west setback, right? Speaker 7: Correct. Speaker 1: And variances as to the rear and the coverage? Speaker 7: Correct. Speaker 1: Okay. And the rear, if you moved it by point, one feet would, could form Speaker 7: Yes. But we'll get into the re the rationale for that being a Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 7: Being an issue. Okay. Speaker 1: Looking forward to hearing Speaker 7: It. So anyways, that's, that's, that's where we stand.
We we're obviously hopeful that we'll we can get approval and put this matter behind us. You know, I'm pleased to say that the neighbors are in the neighbors, the plaintiffs are in support of this. I believe they're here. We'll speak to that. Speaker 1: Before I let you go further though, I'm just gonna go over to car now and say that was all that was correct? Correct. That's what we understand it to be. And now the town writ large here is in favor of this as a resolution of the litigation. Correct. Speaker 3: The select board and on behalf of the town and the other parties have all executed a settlement
agreement sometime after that meeting last May. Right. So in early June or so. Right. And then that gave this defendant the opportunity to go forward and try to seek to implement that resolution Speaker 1: By way of the approvals that we spoke about, including this Speaker 3: One by way of finding a developer and then getting through the approval process. Correct. Okay. Speaker 1: So anything more for us for now, Speaker 7: Other than to discuss the project to the extent you want to get involved in that? Other than Speaker 1: That, now why don't Speaker 7: We, Speaker 1: That's the overview. You're gonna turn it over here
Speaker 7: To Yes, Rob can. Speaker 1: Okay, go ahead. You, you want you to tell us about the project? Speaker 8: Do you gonna project I I have copies. Okay. Yeah, lemme just pull them. I can, Speaker 1: I can bridge up here. Speaker 8: Well, she, she's pulling it up. Speaker 1: Okay. You can do that. Speaker 9: You can start, Speaker 8: Yeah, I can give you that. Speaker 1: Just I have, I have the hard copy. It's all in the portal too. I have the hard Yeah, Speaker 7: Yeah. And it's in this, this is all in the portal as well. Copy. Speaker 1: I, I have, I have the Speaker 3: Ga, Gail needs a copy. Speaker 10: Andon. Speaker 1: I, I'm good. Yeah. I took his And Andy needs one. Andy needs, Speaker 8: Yeah.
Do you want project? Yeah. Okay. So the, it's Speaker 9: Also gonna, it should be in front of you. Is it Speaker 1: Projecting it? Yeah, it's there. Pretty good. Speaker 8: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Robert Trolow, principal architect at IF Design Natick. So as you can see in front of you, this is what the current situation exists as it exists. It's a concrete block auto water shop that's been there for, as Mr. Des Moines has since the twenties on a steeply sloped site. Our intent is to, okay. Yeah, the, so the new you, you wanna flip to the next one?
The police. So the intent is to replace the existing structure with another Cape cod type style. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 8: There we Cape cod style house. If actually go back just a just one I'm sorry. Just to just, yeah, just, just so you can see what it looks like compared to the, that's, thank you. So you can see that we, our approach has been to a cape for the farmer's porch. The front of the farmer's porch basically aligns with the existing building line. We've made it as have as minimal impact on the street as possible.
It's a steeply slope site. So we've been able to locate a drive in the east side and have the parking around back for a number of reasons. One, it takes advantage of the site and also is a safer arrangement. We have as, as we said, we have approval of the historical commission. We paid a lot of attention to details and the materials that are be used. Go to the next one, please, Amanda. And so you can see that we spent a lot of time working on the design, making sure that it fits in
with the neighborhood, making sure that we've been able to cite it so that it's appropriate for the, for this, for the site. And you can see that it, it fits with the, the house that's next to it. It fits with the neighborhood and it's not too large. Okay. Next You can, this, this site is a little bit unique in that it's one of the few sites on the street that has basically a state forest all the
way to the, to the west side. So it's, it really only has, you know, the front public side and, and neighbors in the, on the east and south. Speaker 5: Good. Next to west Speaker 8: Neighbors in the east. Neighbors to the east. Neighbors to the east. The frost is the west. Speaker 5: Oh, okay. Yes. Speaker 8: Thank you. Okay. Okay. Sorry. So it's kind of a, it's a modest house, front, ground floor, typical living room, bathroom, dining room, kitchen with a primary bedroom on the first floor and basement or garage.
Second floor has a few bedrooms with a study and a in one and a half baths. Speaker 5: And Speaker 8: Just kind of flip around the elevations. There's the front. Yes, sorry, you got a good view of it from the initial perspective, this was from the historical commission presentation and side our view, as you can see it kind of fits with the site. We were able to locate the garage so that you drive down into it and we, you remember the plan, plan kind of sets in. So you can, there's room to circle into that or make the radius into the garage. Okay. Next. See
that's just the side that fronts on the forest, the top, the state forest over there next. And this is the rear where the, the, you can see where the driveway comes down. You're able to turn into the garage and there's a deck off the main of the primary bedroom. Okay. Next. Speaker 5: That's Speaker 8: It. Oh, were the site plans in Speaker 5: The site plan is there too? You would pause Yeah. The site plan. Yeah. Speaker 8: So say, yeah, we met with the neighbors and made sure that they were comfortable
with the, the approach. Well as you can see, the existing building is kind of favors the west property boundary. We've moved it a little bit further to make the, the non-conformity a little less. The front porch pretty much straddles the existing pre-existing building lines. So it's six inches in, six inches up. We do conform on the east, the setback. And yeah, as far as it being close to the rear yard, I think it was a, it was more of a topography
and zoning thing or, or not topography and zoning thing, but kind of the way the topography and the relationship between the existing retaining all worked out. That's, that's pretty much it. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Good enough. So board questions, comments, thoughts? Everybody's in. We hold on. We designated the voters. Andy, it's, it's just the choice between Andy and Ari. This one is Andy, Speaker 11: You said Andy? Jason. Jeff, David, Speaker 1: Dale. That's right. So, but in each case that we hear tonight,
to the extent that there's gonna be a designation, because Gail, Jeff, myself, and Jason are all full members. It's just gonna be swapping Andy and Ari back and Speaker 11: Forth and a majority of the projects you already identified. Okay. The votes you have that I have that the only situation is, is that there were a couple where Alan was designated because he was here. No, and he's not here. So you're gonna have Jeff Speaker 1: Red in, Speaker 11: He didn't file a mul in roll though with the town clerk. Speaker 1: Alright, well if I can Speaker 12: Go, if was here, Speaker 1: Were you Okay, fine.
Okay, good. Alright, sorry for that. Just wanna make sure we got all our i's dotted and our T's Speaker 13: Crossed. Speaker 1: Alright, here we go. Who has questions on the board? Speaker 13: So I'm trying to piece together the, the height. So I see on the, the survey you say from average grade proposed average grade 1 56 0.5 and then give that height cal proposed type 40, 34 rather 0.9, which seems to match with the zoning chart. But where on the elevations,
basically your elevations don't seem to tie that same dimension in. So how do we thought we did? Okay. Could we take a look at the elevations? Speaker 12: I'll, I'll help you out if that's okay. Sure, Speaker 1: That'd be great. Speaker 12: I had the same question. Yep. The at the spot. So don't even worry about average grade here. If you look at the height from the garage to the peak and the garage is minus, minus 7.7 feet, two inches. The first floor is zero elevation and it looks like the garage is the lowest possible grade.
So from the garage. And then if you go one page up from the first floor, it's zero to twenty six eleven. So let's just call it 27 feet. And then you minus out the seven or add on the 7.2 to the, to the worst possible condition. You're at 35 feet. Speaker 13: And which, which sheet were you on? Speaker 1: Well, I, I think if you look at, if you look at the left elevation. Left Speaker 12: Elevation, yeah. So I added 26 or 27 feet, I added seven feet, two inches
and you're at 34.2. And that's from the worst possible condition to the peak. Which means the, the other, if it, the average grade is somewhere in between that Speaker 13: Yeah, it would be less than the 35. Right. Though on the other side, the right side if I'm zooming in. Right. So, but then you've got a a 39 foot dimension to the peak on the, that'd be the southwest corner. So I'm just a little confused by it.
I mean if the board feels like we're fine. Well I think the intent was for the Speaker 8: Average grade. No, Speaker 1: Well I know that, but is the board satisfied? Unsatisfied mean? It's obviously right at the edge here. Look, if you look, are you looking at, I just wanna point out one thing. You may or may not have seen the, the plot plan and the charting on the right middle. Yep, I saw that. Oh you did? Yep. Okay. And then so we're gonna get into the variance. Yeah. Next. So I actually before any other questions about what we see here and then we'll sort of get into the legalities of it. Anybody else have any questions? Speaker 3: Sure. Is this an appropriate time to ask about dimensions
that I don't see on the plot? Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Okay. Yeah, so on the plot plan, I'm trying to gauge what the distance is from the rear wall of the house to the rear fence line or lot line. I didn't see, so I'm looking at the colorful page sheet one of one. So I don't see what the dimension is from, oh, I'm sorry, I shouldn't say the back wall to the fence. I should say the end of the asphalt paving,
which is at the top of the regrading at the very rear it. So I'm thinking about the, the abutters to the rear. Yes. And well, how this is gonna change for them. Do you see Speaker 8: There's a dimension of 24 foot nine Speaker 3: Yes. From, from the building itself. Right. And then you're altering the grades that you have what, a four foot rise over how many feet from the end of the paving? 'cause the paving is much closer to Speaker 8: The rear. Oh, oh, you're talking about the paving is Speaker 3: Yes, because that's staying on the same level
as the garage, correct? Speaker 8: Yeah. The the surveyor or roughly the surveyor hasn't mentioned that, but Speaker 3: Yeah, that's why I'm asking. Speaker 8: My guess would be that it would, it's somewhere around 16, 17 feet, somewhere around there. I mean we can get you an exact dimension, but Speaker 1: I don't think we need that. But I think this Speaker 3: Is no, yeah, it has to do with the amount of rise or drop depending on your perspective that go is going back to the fence. 'cause right now that part of the lot is very level. So that's why I was asking about that dimension. I was hoping you could clear up for me like what exactly
Speaker 8: We're talking about in terms of grade. It goes from 1 56 to 1 52, so the grade drops four feet down. Yeah. In terms of elevation. Speaker 3: Yeah. And, and just, I'm, I'm belaboring this just, you know, at four feet over 20 linear feet is a lot less steep than four feet over 10 linear feet. That's what I'm trying to ascertain. Right. Thank you Speaker 11: Mr. Chair. As you'll see on the actual site or the area, the existing pavement actually far exceeds what they're proposing. I believe they are removing it from
Speaker 8: Yeah, the, there is, there's more pavement there now. Yeah. Oh Speaker 3: Yeah. I've been to this site. There's a huge amount of concrete on that Speaker 8: Site and if you look at the pave paving line, it's about halfway between what we propose and Sure. The property line. Speaker 1: Good enough. Alright Speaker 12: Susan, sorry I missed it. Why explain the justification or why you need, why you didn't just bump the rear yard setback to 0.1? Yeah, Speaker 1: So be, before you answer that question l let's just make, make it the section six findings.
We get that? Yeah. Now just make an argument for the board to consider as to the, the just fill out the, the elements of the variance as to the rear setback and the lot coverage. Speaker 8: Yeah. It, it was Speaker 1: Oh, oh, that's in the prior decision hold. Please trust in the system. I, I'd like to see him. Yeah. Yeah. Make an argument. Fine. Let, let's take a look at this. You're familiar with the did you, you didn't do that one? No. Speaker 8: Okay. John Burke.
Speaker 1: Ah, Speaker 12: Long finding Speaker 1: The int of there's the findings. Okay. Alright. I'm just gonna just make myself familiar Speaker 8: Terms of the existing, Speaker 1: Of course we didn't include any details, any details at all. Not a, not a lick. Great. Okay. We'll have, we'll have it, Speaker 8: I mean in, in terms of basically the geometry and we trying and surveyor was trying to, or the civil engineer was trying to le leave the existing retaining wall. And that's the geometry got a little skewed. Speaker 3: It's a substantial retaining wall.
Speaker 1: Right. That retaining which Speaker 8: Wall, which which we are leaving. Yeah. A good portion of it. We're just taking a little portion of it. Speaker 1: That and that retaining wall is the one that runs along the, the, the entire east side Correct. Of the loss. Right. So rather than bump to the side, you bump to the back. Is that the idea? Yep. So I guess it's the, the sh the sh narrowness of the loss given. Speaker 8: Right. The, the lot is the, you know, is, is it's a narrow lot. So
Speaker 1: Yeah. And narrower still with that structure there and the cost to remove the structure, I guess would be significant and to replace it would be significant. Okay. And, and any, anything else here? Oh, that goes to the, that goes to the rear setback. How, ask the question. How, so? I, I think again, if, if you, you can just widen it, get the space you need by going wider instead you go deeper and you run into the rear setback. I think that's the argument. Speaker 8: Just wanna get rid of it.
Yeah, like I said it was, it was the engineering of the geometry of the, the whole site. So I mean I guess we could probably stand if we had to. I guess Speaker 1: I, I, I didn't hear we could probably, Speaker 8: I guess we'd had to move a few inches. Okay. You probably could. Speaker 1: Oh, you mean to just dispense with the rear set, the rear variance? Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Come back whatever it is. 1211 inches, 10 inches. Like Speaker 8: Three, like 3 3 3 3 inches. Speaker 1: Oh, is that what it is? Yeah. Yeah. It's Speaker 12: 24.9. And that's what, and not that I'm
Speaker 1: No, no, no. Speaker 12: Morally opposed to, I'm just trying to, I'm trying to have to hook the hang hat on. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. Speaker 12: For why we need a, Speaker 1: So so the Speaker 12: Variance as opposed to a finding Yeah. Or anything at all. Speaker 1: Okay. So let me just go back to the chart for a moment. So, Speaker 4: But Jeff, in addition to the rear setback, there's the lot coverage, Speaker 1: Right? So then Speaker 4: That's a new violation too, Speaker 1: Right? Yeah. So the lot coverage is the one we need to address now Speaker 4: And that's going to 31 excess of 25. Speaker 1: Counsel, what would you like to tell us about that? That one? Speaker 7: Well I'm gonna defer to the architect. Okay.
But primarily it's the, it's, I mean I think the, the, as a legal matter, it's, it's most certainly the topography of the land and the way that the land, you know, comes down. Plus the other issue was in terms of trying to maintain out in front of the, from West Central Street, the, you know, a lower structure. So, but I'll let, I'll let Rob talk to the, to the issues of the, Speaker 1: To the, okay. Let, let me just, let me, let me just see if I, if I understand that, because what we're looking at here on the existing condition plan is this very squat structure. Right. And in order to maintain a, a sort of very
minimal and non-invasive aesthetic from the street, essentially you're putting the bulk in the back down the locks. Right? Speaker 8: We, the, the building had to get longer so we could park on the back and if we could also respond Speaker 1: Or keep the cars up the road Speaker 8: And, and make grade back, back Speaker 1: There. Okay. Okay. Alright. So you gotta go back a certain distance in order to make the car to be able to make, take a right hand turn into the garage. Correct. And then those cars then presumably can now back
into the, into the curve. Right. And then pull out straight onto the BC road. Speaker 8: It's, you know, 1 35 is pretty busy at that juncture. Yeah. It's, it's a safety concern as well. Speaker 1: Okay. And if you, if you pull the whole house in to meet the, the lot coverage requirement, you're not making that turn, you're not putting those cars back there? No, we'd have to Nowhere else to put'em on the lot. Yeah, we have to in, in, in, in the garage. Okay. Alright. Who, who has questions about that? Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean it's, Speaker 13: As far as parking do, are they required to have two spots? Yes, they are. Okay. Speaker 12: We granted a variance last time and a lot of that was
because of it. It was way funky. Speaker 1: Well we gave the front variance, variance from frontage and area, Speaker 12: But I mean finding a, a hook to hanger hat on to justify that it was a l-shaped lot and if I remember correctly, it never quite, Speaker 1: Well you, you have a better memory than me. All I can say is that they were, it was frontage and area and then the elements of the variance, the findings by the board are just the statutory criteria. Nothing more. There's no detail included.
And, and for the record, the chair was Mr. Scott Langer. Thank you for your service, Scott. So you can't look back at that. The lot's different, the project is different. Correct. Speaker 12: And that's, that was my follow up question might be directed the other council is we don't take that into consideration anymore. Speaker 1: No, no, no, no, no. I don't think that has any bearing, there's no bearing on what's going on here today. Well why don't we all just sort of think about what's going on here and we'll find out what the neighborhood thinks. Who here would like to be heard on 1 0 4 West Central? I see someone in the back. If you could just come up and,
and give your name and address to the record. Yes sir. Speaker 14: Hi everyone, I'm Peter Ek. I live at 1 0 2 West Central Street. So when you're looking at it just to the left. Yeah, I'm here. Also the pillows from five Cemetery Street have conflicting work travel schedules right now. So they asked me to also speak on their behalf. Speaker 1: Just, just, I'm sorry to interrupt you but just so we're clear, are you one of the plaintiffs? Yes. Okay. And as is your rear neighbor Yes. On five? Speaker 14: Correct. Got it. Yep. And we've been working with the architects and design team since the implementation of kind
of the plans for the project. We've really appreciated their transparency, everything they've talked about. We're all good in, we totally support the project. This has been a lot. You've heard the account, it's been a long time coming to get here. Yeah. We really value and appreciate your consideration in this. We feel strongly that this will not only eliminate the noise and smell nuisance of what that garage has been for the director butters, but so many people travel across this, that area of the street every single day and it'll just look better in the whole community. So what you know, the design as is
and with the spatial situation, both neighbors on both abutters are totally good with it and ask you to approve it. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else should be heard about 1 0 4? Yes sir. If we could just get your name and address for the record. Speaker 15: Hello, I'm Steven Gerard and I live on the other side of the house at one 12 of West Central Street. And I just also wanna be on record that I strongly support the demolition of the autobody shop and building this house. So this is long been waiting for this change in that neighborhood. Speaker 1: Good enough. Thanks very much. Anybody else wish to be heard on 1 0 4 West Central? Okay.
Seeing none. And you don't have any heads on Oh, oh yeah. Sorry. Thanks for reminding me. No one on, no one online on Zoom. Okay. Anybody else here? Have any You got a question? Speaker 13: Yeah, so I mean on the lot coverage, where I'm leaning is I don't see, I don't see a hardship. I see that there's great neighborhood support, neighbor support. It's a nice design craftsman style fits, fits well with the street. But I'm struggling with why would we give a variance on lock coverage? Just 'cause everybody likes the project and,
and this has been a, you know, the end of a very long, you know, arduous process in terms of, you know, Speaker 1: It's not, you don't necessarily need a response. Yeah, okay. It's a that that he's tipping his hand. I just would listen to that. I'm going to say that, that I see enough here for, for the grant to the variance as you're gonna come back in, we're gonna say, well, whatever it takes to meet the rear setback. Right? We agree on that. Yes. And then as the lot coverage, I, I do believe that given the topography, the narrowness
and the need for two parking spaces, I'm gonna say off the street, and what's unique about this is that in order to get those cars to be able to turn to the garage and then turn back out safely to go head out onto the busy street, whether they're going right or left is, is unique. And w essentially, without being able to put the parking there, I think that is a hardship and due Speaker 13: To topography. Speaker 1: That's right. Yeah. That's, it's tied directly to topography. So that's where I am. We're gonna go back this direction.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 1: Or, or not Oh Speaker 4: No, I, I, I think I could support this, especially given that there's not only zero opposition in the neighborhood, but you know, it sounds like full on support of the project. But I think too that it does meet the, the statutory tri criteria. I think we can argue that this is a uniquely shaped lot. It's got some challenges with topography. It's narrow. So in order to get, like you said the, the turning movements and into the parking garage in, into the garage in the rear,
that dictated the layout of the house. So it had to be a little bit narrower, a little bit deeper on the lot. I think with those having to do with the lot shape and the lot topography, I think it could fit into the statutory criteria for variance. Speaker 16: Some disagree. Speaker 1: Aria, anything? No. Gail, Speaker 3: So I understand you spoke with the neighbors. Does that include the folks that are abutters on the back? The mellows? Yes. Pillows. Pillows, yes. And is that one of the neighbors
that I'm told supports the project? That's correct. And are they aware of the grade change, the elevation change that that's Speaker 7: Going to happen? Yes. They have been, they've been involved in the, in all all okay phases of the planet design. Yeah, because Speaker 3: There's that kids climber right on the other side of that nice cedar fence. That's why I ask. Speaker 7: And they are, they are also the plaintiffs in the case, the PS Speaker 3: Oh, oh, okay. All. Well that's good to know. I'm also curious, there's mention of how there's a lot of fill, I think it was the town engineer in the back of the yard, you're filling in
above the existing fill that went back there or no, to, to create the elevation change. Speaker 8: There's a certain, yeah, a certain amount of fill that basically it's to to level out from the back of the garage. So Speaker 3: You mean the existing Speaker 8: Yeah, well, well from the, also from the new where le you know, they're re they're regrading from the back so that we can meet all the existing grades. Speaker 3: Okay. Oh, okay. I see my note on this. It was the board of health letter, it mentioned there's a significant amount of film material currently on the site, so
Speaker 7: Right. And we'll, and, and we have, we will comply with all the requirements that the board out and removing with that and that that clearly would be a condition of the approval of the, of the zoning board. Speaker 3: Okay. And so the estimated seasonal high groundwater currently is eight and a half to 10 feet below grade in the rear at the existing elevation. You'll be raising it by several feet and the basement is gonna clear by two feet. The, the basement slabs gonna clear the water by at least two feet, Speaker 8: I believe.
Yeah. That was what the conclusion was from that. Speaker 3: Okay. 'cause I, Speaker 8: And we and we're also adding, I didn't see we're also adding an in, in our infiltration system as well. Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I'm familiar with Speaker 8: Those. Yeah. So that is part of the conservation commission's decision, which we will comply with. Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah, that's Speaker 1: Okay. That's it. We're good. I, let's let's go ahead and, and close the public hearing. Speaker 7: Just one other, if I just might might just mention too, in terms of the, in terms of the, you know, various hardships that we're dealing with here, it's also the soil conditions. This, this property as you know, for a number of years has,
has, as I mentioned, has been used for, you know, a garages way back before there was any environmental requirements. Fortunately in terms of our phase two, we did not find any serious contamination that to reportable levels, although there was, there was a potential of some additional contamination below the building. And the parties have agreed that when the, when the building is demolished, that material will be further tested and removed as necessary. So we're not only dealing with a, the, the, the topography
and the lot size, we also have conditions, issues that we, soil condition issues that we Speaker 1: Gonna, so if I was gonna tie those together, the argument then being that there, there's, there's increased cost of dealing Correct. Contaminated soil and in order just to, you know, get, sort of, get back your investment in the need a little bit more space. That's right. Okay. And you need to put the building you need to take where you're taking away the soil, you need to put it back. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 7: I mean at the end of the day, of course with any
of these projects, it has to be, it has to be feasible from an economic standpoint as well. Sure. And that we have been, you know, obviously we're very sensitive to the neighborhood. We're very sensitive to not only the fact that it's a historic district area, but we are also sensitive to the, to the neighbors that are currently living with the situation that they obviously don't wanna live with anymore. And, and in the lawsuit, you know, the court and I, and I'm happy to say the, the plaintiffs have been very cooperative in trying to resolve this because the court made it clear that at the end of the day, it, at least in my opinion,
they're not gonna take a, they wouldn't take away the use of a, of an autobody shop. They might, they might put some restrictions on the autobody shop, but at the end of the day, they're not going to obviate the use of that property. It's never gonna be a vacant lawn. So that's, Speaker 1: So we made the right decision. That's what I'm hearing back in the day. Speaker 7: That's right. So Speaker 1: I'm gonna stop you 'cause I think we've heard enough and one I, I'll just say just confirmation, so it, it did go, what has it gone through already? What has it been approved? Speaker 7: It's been approved by the, the planning board. Yeah, A and r
and the historic District commission approved it. They gave us a certificate of appropriateness with conditions that we're going, we're going to, you know, happily comply with. Okay. And now we have the, and then there's the conservation commission and we expect to get that approval this week. Speaker 1: Okay. Andy? Done? Yeah. Thank you. So, so I'll just say hearings closed. I, I'll just say in closing that, you know, I'm really glad that you guys were able to work it out. I mean, I think it does show the level of cooperation after years of adversarial proceedings for the plaintiffs
to come here and say we're in support of what we see. So it really is a full throat of support. So, you know, kudos to, to all the parties involved. And, and also just, just from aesthetic point of view, it's, it's amazing to me that, that that's what the house looks like from the street. You know? Yeah. You, you got, you got some house there, but it's very well crafted, designed in such a way as to make it look much less imposing than, than it otherwise could. Right. That was the intent. Yeah. Yeah. I think you did a good job from that perspective. Okay, so with that said, we're gonna have
to address the section six as well. So let's start there and then move variance and then we'll go for it. Yeah. Speaker 4: Alright. I would move on the section six finding that we approved the project based on our finding that the project is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming use and structure provided spill and substantial conformance to the plan submitted and any requirements from the town departments to submit letters to the board. You want separate votes almost? Or Speaker 1: Altogether? Yeah. Yeah. 'cause there's a different Speaker 7: Second. Speaker 1: Yeah. Second. Okay. All, all those. So that Amanda, just, just so we're clear on the record
and I can't find the dang chart. I can't find the chart. I got Speaker 7: It right here. Speaker 1: Thanks. Has the lot area lot frontage, one setback and the west setback. Yeah, those are section six findings. And Speaker 7: Your yard We don't need to do Speaker 1: Anymore. We don't need to do anymore. Oh, it's condition. Well Speaker 7: Building coverage. Speaker 1: That'd be that piece. Oh. Oh, thank you. Thank you. With the plan submitted Speaker 4: With the exception that the
setback project will be adjusted. So the rear setback conforms correct. To zoning? Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. As as amended. Second is Jeff and all those in favor. Okay. That's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ass in section six. Now moving on. Oh, Speaker 4: You gonna let me do that one too? Speaker 1: I am. You're the best. You're the best in the business. We can help. We can help. Speaker 4: Let's see. So I would move that we approve the grant of the requested variances
and the relief described therein with respect to the only, with respect to the lot coverage now Correct. Allowing them to cover up to 31% of the lot excess of 25% maximum required by the bylaw. That motion is based. And that decision will be based on our finding that this property is affected by conditions relating to its configuration. Specifically the shape, the detrimental soil conditions and the topography. All of which has been altered by manmade filling and includes some potential contamination that needs
to be removed or remediated. Creating conditions that tend to affect this parcel and the building they're on, but not necessarily other properties located in the same zoning district. And further owing to circumstances relating to the shape of the land and structures, specifically the non-conforming use and the parcel. Do we need to say that? No, no, we don't need that. That a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner. And that again, being tied to the required cleanup of the site and removal of the industrial uses potentially contaminated soil and also accommodation
Speaker 1: Of parking, Speaker 4: The accommodation of the parking, the size of the building necessary to justify the expense of the remediation and cleanup of the property. Furthermore, that the relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially degradating from the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaws. And that the single family dwelling will be situated in a manner which will not tend to intrude upon adjacent residences, nor create the appearance of building congestion on this parcel or in the neighborhood. And that further the relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. As the existing nonconformity use presents a danger to the environment, which will be abated by this project
as a proposed single family dwelling is attractively designed and will be cited further, not cited from the back on a lot. Speaker 1: I, I, I missed the last part. Speaker 4: It will be attractively designed and tend to enhance the property and the neighborhood in general. Speaker 1: Okay. I like it. Second. Oh, we're gonna go with Gail. She never said I'm seconding. Second by Gail. Okay, so now all those in favor of that is five. You're all set. Thank you. Okay. I'm glad we were able to put that to bed. Thank you counsel. Thank you. Thank you counsel.
Thank you counsel. Speaker 4: Thank you Scott Speaker 1: Lanre. Thank you Scott Lang. Yeah, he was reading stuff. He was reading like this is off Speaker 17: As gonna, did you just set on record? I think you just said a record. How Speaker 1: Is he doing it? Thank, okay, now back to the Speaker 4: I copy of that for other s Speaker 1: Right. The next matter is five Halsey Way. Applicant's High end homes LLC Request for a section six finding for the demolition of existing one family dwelling in the construction of a new one. Family dwelling on a preexisting non-conforming loss.
Okay, hold on one second. This is, this is, so we have a lot of continuances, right? Yeah. Yeah. I think most of these are everybody but yeah, let's see here. Let's do that first. Oh, nice. Get past that. David. One's voting. Speaker 11: This one's voting is Andy, Jason, Dave, Ari, Gale. Speaker 1: Okay. Andy, Jason, Dave, Ari Gale. Alright. Now let me just see if I can find this in here. Speaker 11: And in the packets there are two new documents that have been uploaded.
Speaker 1: There we go. In David's packet Speaker 11: In yours and also in open go. Speaker 1: Oh, oh good. In here. Okay, great. Okay. So we had neighbors concerned with character, neighborhood height, two, tall neighbor concerned with overall size. We said tweak the sides and add certification. Oh no, sorry. Add some, some changes to the sides. So it was less monolithic. Okay. So with that in mind, what, what if anything has changed?
Speaker 18: Yes. So we completely changed the plan. Completely changed it. Yep. So after our last meeting between the board and the the neighbors. The overwhelming feedback was that the house was far too deep for the neighborhood. And so what we did was we completely changed the plan to, and as you can see it, we shortened the depth, let me see here. For the garage side, if you look at the site plan by 11 feet and non garage side, where there's no bump out in the front
for the garage is by 15 feet. Speaker 1: Wow. Okay. So big, big changes. Yep. Let me stop you there for a second and just find out if the neighbors agree with what you've done with what you've done. Anyone here on five Halsey? Come on up if you're opposed, that's a big smile for opposition. Speaker 19: No. Yeah, Justin's been great. I'm, I'm Stacy Chapman. I'm at three Halsey Way right next door. Yeah. Really appreciate all the effort that's been put into sort of making the house fit more into the neighborhood.
I do have one question about the reduction then. I was just noticing, so 15 feet on the, on the sort of seven Halsey side, I'm seeing a reduction of five feet on the garage side. So I think it was at 48 feet. Speaker 18: Towards your side. Yeah. Towards, yeah. Is it, but, but tell me Speaker 19: If I'm reading it Speaker 18: Wrong. So what it is currently, Speaker 19: So the previous submission I think was like 40. It was 43 feet in depth.
Which was the, the length that we were concerned about Speaker 18: It was 49 feet. 40. Okay. And yeah, the, the last build was 49 feet in depth. Oh, I thought Speaker 19: It was 43 feet. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Got it. So that's come down to 38, which is a, which is Speaker 18: A, yeah. On that side. And then on the other side where there's no garage bump out, it's 34 feet. Yeah, Speaker 19: Yeah. Yeah. So it's a lot, it's a lot less deep than, it's not doubling the depth of the current house. Correct. One and a half. Yeah. Times. So, yeah. So I think from our perspective, and then I had mentioned about the windows Speaker 18: And you got that email.
Speaker 19: Yeah. So, perfect. It looks like some windows have been Speaker 18: Added. And I have for the board, if you guys want, I, Stacy and her husband had emailed me this morning that I think the one that you guys have, there weren't a lot of windows on both the sides. And so we added five total windows more today. Speaker 1: And do we, do we have a plan? Because Speaker 18: I'm not sure if that was uploaded or not. I don't think so. Speaker 1: You have, do you have that with you? Speaker 18: I do. Yeah. I have for the book Speaker 1: If you can take a peek at that. Yeah. And Stacy, you've seen that I have this Chapman on.
Speaker 19: Yeah, I think, oh, it's fine. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's, you know, we are just concerned about the monolithic nature of the sides without, in the file. It was uploaded initially, but they did add some windows in the latest version. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. Anybody else wish to be heard? Five Halsey. Okay. Big difference. Look at that, huh? Works. Okay. Speaker 18: And if you want me to go over what windows we, you, Speaker 1: I think we can see 'em. Oh, okay. Yeah, I think we can see 'em. Alright. So we left here last
month concerned about certain things. Those concerns have been ameliorated. We don't no longer have any opposition. I don't have any questions. Does anybody else have any questions? No, I just wanna go ahead, Speaker 12: Just make sure that the zoning worksheet that's sort of on the site plan and what code site plan is, that's what we're ba this Speaker 18: Correct? Yeah. Okay. I Speaker 12: Didn't see a revised zoning trust. Speaker 19: Yeah. 'cause there isn't one Speaker 18: Yeah. On the stamp plan, like that bottom left hand. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. Yeah. Alright. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. So Jason again, I, you know, for the record, it works.
The, the system works. It's working and Speaker 18: Gotta talk to people. Speaker 1: It's great stuff. It's great stuff. Tell your partner, he said we appreciate his efforts to the extent he was involved Speaker 18: As well. I certainly will. Yeah. Speaker 1: Where is he go? Speaker 18: I move that We proposed Speaker 3: Whoa, whoa, sorry. Point of order. We haven't had a chance to, to ask questions. Speaker 1: Oh, I said does anyone have any questions? I, you missed it. It's no problem that, sorry. Do you have a question? Please Go Speaker 3: Ahead. Okay. Yeah, I do. So how many square feet do you have in the basement?
That's not occupied by utilities? Speaker 18: That's not occupied by utilities. I think if you fully finish that, it's somewhere in the 13 to 1400 square foot range. Speaker 3: So adding that to your estimates for the first floor, second floor. But we'll skip the third floor since it's pretty shallow. What is, oh, Speaker 18: There's no walkup attic. Pardon? It. It's just a pull down attic. There's no, it's not a usable space in the third floor. Speaker 3: Right. What is your, what is your calculation about the total usable livable area given the size of the usable area in the basement? Speaker 18: How much is the, like the square footage you're asking?
Yes. It'd be 47 to 48 if you finished absolutely everything in the house. Yeah. Speaker 3: And yeah, the reason I ask is because I couldn't find dimensions Absolutely. Again, on some, some of these. So Speaker 1: I, I Speaker 3: Has the board of Speaker 1: Helped. I'm just gonna interrupt you for one second. I, I just, if we had an FAR in, in Natick, which we don't, I think total square footage of the interior of the space becomes substantially relevant. I don't know that the total square footage of the basement
or the house is, it's not on the chart. And the reason it's not on the chart is 'cause it's not an element of consideration for the relief that's being requested and with, without anyone here objecting to the total square footage on the lot. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the question. It, but I'm gonna put that on the record. But you can continue. Speaker 3: Yeah. So that's one member of the board's opinion about this particular issue. It is still required on the checklist to provide the gross floor area. It's not, it is still,
Speaker 1: That's a, it's a variance checklist though, so I don't, I think that's a, Speaker 3: That's it's the standard checklist for all projects. Yeah. Speaker 1: It's not what we require. Speaker 3: So I was wondering, have you yet measured the seasonal high groundwater? Because I don't see any modification to the file that indicates the Board of Health has witnessed that. Speaker 18: We have Not yet. Speaker 3: Is there a reason why it still hasn't happened after this much time? Speaker 18: I mean, that's generally how we do, we wait for the, the plan to be approved. Then we work with the Board of Health, I believe to, you know, make sure if anything is, is needed that we make, make it happen.
Speaker 3: So we cannot know then whether the basement, as you have planned it, is going to work with the groundwater. That's a concern for me because that is a potential detriment. Speaker 18: Yeah. I mean, clearly if for some reason the groundwater comes back extremely high, we're not able to, to put the basement. But I know right now there, there is a basement and I know that most of that neighborhood does have basements there. So, you know, we'll, we'll deal with the Board of health if anything happens to come up and make sure that everything is according to what they want.
Speaker 3: Okay. So yeah, I'll just say that I find it difficult to, to accept a, a project application that does not include that measurement. Okay. I'm Speaker 1: Just saying by the board, for the record, that's not in the board's jurisdiction. It's the Board of Health is the one who's required to determine what the groundwater is and whether it can accept the basement and the building code will determine the height of the basement and how far above the groundwater it needs to be. That's not within the board's purview.
If it turns out as, as the applicant indicated that as a result of something that the Board of Health makes a determination on, they cannot build the building that's being put before this board. They'll have to come back and that's the risk you take. But we don't, that's, that's outside the jurisdiction of this board because it's specifically within the jurisdiction of another entity within the town that's the Board of Health. So we don't do their work and they don't do ours. Speaker 3: And I will point out again, that we are tasked with deciding what is detrimental in comparison with the
existing house. That is the rest of that sentence. It is always in comparison with the existing house. Detrimental to the neighborhood is required by state law and Natick Law. And so to me, in my purview as one member of the board, it is detrimental if we pass on to other boards within the town. This is my opinion as one member, if we pass on not knowing where the groundwater is gonna hit on a substantial basement, and I'll leave it at that. Speaker 1: Alright. I I, Amanda can you ask Carris about that?
I, I'd rather not take the time to do the Board of Health's job here. Unless Carris, the Town Council believes it's within our purview. If it's not, we're not gonna address it in the future. Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing. And Jason, if you would, Speaker 4: I would make a motion that we approve the project based on our finding. It's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the precinct nonconforming use and structure provided bill of substantial performance of plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submitted letters to the board. I don't know if I have all the most accurate dates
of the revised plans. Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm gonna give it to you. It's, Speaker 4: I think the site plan is the one revised May 12th. Correct. 2026. The document called the Riley is the House Architectural plans that is dated. We have a date. Speaker 1: I can't see, Speaker 4: Let's see, let's see. Date 11, no, 11 two 2000 revision seven something 2023. No, Speaker 1: That Speaker 4: These are stock plans. Yeah. Anyway, for that. Yeah. But they were looks like revised Thursday, May 14th, 2026. At least as they were uploaded to the town website.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Call it the submission date. Speaker 4: The submission date being May 14th. Speaker 1: Okay. And second. Second is Ari. And again, it, it's Andy, Jason, Dave, Ari, Gale. All those in favor. 1, 2, 3, 4. All those opposed four one. You're all set. Thank you. Okay. Good luck. Okay. The next matter is 21 Prescott Avenue. The applicant is Ari. Is Ari here? Speaker 11: So I think so MacArthur was taking this project over. He had con requested a continuance from the April
meeting to this meeting. But we haven't heard anything, so I'm not sure where. Speaker 1: Is anyone here on 21 Prescott? No, Speaker 11: I'm not seeing anyone online. Speaker 1: No one online. In order to, if we continue it, we're gonna be out beyond, we're gonna be out beyond the, the date. Speaker 11: Yeah. But they had requested a continuance, but I'm not sure. Speaker 4: They did request, Speaker 11: They had requested it from April to May. Yeah, but not from May to June. So, Speaker 1: And you're saying someone else took over the project as the official applicant, sort of. Is that what you mean? Taking over the project? Speaker 11: Yeah. So someone else has taken over. Yeah,
Speaker 3: But, but there's no actual communication with your department? It's just word of mouth that someone else is supposedly Speaker 11: No, we haven't, we have documentation. Oh, okay. We just haven't heard anything Speaker 1: From Nick Speaker 11: From tonight. Speaker 1: You're not here on that 1 21 Prescott. Are you counsel? No. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: Yeah, you're not here. You're not here. You're not here. You're not here. I mean, I think that's what we're gonna do. So just go ahead and Speaker 4: What was it last, last month, was there a no show or was there a Speaker 11: They requested a continuance without testimony. Speaker 4: Okay. They requested it, but not this month. Speaker 11: But you can, Speaker 1: I mean, what do we have to do in order
to move on from this project? Speaker 11: You can deny it without prejudiced. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 11: And just allow them to come refile when they get everything. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's fine. Let's do that motion. Speaker 4: I would move that we deny the project without prejudice based on their, Speaker 1: Okay. Andy, you're on this one. Okay. Okay. Oh, wait a minute. I take it back. Is he already on it? Oh, please. No, that's right. No. Okay. It was, it was Gail, David, Jason, Andy, and Alan. But Alan's not here. Speaker 12: I, I was here in March.
Speaker 1: Oh, you were? Yeah. Okay. So it'll be Jeff. Okay. Speaker 12: I was here the last time I wasn't here. Just be clear. I wasn't here for the last, Speaker 1: Nothing happened but nothing happened. Nothing happened. Speaker 11: So you don't have to Speaker 1: File them all. And, and plus there's been no testimony. So could we do that again? Gail? David, Jason. Andy. Jeff. There was a motion to continue. No. Motion. Motion to deny Without prejudice. Without prejudice. Second by Andy. And all those in favor. Okay, so that's five. Oh. Alright, the next one up is seven Upland Terrace. Applicant is Lil Giana Jean and Roni Mendez.
Request for section six finding for standing tear down of existing one. Failing dwelling in addition to the construction of an addition requiring relief for the front yard setback on a preexisting non-conforming lot. Hi there. Hello. How you doing? Good. Okay, hold on one second. Speaker 11: And there are new documents that were uploaded to OpenGov and they're also in your binder. Okay. Speaker 5: Yeah, this is that, this is that one. Alright, Speaker 1: What do your notes Speaker 5: Reflect for this? Speaker 4: My notes from last month, let's see, I said for seven upland terrace, they need to calculate the height from the average grade plane.
We wanted to see the height calculation for each zone because it's split between two zoning districts. There was a question I just wrote driveway here. I'm not sure what that was. And a grading plan. Maybe the, the width of the driveway as it goes to the street perhaps. And then I think we wanted to see more details about the grading. Speaker 1: Alright, with that in mind, why don't you tell us what we, what we have here? Speaker 20: Me? Speaker 1: Yes sir. Speaker 20: Yeah, yeah. So yeah, we came back with the updated drawings showing the heights from all
of the relevant angles that I think address all of the, the concerns originally around the height. If you look at sheets, A two, A three, a four, and a five, all the elevations cover the heights from the front view. They, you know, they maintain 29 6 at the highest on both sides of the property. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 1: And then did we get the height calculation on, on here from the average grade plane? Did, did that, did we get that? Speaker 20: It's showing you can, you can see on the left and right side, there's, you know, there's the,
the 29 6 from the sill plate and then there's another two feet, two inches. So that brings it down to the grade on the right side and then one foot 10 inches on the left side. And then we also added the, the contour lines on the plot plan. Speaker 1: Wait a minute, I am sorry. You're, you point to a plan that, that's indicating the height Speaker 20: A oh two front elevation. Speaker 1: Okay. You're showing me 29 6 from existing grade. Right. Speaker 20: And then there's the two, like if you look on the right side, there's the two feet, two inches to the finished grade. Is that correct, Michael? Yes. Yep. Speaker 1: Okay. That is not the way we measure height in naic.
We measure height by taking the average grade plane to the highest point on the roof. So is there a, is there a topographical plan here? Indicating what the, Speaker 20: I mean there's Speaker 1: Contour lines on the, on the plot plan. Alright. But there's, okay, I see them. Yeah, let's, let's see. Wow. So one 50, it slopes away in the back. Yeah, it slopes a lot down to the back. Yeah,
Speaker 13: So typically we'll see a spot elevation, meaning like at each corner of the house or most corners of the house, there'll be a, an elevation. So then you can look at it and you know, and calculate it. And then, you know, this is a stamped plan. Speaker 1: So it's just not, I'm, I'm Speaker 13: Not seeing the ation usually get Speaker 1: Yeah, here it's on the, it's on the flop plan. Yeah. It's Speaker 13: Page two of the, of the drawing set. The stamped, stamped under construction under plans Speaker 1: Two, two. But here, here's my confusion here is that his notes reflects specifically
that was one of the concerns. You're looking for additional information. IE the height and we're not, we don't have it. And Speaker 13: The height, so in the zoning chart, typically, I know you have like one story, two story, one like one half story. Typically we see that filled out where there's a height in feet. Got it. So then we can really look at the elevations. And then typically it's necessarily clear, it's like from average grade it's a dimension strength from average grade up to the ridge. And so that, and that ties off exactly to your zoning chart so you can see exactly, you know, what you had
or what you required, what you had, and then what you're proposing. Still trying to connect some of the, the dots. Speaker 1: Okay. Well let's see where we are here relative to the neighbors. Anybody here on seven Upland? Nobody. I don't see any hands on mine either. Okay, good. Alright. So, okay. I mean that, that height issue is, is a concern. Is the architect here? Yes. When did you come on up? If you can, if you want to, is the engineer here? Oh, it's you guys. Oh man. Okay.
Okay, good. Look, what is, can you give us an can, looking at the plan, I, I see here that the, the elevation is really, essentially it's one 50 across the front, right? Yeah. And it's, and it's essentially 1 45 across the back, correct? Speaker 21: Right. It drops about five and a half feet from to, from the front yard to the back yard. Speaker 1: Okay. So if we took just four, if we took, let me, let me just, it's, then we, let's say we took 1, 2, 3,
that's, this is what I've done. This is the front, this is, this is the street. Okay. Yep. One 50, right? Yep. 1 45, correct? Speaker 21: Correct. Speaker 1: That's 1 50, 1 50, 1 50, 1 45, 1 45, 1 45. And then just with the difference white 1 47 5. Speaker 21: Yep. Speaker 1: 1 47 5. So I gonna get their calculator around and do 450. Right? Plus this is someone held me here,
Abby's three times one 50 plus three times 1 45 plus two times 1 47 and a half. And then divide that by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. Nobody, Speaker 5: We, we need Speaker 13: Calculator. Speaker 1: I'll do it. I didn't bring that Bueller. I know what you're doing. Bueller, remember, please excuse my dear Sally. Three plus 1 45 times three plus 1 47, 5 times two equals 1180 divided by 8, 1 47 5,
I guess that's maybe two, right? Yeah. Actually makes sense. Alright. 1 47 0.5 is your average grade plane, if that's your average grade plane. Can you tell me how tall this building is? This is, Speaker 21: You're about 33 feet. Speaker 13: I don't, I mean, David, I think what we're kind of getting in at is that, so what Amanda's saying is that even though they haven't filled it in, but the C two height in feet max is 30 feet and that residential will be 35 looking at the main elevation, the left hand portion of this guys, what I'm saying, yes.
Left hand portion of this is in, is in c So even so the ridge is coming all the way across. So the ridge has to conform not only to the height of R, which again it probably does, but you, you need to prove it more clearly at 35. But I'm really doubtful that, or probably like your elevation show, you don't, you are higher than 30 feet for the garage portion. So you need to prove one way or or the other. And I, I don't think you meet the, the C portion. Speaker 1: That was quick. Speaker 12: Even if you're not on average ground plan, it looks like you're 31 on, on the garage portion.
Yes. Not even taken into account average. Correct. Speaker 1: Okay. Taken into Speaker 12: High ground. Speaker 1: But this was something that the building commissioner was gonna weigh in on. Right. Did did he come back with a conclusion that you need to comply on both sides of the, of the zoning line? Speaker 11: That's correct. So the portion of the building that's in the commercial has to comply with the commercial. And the portion that has that is in the residential has to comply with the residential. So therefore the garage, although it's the all in there and there's like a two feet or a foot in the RS, that would need to be 30 feet and there's no story restriction.
But in the RS it's 35 feet or two and a half stories. So you would look at 'em separately. Even Speaker 1: If, if we, if you, if we accept your Oh calculation. Sorry, Speaker 13: Hold on a second. Go May. Maybe they're okay. Maybe they're okay. Go ahead. Okay, well no, but to, to Jeff's point. So I'm looking at systo look at a oh two, so looking at the left hand side of the drawing there. So for you add, so going up for finished grade, and that's at again the highest grade. So one foot 10 and a half plus your 27 to the peak of the garage. 20. So oh yeah, you're under, but
Speaker 21: 29, Speaker 13: Yeah, you're under 30, but that's at the highest. That's at not at average grade. That's at highest grade. Speaker 12: But it, so but do you have to split? I don't know the answer to this. I'm asking, truly asking is the, do you have to split the average grade in each zone or do you do the average grade all across? Speaker 4: I think we decided the average grade was the same on both sides. In both zones, right? Yes, because it's 1 47 on either side average, whatever you had up top and on the bottom 1 45 Speaker 13: To one Speaker 4: The zones, the zones are here. Right. 40 zones, Speaker 12: The zone goes right through the middle. Right, right. Speaker 13: So that's Speaker 12: 1 45 and that 1 45 mirrors.
Yeah, it's all the same. Yeah. Speaker 13: I, Speaker 21: But we, we only have about two feet in the commercial pot. Speaker 4: Two feet. Two feet. Yeah. No, no, not according to your plans. Speaker 12: No whole garage. It was a whole Speaker 13: Garage. Whole garage, right. Yeah. Speaker 11: It's 24 by 24. The garage is, Speaker 1: Yeah, it splits after the garage, right? Yeah, Speaker 11: It's only, oh, Speaker 21: You're right. Yeah. But right now there's two, about two feet of the existing house is over on the commercial side. Speaker 1: Yeah. I think what we're talking about right now is making sure that the garage, the garage, there's a lower height restriction in the, I'm sorry,
the dimensional requirements in the commercial zone are lower, 30 feet in the commercial, 35 in residential. Speaker 4: Mr. Chairman, are they making the argument that they have a pre-existing non-conforming height in the C two district? Speaker 1: What's the existing height in the C district? Speaker 4: What's the Yeah, what's the existing building? No. So it's not, not exceeding now? No. Okay. Speaker 1: No, it would've been better if it were. So, Speaker 13: I, I mean, just to cut to the chase for, for me. Go ahead. So that we're, we're having to work too hard. I I, I don't think that you've got it in the garage and there's no way that you can prove it to me
that you've got it in the garage for what you see on the plan. So I'm, I'm, you know where I'm going on this one? Speaker 1: Yeah. So, okay. When did we open this? Speaker 11: You opened this, the public hearing was opened January 12th, 2026. It was then continued to February 23rd, but that was canceled due to a snowstorm. So then you next heard testimony on March 23rd and you heard testimony on April 27th, which was then continued to today May 18th. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. So, I mean, I think there's two ways of looking at it. One is the board is
like pulling teeth to try to get you guys the, the relief that you need here. But despite our best efforts, we're still left wanting complete incomplete. I think if, if everything was here, we'd be there that said, Andy, you raised it. If we said the what see what we did on the last one Speaker 13: Is conditional. Yeah. Speaker 1: It's essentially because, well we're, we're only gonna do this I think in limited circumstances, this might be one of 'em, it might be one of 'em
where you say that irrespective of what's shown that Yeah. The height on the left side of the lot Yeah. In the C two zone. Yeah. Cannot exceed 30 feet from average grade period. So whatever adjustments need to be made will be made. Speaker 21: We can take care of that. Speaker 13: Yeah, I know what they're gonna, I mean you're gonna just, yeah, it's gonna, the roof line's not gonna look as good, but I mean, I, because I think you need to drop another foot or so. But I hear what you're saying. I'm just gonna pondering what you're saying. Yeah,
Speaker 21: Well we can drop one level from going from the main house into that master suite of Speaker 1: I'm trying to save you a month. I know, I know. I appreciate it. I haven't come back here. Speaker 13: No one, there's no one here that's further from the neighborhood or online, right? Speaker 1: No. Okay. No, I, that makes it a little, we're still gonna force it into compliance, but in a way that, that doesn't unduly delay things particularly in light of the number, the January opening. Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. Speaker 11: The big thing that you actually are supposed to be focusing on is the setback of the garage.
Oh. Because that is what they're here for, for a section six finding, because the setback of the garage is within the front yard setback. So Speaker 1: What's, what's the number on the front setback? Speaker 20: 25.1? Speaker 1: No, no, the requirement. Speaker 11: Yeah. So the requirement for the commercial district is Speaker 20: 40. Speaker 1: Okay. 30. 40 says 40 on the concept. Speaker 11: It's 40 in the commercial. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. But, so look, I ever heard one, not even a scintilla of detriment, I just haven't heard it.
And I don't think putting a garage on an existing house is gonna create detriment, especially, particularly in the absence of, of anyone suggesting it's the same. So Yeah, Speaker 20: It actually, the, the one neighbor on the right side is, doesn't like the car currently parks on the street. So we're improving that situation for Speaker 1: Them. Okay. Alright. Well that's where I'm at. I'm, I'm, I'm okay with that. Anybody disagree? Speaker 22: No, I just had one thing I wanted to go ahead to add about, there was a typo, I believe in their zoning sheet about the RSC building coverage. They have it listed as 10%, I think it's 20%.
It's supposed to be on their, on the most revised plans. And they have the proposed building coverage of 21%. Yeah, we, we Speaker 1: Corrected that last time. Okay. Speaker 22: As long as Speaker 1: We have 20%, Speaker 22: It's 20. Okay. As long as there were Speaker 1: 2030 in the C Speaker 22: Two. Okay. Speaker 11: Yeah, but it's, you know what? You're right, it's still wrong. It's Speaker 22: Still wrong. Speaker 1: I, I corrected on mine. Speaker 22: Okay. Yeah, it's still, and it's listed as 21% proposed, which would put them over. Speaker 1: Oh is it? Oh, it's only listed at 12.6 in mine. Speaker 22: Oh, are you looking at the RSC or are you looking at Speaker 11: There's two, it's, they have one
for the RSC and one for the C two. Speaker 20: I think previously it was all combined under one and this latest submission, they separated the Speaker 1: Two. Speaker 11: Yeah, but the latest submission actually is still incorrect. Yeah. Speaker 22: It says 10 and there's Speaker 1: Oh, 2020, right. Oh yeah. That's why we overlook it. Speaker 11: Which then makes the plans incorrect. Speaker 22: And they're proposing 21%. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. That, that creates a variance. Speaker 22: That creates a variance, right? I dunno if it's total, is Speaker 1: That 21% only in that side? Speaker 22: Is that for RSC alone is the 21%? Speaker 1: It can't, it can't possibly be, look, look at the size of that square versus the size of the loss.
Speaker 22: Okay. Yeah, I know. But this is, it's packaged with another one for the, this is on the RSC and then right beneath it is a C two zone zoning worksheet that goes into further detail. So it's just, it's very confusing as to like what Oh, you're, is what I'm Speaker 1: Looking at a different Speaker 22: Plan. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 22: It's just hard to figure out what's what. It's this very, yeah, Speaker 1: Looking at the RSC Speaker 5: Around Speaker 1: 2012 0.6. That's good. 2012 0.6. You talk about that split line 30, is that right? C two 30?
Speaker 22: Tell me about it. Speaker 12: Well, they're combining a lot. Speaker 1: You can't, you can't split it and then combine it, right? Well Speaker 12: The required is different in each Speaker 1: Zone. Right. In other words, but you only, you only get whacked with the building in the zone. You Speaker 12: Yeah. You can't, you can't say the coverage and then take the Speaker 1: Whole building. No, no, no. That wouldn't be fair. So, I mean, does that, can I, can you tell us what the total square footage in the RSC is not building the lot in the RSC? Speaker 21: Just just a, Speaker 1: Just to the right of the line.
What's the total square footage to the right of the line lock? And then I'm gonna ask you what the, the, with the existing dwelling, we can tell that pretty easily. It's, it's a square. I mean it's a rectangle. Speaker 21: I don't think he split it up that way. Speaker 1: Try as we mice. Speaker 21: Yeah. So I wanna say just got 14. That's not right either. Speaker 1: Alright. Here we're, I don't think we're gonna be able to do it. I mean, I think with one thing we'll be okay, but look, here's, we said do, do a split lot analysis. Right? And then, and then so one,
you gotta calculate the height in each, on each side of the line. Speaker 21: Right? Which we did Speaker 1: From average level. From average. Gimme an average grade plane. I get let, let's call that one forty seven five, right? I mean, I'm not making it, I can't, you are gonna tell me, I'm not telling you, but this is what I'd like to see. Right? This is one 50, you know, we're in, we're in the ballpark here, right? Okay. That's what the lot looks like. This is the C two, this is the RSC is it? Yep. Right. Yes. Speaker 21: Yep. Speaker 1: So then it's
1 50, 1 50, 1 47, 1 45, 1 45, 1 47 5 divided by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. That gives you the average, it's gonna be the same, but it gives you the average grade plane on to the right of the lot. Then you're gonna measure from the, that average grade plane to the peak of the roof on this side of the line. That's gotta comply with the RSC height. Same thing over here. Whenever the numbers result in the average grade plane measured at the top of the peak, it can only be 30 feet. Yep. Can't be 31 feet. That'd be 30 feet. Okay.
That's the height. Then you have the Building coverage. The building coverage is, this is your lot, right? Your lot looks like, I dunno, let's just make believe it looks like this. Right. That's your lot. That's a, there's, there's total square footage in your lot. Your building looks like this existing garage, right? Something like that. Total square footage of lot to the right of this line. That's x. And then total square footage of the building existing, there's like a little thing here existing.
Right. And that's why do the math, what's the coverage? Come over here and do the same thing. Your lot looks like this. Your building looks like this existing, there's maybe nothing. So that's zero. And then your proposed is x or whatever it is. Do the math. Any questions so far? Any questions? No. Everybody gets what needs to be done. Does, is there anything else here that's missing? I mean, I think we did this last time and here we are doing it again. So does anybody here have anything
that they need from these pe these folks in order to make a ruling on this? Whether it's for or against? Is there anything missing? Speaker 22: A suggestion. Just when you go ahead on the, on the zoning worksheet, do not put the building height in actual feed as opposed to stories. It's listed as two and a half, one and two. It just makes it easier and we can see it all in one place. Thank you Speaker 1: Andy. Gail, Jeff, Jason. Is everyone satisfied that with those pieces of information we can make an intelligent deliberation on this project tonight?
No. Good. Unless they have it in their pocket. Potentially. This potentially next, next meeting? Yes. Next time. Potentially next meeting. Again. I, I tried to do it, but I we couldn't get there. We good? Yep. Everybody knows what we need. Yep. Gentlemen, we good. Well Speaker 3: Then not have just one question, Dave. We, I don't actually know the answer to this question. It's not hypothetical. Do we have any limitations as to how many hearings we would devote to a single residential project like
Speaker 1: This time at some point? Unless these part the, the applicant agrees to extend it beyond 65? Well yeah, we've already extended it. Yeah, but, but they have to, they have to sign a document agreeing that there's no constructive approval. As long as that happens, there's no maximum number of hearings. No, but at some point maybe the board says guess what? No more hearings going to a vote tonight. But that would be atypical of the way this board acts. I guess one, that's what I'm asking. A board member could make a motion to go to vote.
Yeah, sure. Sure. Again, we're not here to try to kill these deals. We're here to make intelligent decisions in accordance with our jurisdictional mandate mandate. Thank you. You like this now? Okay, good. Thank you. Good. So let's go ahead and continue that. Speaker 11: Good. So the next public hearing is June 22nd. And again, as requested before, the applicant needs to meet with the building commissioner, which still hasn't happened. Speaker 1: Okay. I know you're hearing me back there. You're hearing me up here. I don't know why we need to meet
with the building commissioner. If there's no meeting with the building commissioner, we will not schedule a thing for a hearing. Okay. So gotta meet with the building commissioner. I don't know why, but that's what he's requesting. Okay. Alright, Amanda, go ahead. June 20. Speaker 4: June 22. Yes. I move to continue this hearing on seven Upland to our next meeting on June 22nd. Speaker 1: Second. Second is Ari and I'm gonna tell you Speaker 12: I missed last week, Speaker 1: Week, last month. Okay. It is. Speaker 11: So this one Speaker 1: Did Gail, David, Jason, Andy, and Alan. Alan wasn't here, but you were. Yes. So you'll vote right?
It's Ari's voting and all those in favor Speaker 4: Continue. Speaker 1: Continue. That's continue to June 22nd. We'll see you back then. Thank you. I I, I'm absolutely certain of one thing. If the information is not on these plans, there's, it's gonna go to a vote unfortunately. Okay. Alright. Thanks guys. Thank you. We'll see you next time. Speaker 4: It is on the plans. It's gonna go for a Speaker 1: Vote. It's going for a vote for a vote. It's going for a vote. Yeah. One way or another vote. One quick question. What was the thing with the building inspector? I don't know. I, Amanda said the building promotion Commissioner has requested a meeting. Speaker 11: The Building Commissioner Senior just to get these plans put together.
Like this has been going on for, Speaker 1: So I would make that phone call. Okay. Yeah. I was told it happened, but All right. Okay. Alright. Good enough. Thanks. Thank you. Alright, take care. Alright, the next project is hold second Speaker 4: Woodland. Speaker 1: Yes sir. Speaker 12: The rest of them are competi Speaker 1: Leases. You want to go home? Speaker 11: Actually 56 Beaver Damn Road is new. Speaker 12: Oh, alright. Thank for that Speaker 4: Could be that one. I'm excited Speaker 1: About that. I know you're, okay. So this is, this says Gail, Ari, Dave, Jason, Andy. Okay. Gail, Ari, Dave, Jason, Andy, counsel one 50 Woodland
Speaker 23: Peter Haras again for the applicant. This is, we've updated the plans and submitted those to the portal. Essentially we reduced the size of the property or the project, brought it down and essentially created a smaller house based on the opinion or the feedback we received from the board and, and some of the neighbors. Speaker 1: Okay. My notes just for the board's edification, height should be measured by average grade of streets, not average grade. Plain abut is concerned Right. Height, bulk, and trees. Okay. And you've now submitted some additional
documents indicating that your lot is, Speaker 23: It reduced down about 3% as far as lot coverage went from the original submission and about two feet as far as the height and it's a front think from the original, it's now a two car garage instead. Three. Speaker 1: Okay, so you were Speaker 23: 34 8? Yep. Before, that's correct. Speaker 1: Okay. 24 3 2 7. Okay. Four eight not applicable coverage. Good, good. Okay. Alright. Is the height calculation on here from the street?
32.48. Speaker 23: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 12: I agree there was about four and a half feet of grade added to keep it above the seasonal water line. Is Speaker 23: That still the case? I believe that's true. I'm the engineer and the other project manager weren't here tonight, but they're texting me that they did speak with the building commissioner about the measurement to confirm that the one we have here was based on what, what he wanted as far as how they measure. Speaker 1: Excuse me. Alright. Let's see if you, if you, what you've done here has changed the, the move the needle as it were with the Abutters one 50 Woodland. Anyone here on that? Huh? Oh, is that a hand? Yeah.
Come on up. Audi, Speaker 24: Phil Miller, I live right next door. Huh? I have 1 48 Woodland. So still the concern is that the house is for that size lot compared to the other houses on a similar size. Lots is still too big. And the height, I think they're gonna be adding the additional height to the, to the base grade. And so we're concerned about what that's gonna do to water runoff around. 'cause we already have issues a little bit with that on heavy rains. So those are my two questions last time and my, I'm not sure if there's anyone else that's logged on, but we still think that the reduction
to the plan, although I, I do like the plan, I still think it's, it's much larger than it needs to be for that lot. I know there are a lot other larger homes that have been built on Woodland Street, but they've been built on Acre plus lots, so it looks much better. This area is older. Older lots from the early sixties and much, much smaller, so. Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks very much. Anybody else here wishing to heard on one 50 Woodland and there is one person online. Okay, well let's go ahead and bring them up. So they Speaker 11: And Andrew Mulani, they're able
to speak, they just need to unmute. Speaker 1: Okay. And I Speaker 11: Apologize, I've mispronounced the name. Oh, Speaker 1: We do our best. Speaker 25: Yep. Speaker 1: Oh, hi there. Speaker 25: Hi. Yeah, it's Andrew Mohi and I am at Forest Scarsdale Road right behind the project that we're talking about. Speaker 1: Okay. What would you like to tell us? Speaker 25: Yeah, I just want to echo what Phil said. I do agree with him. The, I know that the house, the height of the house is reduced, but I think it was reduced because the last time it was not calculated correctly. So it was reduced. But in my estimation it's still, it dwarf it's gonna dwarf our house.
It was pushed back. So their house is gonna look into my backyard. Like it will be a, an eclipse every day until about noontime is what I'm guessing. I am concerned about the drainage as well. We already have some problems and we have a lot of rain from them running right into my backyard. So that is a concern. And really that's, you know, that's the biggest thing. If you were to look at the lot, you would see that it's a, it's a substantial house. I don't wanna squash anything. It's just, in my estimation it doesn't quite fit. But, you know, that's really the best I can say.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks very much. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Board comments? Questions? I, I need a few minutes to look around. Yeah, look around. Okay. Just a little bit. Yeah, if, could Speaker 22: You just speak to what he mentioned on the phone about, I know we talked about calculating the, the height of the building 'cause of where the lot's looking at being a corner lot and whatnot. Was there actually anything done to the plan of the house to actually reduce the height of it or is it just, is that number, is the Speaker 23: Height number we assume it was to reduce the height itself. The engineer believed that we had the accurate calculation last time. I think he confirmed how we measured with the commissioner,
but based on the comments, we did reduce the size of Speaker 22: Okay. So you actually physically reduce this, just like of the area different calculation, not a technicality, no. Okay. Speaker 3: So I just have a question. The grade, the existing grade when I was on the portal, I hope I have the most recent numbers was 2 0 2 0.4 existing grade Speaker 23: 2 0 2. Yep, that's Speaker 3: Right. And you're going to raise it to 2 0 4 0.9, is that correct? Yep, Speaker 23: That's the proposed average grade. Speaker 3: Okay. And you're putting in a basement
that's looked according to my calculations as if it's going to be several feet off from where the estimated groundwater is going to hit. Especially when you include the two foot clearance between the water and the slab Speaker 5: Setback. Speaker 23: Is that what you I mean, Speaker 3: So I'm counting, you know Yep. The new grade counting down and you hit water six feet down from the new grade. Speaker 23: I I think that, I think that's where the water table was. Speaker 3: Yeah. So, so six feet, but you're putting in a basement.
Speaker 23: I think that, yeah, there'll be a basement and a, an infiltration, a water infiltration system that has to be approved Speaker 3: In connection. Well the infiltration system is just dealing with the roof water. It doesn't deal with the underground water. Speaker 23: You mean as far as we're digging down below the water table? Yes. Speaker 3: Yeah, Speaker 23: I believe that that's where it ends up. I think that that's what our, the updated plan shows. Speaker 1: Hold on one second. 30. So I may, I may have misheard you. The, I see the height change in the chart. I don't see any other dimensional changes in the chart Speaker 23: Lock coverage Speaker 1: Coverage, but the no setbacks changed.
How could the, how could the lock coverage actually it's the same though. 16 seven. It's the same. Speaker 23: I think, I think the original was 19. Speaker 1: I'm looking at my, I'm looking at the chart that I marked up the last earring. Speaker 23: Oh, the, I guess the last one was the 16 seven and now it's, it's it's lower. It was So it wouldn't have been the lock coverage that was reduced this time? It would've just been the, the height. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Alright. So, so only the only thing changes is the height. Okay. Okay. 1 51, Gail, Ari, Dave, Jason, Andy. Okay. Speaker 13: Question. Is there a new, I'm looking at a site plan
you should, looking at the most recent, it's the one that ends in 0 8 9 dash 25. That's the file name. Speaker 23: It would've been dated revis May 12th, 2026. Speaker 13: Did you say May? May 12th 13. Speaker 23: Yeah, May 12th. Speaker 13: May. Okay. So Speaker 5: Not that one. Speaker 13: Hold on one sec. Resubmit. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 13: There. It's okay. May 12th. Speaker 5: No, Speaker 13: And I'm sorry I think we may have kind of gone over this before 'cause it seems like the concept clearly hasn't. It's the same concept but, so the, so bi up the site was, so you're saying
fitting the basement in to get above groundwater. I'm sorry Gail, this is probably what you were talking about before but I wasn't, I'm sorry. Sorry. Why are you bur up the site? I think they have a basement available. Okay. Speaker 1: Anybody else? Speaker 4: What was the amount that you're raising the site? You said the grading more or less? Speaker 13: Two, two feet. Let's say more than that. No, two and a half to three. Three. Three or so. 3, 2, 3 and four feet. Looks like two or four. Two and a half. Well, you're at, you're at around 20 at 2 0 2 ish. 2 0 2 4. And then you've got the contour 2 0 5.
So Yeah, I think it's, it's more than two. Speaker 5: Yeah, Speaker 13: Two. Speaker 1: Alright, I'll, I'll, I'll go I'll go first here. So I think I was sort of generally in favor of it last time and now for some reason I'm opposed. And, and I think it, I think it's 'cause we, we heard from the applicant, we heard from the abutters and then we say go back there and and see if you can figure it out and you knock like two feet off the, off the roof and don't change another thing, I don't think. And, and then they come back in here and, and they have the same concerns
and then I maybe miss the fact that it's being bermed up so you can buy yourself a a, a basement. And so I, I think I'm, I'm with the neighbors on this one. I'm concerned about the total, total size, height, bulk. It's a big house. So that, that's where I am. Anybody else? Speaker 13: Dito? Speaker 1: Ari. Gail. Okay. Alright. Well I think we're just gonna go to a vote then on it because we gave the applicant opportunity to try to make it work. Speaker 13: If there's any way we could do one more go at it.
I, I mean I know they were willing to reduce it. Yeah, I think based on, well Speaker 1: Anybody have any thoughts on that? Oh, let, let's, here's what I'll say again. I'm only one vote if you come back here with half measures and I don't think the neighbors, they sound reasonable. They, they, they're not ranting and raving about the host of horribles. They're concerned about certain things. They've indicated them and you did nothing to really address those concerns. So if you come back here and try to nickel
and dime the neighbors again, it's gonna be a very short hearing. Speaker 13: I understand Speaker 1: That's me, but I'm not, I'll go to with the majority of this board wants to do either. I think the options are, it goes to a vote or it or it gets continued. One or the other. Speaker 4: I, I, I think I still have concerns about the height, especially raising the grade Speaker 1: Vote or continue. Speaker 4: I could continue it Speaker 1: Vote or continue. Speaker 5: I could continue it, Speaker 1: Vote or continue. I could continue it. That's it. That's enough. That's majority. Even if Gail and I say vote.
Speaker 5: Isn't Speaker 3: That funny? Speaker 1: I was trying to be funny. Speaker 3: I know you are. Speaker 1: Alright if we're gonna continue it, but hey listen, send your client a very, you know, a very, a very stern, a stern message. Right? I mean I Speaker 5: Won't read verbatim. Speaker 1: It's just not gonna, if you come back here, I would meet with the neighbors too. IIII think they're, they're not unreasonable people and they are right on top of this lot. So let's let, let's have that discussion and go ahead, Speaker 4: Move to continue this hearing on one 50 Woodland to our June 22nd meeting. Speaker 1: Second Andy, is that you? I think so, yeah. Okay. Yeah.
All those in favor? Yep. We'll see you on the 22nd. All Speaker 4: Those Speaker 3: Opposed? I'm opposed. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. All opposed to the continuance? Yes, this is, yes. Okay. Were you opposed to the continuance? I was in favor of the continuance. Okay, so four in favor of the continuance. One opposed. Thank you Gail. And that's it. Thank you very much. Five Glenwood Applicant. Marsian real estate. Is this you two? How you doing? Request for section six finding with demolition of existing one, family dwelling and construction. We new one family dwelling on the cruise is Notfor lot. Gail, Dave, Jason, Andy and Allen. Allen's not here. Ari, you were your Oz. Amanda. Good? Yep.
Okay, hold on one second. This is five Glenwood. Okay. Do you, let's see. Neighbor directed butter, Dirk sturgeon opposed because of size, bulk, oversized neighbor concern Ray size and character C exhibit. Hold on. Speaker 5: This is, Speaker 1: Yeah, I think this is, we did submit a, a package also through the portal. Speaker 5: Yeah, it's a hard copy. Speaker 1: I love a hard copy. Yep. Got it. New docs. I got 'em here. So let's see. It's, Speaker 5: Thanks. Speaker 1: So let me just, Speaker 5: I'm just extra Sure, sure.
Two actually. Two, Speaker 3: If anyone in the room would like one, we've got lots. Speaker 1: Alright, so now I just wanna compare the chart for a moment. Speaker 23: There won't be, there won't be many changes on the chart. Speaker 1: Okay. Because, Speaker 23: Because the, well part of the redesign had to do with the concern of the neighbor to the left. So we reduced the height on that side, bring down over the garage, but the peak is still at Speaker 1: The same point. Right? Right, right, right. Okay. What, why don't you just explain what's different, this, this go around Speaker 23: That that's the major change because we did have support of a number of other neighbors
to the project as well that had emailed into the portal. Yep. We heard the concerns of the neighbors to the direct left so that the height was gonna go up on his side to be a two story like his. So we just took it down a bit and we have screening on the left side. And then, so the, the discussion about the massing last time, one of the pictures that we have from the aerial view from the drone, I'm not sure which, Speaker 1: Just Speaker 23: Kind of the pages, but it's the back of Glenwoods, like the backyard of it. It's the one after the pictures. Yeah. Circled.
So that's where really the, the mass as I would understand it to be, would show would be in the back much more so than the front. And with all the screening and the distance between, I think it alleviates some of the concern with sort of the look as far as character goes and the front. I mean I, I'm partial to design just because I am, but also in this one too, again, just to point out the lot coverage itself is only being increased very, very slightly by 5%. Speaker 1: Alright, let let, let's see, let's see if anybody's here on it. Anybody here on five Glenwood? Come on up.
Gail, David, Jason, Andy and Ari, while he's sorting through his papers for a moment, can you just walk me through this one right here just for a moment. This is the one you're talking about right here, right? Yes. Speaker 23: Yeah. Speaker 1: So just, just come up point out on this plan. Thank you. Point out on this plan where, where this house is going. Speaker 12: Sorry, he got an extra one off. Speaker 1: Yep. This is Speaker 12: His house right here. Yeah. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 12: Essentially just coming back this Speaker 1: Yep. And Speaker 12: Going up a second. Speaker 1: Yep. Yep. Okay. Good enough. Alright, thank you.
No problem. Okay, lemme see. Hello there. Your name and address if you would for the record. First name is Dirk, last name is Speaker 26: Sturgeon. I am a direct debut. So I'm at seven Glenwood Street. And I believe that the applicants have really been disingenuous when it comes to the facts and figures that they're using to support this. Their latest submission all centers around the fact this is a 3,900 square foot house. And yet we've gone through this last time that they didn't count the basement. And so if you look at my first page, you know there's a substantial basement there.
It definitely counts source of square footage. I'm not gonna get into the specifics of whether it's 5,700 square feet or it's 6,200 square feet. But it's a, the point is it's a big house and it's a big house with a three car garage, of which no other house on Glenwood Street has a three car garage. I believe that the house overwhelms the lot. If this was a house that was on an acre, an acre and a quarter, God bless, go have it. But it's not going to fit well in my opinion on a half acre loft.
I would ask the board to look at the second page of the handout and you'll see. Speaker 1: Can I stop you for one second? Yeah. Just tell me this approximately 6 0 3, is that a, is that a deck? Speaker 26: No, that's a, that's the underneath there. I think that's a dining room. Speaker 1: Oh, okay, okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, Speaker 26: Again, so that's part of the problem. They have nothing labeled for the basement. They have no utilities marked out. They have it. It's, it's designed to basically take those people who are not good with this type of information and paint a picture of something that is not,
and so you really have to jump through hoops to get any type of information. Second page of my handout is essentially looks at the existing house versus what the proposed house is. And it's the footprint. And the footprint will show that there is a 42% increase in the footprint size between the existing house and the new house and so on. You know, a large lot that's not gonna be much on a, a small lot that is substantial going I'm,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, can I have a copy of what he's referencing? Speaker 26: There you go. Sorry. Speaker 1: So that's just blue divided by green, right? Yeah. So Speaker 26: That little line that goes through, you'll see the, it's a, I'll get front Speaker 1: Of me. I see it. The little one on the bottom. Yep. Speaker 26: Yep. So that's the existing one and then versus the, the new one. Yeah. Speaker 1: So the blue is you take the block of blue and you divide that into the block of green. You get 40.42. Yeah. Okay. Yep. And then this is the same chart on the right. Yeah. Yeah. As last time. Speaker 26: Yep. So then third one you'll see that I guess I'll,
I'll close with just a couple of thoughts. You know, at the end of last month the board suggested that the applicant reach out to those of us who oppose this project. So they might be able to find a path forward that's acceptable for both parties. Both Steven and I gave our contact information to the attorney after the meeting. But unfortunately the applicants were not willing to amend this design and show no willing to compromise. No willingness to compromise. Had the applicants come to me, I would've suggested the elimination of one garage, which would've allowed the house to be pulled back from the property in additional 10 feet.
This would've still lead them with two garages, which is the most anybody has in the neighborhood. Additionally, if they revise their plans to show 2,900 square feet above grade a thousand square feet below grade, there's your 3,900 square feet. That to me is a legitimate 3,900, not the 5,700 that is in the plans, but they're pedaling 3,900 as I stated last month. I'm not against new construction. I would happily get on board with a legit legitimate two car, 3,900 square foot house.
But that's not what this is. I will close by reading a letter from our neighbors. They live at four Glenwood Street. They were not here for the meeting and could not be here this evening. So they asked me to to read it. It's very quick. Dear members of the zoning board, we respectfully oppose the cons. The proposed construction at five Glenwood Street, the scale of the proposed home is disproportionate to the lot and surrounding neighborhood, particularly given that the property is already a smaller, non-conforming parcel. South NA zoning is intentionally designed
to preserve a lower density, more spacious and historically consistent character through larger lot sizes and setbacks. A house of this scale on an undersized lot undermines that intent by introducing a level of massing and intensity that is not consistent with the established street. Scape or neighborhood pattern. For these reasons, we respectfully ask the board to deny the proposal as designed or require a reduction in size to better align with a lot the neighborhood and the overall character of South Natick. And that's from Tony and Athena Barkett
and they're at for Glenwood Street. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Speaker 26: Thank you. Speaker 1: I think for the packaging, it's just, you know, it's just really does explain it in a very, you know, very visual way. For me personally, Speaker 26: I'm a visual Speaker 1: Person, so, yeah. Yeah, it does help. Did you have your hand up too? Oh, I'm, I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Your name and address for the record. Speaker 27: Hi everyone. My name is Deirdre Phillips. I live at six Glenwood, that's across the street from Dirk and Kitty Corner from this house. We moved here from Newton in October and we love this neighborhood.
We're really happy there. The proposed house is, as the last letter just said, disproportionately larger and higher than any other house on Glenwood Street. It makes the rest of the houses seem diminished, dwarfed, as someone said in the last conversation, we very much hope that the proposal can be scaled back to be more consistent with the houses that are already on the Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Speaker 28: My name's Steven Gu. I'm at 18 Glenwood Street, and I think I explained last time what, actually, because of the numbering, that's funny. Where d agree Right. Diagonally across the street.
Last time I was here, I presented some pictures of houses on the street and hopefully you, you all still have those pictures. Yeah. Really isn't much more to say than what's already been Speaker 1: Said. Same, same, same, same. Speaker 28: The same. Yeah. The house is too big. Yeah. And I, I also wanna say that after the last meeting, developers, we gave them our contact information, asked them to get in touch with us. Yeah. Told 'em that we'd work out something reasonable. Yeah. They didn't call me and I don't believe they called Derek. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. I mean, Speaker 28: But in Speaker 1: This case, the, the, the sort of conceit in, in, in this is just stunning, not you.
No, no, no. I understand. No, I understand. But we do, my comments are not directed to you. I, I understand. I understand. They're, they're directed to you, but they're meant to be directed to your clients. If they were here, I think I'd give it to 'em pretty good. We have done this, you have been before us as much as any applicant in this town over the last five years. You know, the way this board works, we work to try to bridge the gap between concerns of the abutters and applicant's legitimate projects. And we approve
because of that sort of compromise stance that we come from. The vast majority of projects get approved at some point, but it requires both parties to play ball. And your client in this case did not play ball. But in, in fairness, I'm inclined to put this to a vote again, but it will be the board's, it will be at the board's pleasure. But I hope that your client, if he decides he or she decides to go back
and watch this video, that they will understand the level of frustration, if you will, that we had to essentially do the same hearing twice because the neighbor's position hasn't changed an iota because the applicant's project hasn't either. And that's not what this whole thing is for. We don't continue it to today to waste all of our time and theirs. So that's where I come from. I'll give you
Speaker 23: Very brief, just brief since the last one. We had another email in support of the project. I don't care. Speaker 1: We have, it's, we, we, listen, you could bring in five letters of support if two neighbors come up and give, what I would say is very cogent testimony about detriment, which I didn't have to draw out of them. They packaged it in a way that makes it quite obvious to, to me, again, I'm speaking only for myself, but I'm gonna credit that I got, I am going to credit that testimony particularly
because they said the same thing last week and I heard last month and I heard it. Apparently your client did not. And so I, I think I'm not inclined. Your last application had something. It had something and, but this does not, so I'm inclined to go to a vote, but I'll go over here. It's, it's again, Gail, Dave, Jason, Andy, and Ari. Andy. It's two que. It's really two issues. Two, two options. It is continue or vote. Go
Speaker 23: Ahead. No, again, the only reason I would say anything again is that we did speak to the neighbors after and height was a concern to the one on the left. Okay, Speaker 1: Stop that, that Speaker 23: I'm not trying to minimize it. I'm saying that No, you're Speaker 1: Just shoveling more of the same. It's not meaningful. They didn't come here and say, we want you to shave a little bit off the top. They showed you in dramatic terms that the, the massing here was substantial and, and you did again, you, the project applicant did essentially nothing except maybe stick their finger in the
eye of these neighbors, which was a mistake. Andy, the only question Yep. Speaker 13: For you is in light of, in light of the previous project. And then we're not supposed to vote on or talk about precedent. But I think it, in my, my eyes, is appropriate to sort of give one more chance knowing that it will be a quick discussion. Meaning that we'll be able to see if there's meaningful change. And if there's not anything close to meaningful change, then it's, you know, it's go to vote right away.
Speaker 1: Jason, Speaker 4: I'm usually in favor of giving somebody one more chance. But we've had, you know, like you said, this is the same thing that we saw last, last month, I think Speaker 1: Ari, yeah, Speaker 22: No, I, I think this is just hubris. The neighbors have given some of the most compelling information we've seen for suggestions that are entirely reasonable and to just ignore it, it just feels, it's Speaker 4: Almost insulting. I would, I would go Speaker 1: For a vote. Kale, Speaker 4: Same Speaker 1: Motion. Speaker 4: Hmm. Speaker 1: Kale? No, Speaker 4: We don't. Can I just say do I,
I don't know how to do a motion to deny. I've never done one motion. Speaker 1: Oh, oh. Motion to tonight. Speaker 12: Do you wanna do a motion to Speaker 4: Approve and watch it fail Speaker 12: Or do a motion to continue? Continue. Speaker 4: I'll move that we continue this hearing on five. Speaker 1: Well, that's gonna, if if, if the vote don't go up for the continuance, that's gonna leave it in a state of limbo. We'll have to be, we'll have to, another motion will have to be Speaker 4: Right. We'll have to actually vote on the merits. Okay. If the motion to continue fails, right? Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Well do that first. Go ahead. Go ahead. The motion Speaker 4: To continue, I moved to continue the hearing.
And five Glenwood to June 22nd. Speaker 1: Second I'll second is Andy. And all those in favor of a continuance to June 22nd. Andy's in favor? All those opposed? Speaker 4: I was in favor. Speaker 1: Oh. Oh, you're in favor. I'm sorry. Two in favor. Three opposed to a continuance. So it does not get continued. Now do you wanna make a motion, Amanda, do you know? 'cause this is atypical of our practice, but do we, is it a motion to deny or is it motion to approve? Speaker 11: It's typically a motion in the positive. Speaker 1: Motion in the positive. I Speaker 4: Think we could do either one, Speaker 11: But you can do either one.
Yeah. And you just have to state Speaker 1: In the, in the spot. In the, in the positive. Speaker 12: Mr Chair, can I ask a quick question? Yeah, yeah. How, what's the threshold for substance? Substantially different Speaker 1: Plans. Yeah, that, that, that's a good question. I I can tell you this, it doesn't come back substantially different plans. It's not gonna get well, Speaker 12: No, but I mean, does he need two, two years? He need to come back with a 800 square foot cake. No, but I think that the, the neighbor Dirk Speaker 1: Mentioned, no, this is the statutory restriction. Two years. Yeah, there's two years. Oh, I'm sorry. We're talking about Speaker 12: The what, what, and not that I'm a voting member, but I don't, I don't need, we don't need to be,
I don't need to be punitive. No, I don't wait for two years where he has to come back with a Speaker 1: No. Okay. So I don't know. We have the go ahead. Speaker 11: One thing that since the board or the applicant does know which way it's going, they could withdraw it. So therefore they could come back within two years. Because if you do deny it where the motion fails, it would not be without prejudice. It would Speaker 1: With prejudice, but they'd have to come back with something that didn't look completely Speaker 11: Different. And you would have to make a different determination of that. So you wanna Speaker 1: Withdraw? Speaker 4: Could I have a minute? Yeah, I don't,
Speaker 1: Well, you know what, take five. Can we do take five? Speaker 11: Or you could just go to the next? You Speaker 1: Can go to the next. I think I was inclined to take five anyways. You can Speaker 11: Go to the next project because they're not here either. Speaker 1: Oh, how do you like that? Well, we're gonna, we're gonna, can we take, I, I'd like to take time. You could take five. Yeah. Alright, we're gonna just suspend for take a recess for five minutes, get the motion to recess for five minutes. Do we Speaker 4: Do that? Move to recess for five minutes. Second. Speaker 1: Second. All in favor? Excellent. Thank you. What do you say? I'd like Speaker 23: To request to be able to withdraw with without prejudice. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. So withdraw without prejudice,
Speaker 4: Do we accept it or do we move to allow them to withdraw? I think so. Move to allow the applicant to withdraw the application for five Glenwood. Speaker 1: Second is Speaker 4: Ari without prejudice? Speaker 1: Yep. On all those in favor. So that's five. Oh, good. Have a, thanks very much. That was five Glenwood. Okay, so now the next project up is 53 Beacon Street. And that one is what? Not going forward. Speaker 11: Oh wait, David, there's a hand in the back guys. Speaker 1: I have one question. Speaker 29: Yeah. So what does that mean? They're allowed to submit new plans in the next
two years or how Speaker 1: No, so, so that project is gone. If they want to bring another project, they will have to start from scratch. Speaker 29: Oh, is Speaker 1: That right? Yeah. That, that project is no longer viable in front of this board. It's over. We didn't deny it. We didn't approve it. They withdrew it because they saw which way the wind was blown. But they, the concern there was if that, if we denied it, then there's a, the state law says you can't bring the project back for two years, but then they just,
you just modify the project and bring it back and it's another project. But it has to be fairly substantial. But that was the whole point, right? It was gonna be substantial anyways. But the in, in this case, they could literally, they wouldn't, I wouldn't think bring back the same exact plan next tomorrow. They, that's he won't. Right. I mean, why would you? But you will get noticed like you did of the first hearing from day one. I suspect they'll reach out. Thank you. I would think. Yeah.
Thanks for the input. Sorry. 50. Did you say 53 Beacon is here or not? Speaker 11: So 53 Beacon. Have not heard anything from them. We did reach out to the Department of Public Works regarding the existing lot line and the fence. Speaker 1: Oh no info Speaker 11: Was a per, this was the pergola, but we have not received any new information. Therefore, Speaker 1: What did we, what did we do the last time Speaker 11: For 21 Prescott, which were in the same situation. You voted to deny without prejudice. Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess we're gonna do the same thing. Yeah, we were really clear in our feedback to them
and yeah, they're not here, so Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 4: Move to deny I Speaker 1: Without, Speaker 4: Without prejudice, I guess. No, I, Speaker 1: Yeah, that's it. Zach, without prejudice. Yeah. Hold on. Gail, Ari, Dave, Jason, Andy. Yes. Second. Did we get a second with it? Second Gail. All those in favor denied without prejudice. I guess. The next project is 56 Beaver Dam Road. The applicant is Eric Salme. It's a request for a variance dimensional side yard setback for the construction of addition on the
east side of the existing one. Family dwelling on a pre-existing non-conforming lot 56 Beaver Dam. Hi, how you doing? Hey, you teleported to that chair. 56 beaver. Hold on one second. Okay, here we go. Speaker 12: So I think there was also the section six finding on it too. Speaker 1: Hold on, let, let, let me see. I don't, it's not in this in here, but we'll find it. Yeah, let's see. Properties of residential for a finding. For a finding. Yeah. Along with, yeah. Yeah, you're right.
So let, let, let's just do here. The lot area is Speaker 12: Position is 10,000 square feet. Yeah. 10,010. Speaker 1: 10,010. Okay, so there we go. The frontage is is okay. The depth is not changing. That's okay. It's short, but it's okay. Front. Good, good. Right side west. Good, good side. East variance. Rear. Rear. Good coverage.
Speaker 12: We don't know. Speaker 1: Oh, let's just, okay. Is that 2090 against what? Speaker 12: Yeah, I think the coverage was Speaker 1: Lot area 10,009. 10,009. Right. Speaker 12: One. It's 21%. You Speaker 1: Did that Speaker 12: Essentially Speaker 1: What's Its Speaker 12: Existing 10,010. Speaker 1: So it's like 11 ish. 10 ish. 10 ish. 10 11. You did it. Speaker 12: So it's 10,000, 10 square feet is a lot. So Speaker 1: 10 98 over 10,000. 10, 10,000. Speaker 12: Oh, it existing. So it'd be like 11. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. And then the height is well short.
Speaker 12: Okay. Speaker 1: We don't need that. Alright, so let's see. Got here. So anybody here on this project other than the applicant? 53. I'm sorry. 56 Beaver dam, Speaker 12: The homeowner, Speaker 1: The home, the homeowner. Okay. The homeowner. Alright, alright. Okay. So nobody, anybody online on this one? There's Speaker 11: One person online, but they don't have their hand raised. Speaker 1: Okay. So let's see. Speaker 12: That's the homeowner. Speaker 1: That's the other homeowner. Okay. Speaker 12: Oh, Speaker 1: 56. So,
Speaker 5: All right. Speaker 1: So it's this 5.2 here in the, in the bottom right corner of the garage, right? Yeah. It's tucked up close to Speaker 30: The lot. Yeah, the Speaker 1: Lot line. Speaker 30: It's right. So if I can give you a little background, their youngest daughter is turning six. She's in a motorized wheelchair. And right now they have no garage. So everything is outside that is gonna be the garage. And we wanna fit the van and the ramp in there so that they don't have to maintain it
so she can get in the house pretty easy. And basically the whole first floor of the house is gonna be a DA compliant. She's gonna have like a c Speaker 1: I'm almost, I'm like 99% sure. You may know this, that at least before that they, they made the international building code, the standard in, in Massachusetts, handicap accessibility Speaker 30: Can go right to the lot. Speaker 1: Line was was, was immune from his zoning. That I don't know. But as an example, a ramp. A ramp you could run away. You Speaker 30: Can ask the building commissioner. Speaker 1: Oh, Speaker 30: That's her dad. He was the building commissioner in Westminster.
Speaker 1: Oh, am I right? Go ahead. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 5: Does that apply to Speaker 1: A garage though? I think that'd be a stretch, but Well, Speaker 30: And that's why we're asking Speaker 1: You. I don't know. I don't know. I don't, but remember, Speaker 30: Remember. But that's, I wanted to get background. Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. No, it's helpful. It's, it's important. I think it goes to uniqueness of structure as well. Speaker 31: Well originally we were going to go beyond the house and do an L shape so we could put the ramp there and comply with the side lot line, but because of the wetlands and well air. Speaker 1: Yeah. Oh, okay. So the whole back is wetlands,
Speaker 30: The river front. Speaker 1: Oh, there you go. Speaker 30: Goes to the back corner. You'll see a circle on that little addition. It's Right. So we've been talking to conservation. Yeah, Speaker 1: No, I think that, that that's what we were waiting for. Okay. Speaker 30: That's, and they wanted to go here. Claire wanted us to go here first and then go to them. Yeah. So we had to do plantings in the riverfront. D mass. EP looked at this already with no comments. Speaker 1: Right. So in order, if you put the garage in the back, you're in the no build zone. We Speaker 30: Can't, we can't. Speaker 1: Alright. That, that, that's,
Speaker 30: And so we're keeping the existing foundation as a slab. Yeah. And it's, it's really unique. I've never seen it before. They dug a trench, two feet wide, four feet deep, poured concrete and then poured a 10 inch slab on top of it. So the engineers looked at it and said, we're leaving that it's gonna save $30,000 for these people. We're not taking that down. Yeah. We're gonna raise the floor up a little so we can do all the plumbing and utilities. Yeah. Then build the house. Reason the house is so tall, there's no basement, there's no storage. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. So we had to walk up. No, I, I think, I think that that was good.
We nobody online. Oh, there was one Speaker 3: Person, but I think Speaker 30: It was that husband's. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I don't have any questions here. I, I think we got all, we, we, we, we have the paradigm, if you will, for the grant of the variance, right. This, this, the soil conditions, which is essentially a river in the back creates a situation where you cannot put the garage in the rear to the lot, Speaker 30: Which kind of creates a hardship, Speaker 1: Not kind of, kind Speaker 30: Of Yeah, it does. Right. So Speaker 1: It does.
Okay. So anybody here have any questions? Speaker 3: Yes, I do. I, my understanding was that when people are requesting a variance based on the conditions of the lot, it was with the understanding that it is unique or almost unique to them in the neighborhood. And what I saw when I visited the neighborhood is that everybody who's on the inside of that curve, on that side of the road shares the same restrictions. You, y'all have a sort of wedge shape lot leading
to the water and it is not an unusual condition in, in that way. So I, I was trying to figure out how, you know, this is a special burden for this particular lot and I, I'm not really seeing that. So Speaker 30: We, I printed up just a basic Google map, which showed kind of the wetlands, but you can't go by it. There is two houses on that side of the street down at the back on the far end over towards Kelsey Road that where one was, I think they just finished it, it's 3,300 square feet,
which had a very similar issue. And then the next one up, I think it was number 40 and 44, which Speaker 3: You're talking about. Speaker 1: I'm, I'm just gonna hold you up there just, just because I think that Gail's interpretation of the code is probably what most people think it is. Yeah. But it's actually Speaker 4: The, the statute, mass general law 48 10 says it talks about circumstances relating to soil condition, shape, topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures, but not generally affecting the zoning
district in which it is located as Speaker 1: Opposed to just the neighborhood. Speaker 4: So that, yeah, we have to look at the entire zoning district. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. So, which we we're not clearly not gonna find. Okay. So, but specifically as to other than the elements of the variance, which I think again we have here on all forms, is there anything else we want, anybody wants to know about this project in particular? I'm all set. Speaker 31: We just have to make sure we mention the front. Speaker 30: Yes. There is a little like porch in the front, which I, I, I want to make sure that it's covered under the variance. It's just a little covered entrance porch. Speaker 1: Is it shown on the plans that were submitted?
Speaker 30: It's on the plan, but it's also on C 1 0 1, which is the plot, proposed plot plan. Speaker 1: This is what went before Dave then. Yes, it is covered. So absolutely. Okay, so in that case we're gonna close the public hearing. Speaker 3: Oh wait, no I have, go ahead. I do have some questions too. When I was visiting this site, the, as you're looking at your house, the neighbors to your left, to the east, they have a vegetable raised bed right next to the fence. And if we allowed you to intrude so far into the setback on
that side, it is absolutely going to shade their property because you will only be what, what five feet? Five feet from the line. And so I was wondering, have you spoken with them and do they support the project? Are they aware of what's gonna happen to their property? There's also a fruit tree that looks reasonably young but healthy. Does it belong to you or the neighbors? Speaker 2: It belongs to the neighbors. So the garden and the fruit trees, that little strip of vegetation right there is theirs. And it would still get a lot of Speaker 32: The morning sun coming over. But we have talked to them about it.
We've been working on this project for a while and we knew that we would be close so we wanted to talk to them about it and they, they are aware of everything we're doing and they said whatever thing that we came up with, they would be happy to sign off on it. Speaker 3: Okay. Did they, did they send a letter or anything to? Speaker 2: No. Okay. We were waiting to see if that was Speaker 32: Something that needed to be done, but they're just waiting for us to let Speaker 2: 'em know if that's something Speaker 32: That's required. Speaker 31: They're not, they live in Florida, they Speaker 30: Stay here a few months of the year
and they have a place up north someplace. Yeah. And the good part about this, that's the garage. So the roof's a lot. It's not like a two story garage, right? It's just a garage of roof or one and a half. It's not really, I mean it's gonna give shade obviously, but it's gonna be a lot less than the primary house. So, and Speaker 1: Vegetable growing season and sun but high any, Speaker 30: Yeah, Speaker 1: Generally. Okay. Well we're gonna close it then. And Jason, Speaker 4: Starting with a finding. I move, we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood and s and nonconforming law structure provided it's built and substantial conformance with the plan submitted. And any requirements from town departments have submitted letters to the board. Speaker 1: Okay, well I'm sorry, just, Speaker 4: And that's the finding is related to lot area and lot depth Speaker 1: It goes. Andy, Jason, Dave, Jeff Gale. Oh, I'm sorry, who's on this one? This is a chief. This Speaker 11: Is new. This is brand new. New. Speaker 1: This is new. Jeff is between Ari and Andy. I, where did we leave off? Speaker 11: It's been split because Alan wasn't here. So we have Reese divided Speaker 1: Those. Oh and Andy's on it. Okay. So Andy, Jason, Dave, Jeff, Gale.
His motion on the section six was to approve Second. Second is Andy. And all those in favor of the section six finding that's four in favor. All those opposed or abstaining or opposed GA's Opposed, reluctantly opposed, reluctantly opposing that passes the variance. Speaker 11: And who seconded that? Sorry Speaker 1: Andy. I did Okay Speaker 4: For a variance, I move that we approve the issuance of a variance to allow the project based on findings that the particular
land and structures, let's see, I went to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of such land or structures. And that being the close proximity in the rear to the wetlands as well as the shape of the lot. And the fact that the applicant is preserving the existing foundation and footprint of the building not doing a complete tear down. So they're kind of limited by the existing footprint of their existing structure. Let's see. That a literal enforcement of the pro, no,
Speaker 1: Let's go. Unique to the zoning. Speaker 4: Unique to the zoning Speaker 1: District. Speaker 4: Not this lot and not affecting the zoning district generally. Yep. It that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. That hardship being that this applicant would not be able to put a garage, I believe anywhere else on the site that would conform to the zoning and Speaker 1: Say Amanda was say in that. But putting in the, the obvious place where you put it in the rear is a no build zone.
Speaker 4: And then rear is the no build zone due to the wetlands and other conflicting local bylaws and state laws protecting the wetlands that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially degrading from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. And I think that was it. Speaker 1: Okay. And second. Second is Andy. And all those in favor of the grant of the variance. 1, 2, 3, 4. Speaker 4: And this is for the side setback on the east.
Speaker 1: Correct. And all those opposed to the grant of the variance is Gail. So four one that passes. You're all set. Good luck. I do not Speaker 12: Thank you guys. Speaker 1: If the front was all set, if that's on the plans, it's been approved. Awesome, Speaker 12: Thank you. Speaker 1: And that's it. Now wait a minute. What the business to we have here? Speaker 11: Oh, well we don't have any minutes from the 27th and I don't know if Gail was able to review the ones from the 23rd of March. Speaker 1: Thank you. That's Speaker 11: Why we continued them. We can wait until the next one. That's fine.
Speaker 1: Gail sent me the rules. Did, did, did anyone else, does anyone else have a copy of the rules? We're not ready to vote on that anyways, but no, I, and I looked at 'em. I want to make some You gonna look at 'em, you're gonna do it them fantastic. Get Speaker 12: Ga what you for them Speaker 1: To everybody? I don't think I got them before. No, I think she sent 'em just to me. No, I But why don't you send 'em to Amanda and then Amanda will send 'em out. Speaker 3: Well you have them right? Speaker 11: I have them, but did you make any amendments? Speaker 3: No. Oh, okay. Speaker 11: That I can send 'em out to everybody. Okay, Speaker 3: Great. Well, and actually I have a thought about that.
Would it make sense to have, given the amount of discussion we could end up being in, would it make sense to have a non cycle meeting just to talk about the rules and procedures since you know they date back to 2008 and there's a, looks like there's a lot of ground to cover. Speaker 1: I I, I would, is there a light month coming up? I would not be inclined to come back out. It June Speaker 11: Is we've already got three applications plus everything here maybe July. Speaker 1: Sure. Let's see what that looks like. Yeah,
Speaker 12: It's gonna do it after the meeting. Speaker 3: Yeah. I'm just thinking that, you know, by this time of night, most of us really don't want to go over a lot of fine points. I Speaker 1: I agree with that. Speaker 3: And that's why I was wondering if we could do a separate, I forget what you call it when you, you don't have to take public comment, but it's a public Speaker 1: Executive meeting. Speaker 3: Is that, is that Speaker 11: What it is? It's a, it's a working group meeting or just a board meeting where you just have a, you don't have, you don't have to take public comment from each project, but if you are having a meeting of the board, you should take public comment at the beginning.
But usually no one speaks Okay. On those ones just because it's topic specific. But Speaker 12: Amanda, if we have, if we wanted to send, Speaker 11: You can send 'em to me. Edit, Speaker 12: Send them to Speaker 11: Jess me. Yes. And then I will distribute them from there. Speaker 13: So that'd be later. So shorten the make meeting more condensed would be to make sure that Yeah, if we have comments, send 'em ahead of time. Yeah, Speaker 12: Do the track changes, you know. Speaker 13: No, I was just gonna think an outline. Bullet points of Yeah, Speaker 1: Like get back. Look like a fruit loops are so many colors. Oh, Speaker 12: Did we move to adjourn?
A Speaker 13: Adjourn. All in favor? Speaker 11: All Speaker 3: In favor? Aye.