Speaker 1: All right, welcome everybody. I think we'll just get right into it. Well, actually I'll just address that starting in April. These, these hearings are gonna be, you're going to, people are gonna have the ability to sign on via Zoom. The board will still be here physically. I think it just operates better like that. If you can't make it, then you know you can participate remotely. There's a couple rules, but I think we were, I think the select board thought we were gonna do it starting today, but I just found out about it this morning and I don't think we've coordinated enough to get it going.
Although it may be, it may be posted. I don't know. We're gonna have any participation remotely. Okay, here we go. So what we have here tonight is we have the February meeting didn't occur because of the storm. So we've got the February meetings followed by the March meetings. But the March meetings are, oh, there's only two of them. So we've got, we'll start with a continued public hearing from February. This would be the applicant is Bruce n and Eva m Willens, a request for a variance dimensional side yard setback
for the construction of an addition on the west side of the existing one. Family dwelling on a preexisting nonconforming lot. And do we have, that's 12 Hemlock Drive. Do we have anyone here? Come on up. So if you could just refresh our memory where we left off. You did give us a new document, right? This rendering? Speaker 2: Yeah. Revised dimensions. Speaker 1: Revised dimensions. Okay. Let's take, let's take a look. And the, the change, did you shrink it? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Did you shrink it, the width or the length? Both. Both. Is it conforming now?
Do you know if it meets the Does not, no. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: Does not. Let's, let's figure out where it does not. Speaker 2: So it was originally, we asked for 16 feet in width. We went to 15 feet, took out a foot off the width. Okay. And the length, which we heard from some board members, the, the issue of length was tough for them. So we went from, in the variance requested area, we went from 41 feet to 34 feet. Speaker 1: That's the depth. Speaker 2: Yes. Right.
Speaker 1: Okay. So, Speaker 2: And that's pretty much the length of the hou, you know, the width of the house. Sure. Right. The length of the house. The Speaker 1: Length. So now we're at 34 and 14 nine. Is that right? Yes. Yeah. Yes. Okay. So let, let's just see if we can change the chart for a moment. You didn't change the chart, right? Speaker 2: Change the chart. Speaker 3: We gave you a Speaker 1: New one with the, you did give us a new one. You gave us a new chart. Okay, hold on a minute. Speaker 4: But is that the January Speaker 1: One? Let's see, what I'm looking at is marked up by me. So this cannot be the original. I don't think. I did
Speaker 3: Not, I don't Speaker 2: You're talking about the revised dimension. Speaker 1: Yeah, it would've been, it would've been something that looked like Speaker 2: That. So that would've been for in January? Yes. And when we came in January, we brought that attorney that talked about that case. Yeah. That case was, that was not viable. It ended up not being viable. The case. So we Right. Speaker 1: The case was totally an opposite. It was not on point. Speaker 2: Right. And we didn't speak to the revision that we submitted. So that's, Speaker 1: 'cause the hearing didn't occur Speaker 2: In February. Right. It didn't occur. So we didn't have a chance to do that.
So we thought, you know, hopefully Speaker 1: Do that. So this is, this is my question. I just wanna make sure we're all looking at the same thing. We agree it's 14 nine. Yes, we agree it's 34. The only question is did you submit revised one of these? No. Okay. That's alright. So let let, let's just look at it for a second. The lot area is, is obviously unchanged. The lot frontage is unchanged. The lot depth is unchanged. The front yard setback is unchanged. The west setback, this is, okay, so it went from
Speaker 2: It. Now should be Speaker 1: Be 23. It was 23 7 down to 9 4 9. Nine to nine. Okay. Agree. Everybody agree? Can I give you, you may a Speaker 3: I have coffee. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay, so right. So nine. That's right. And, and I'm looking at this plan here. It's, yeah, it's, so it's, I'm gonna change this to nine and I'm gonna change this to, you have 24 1, I'm seeing 23 7. So I'm gonna change that to 23.7.
And everything else remains unchanged. Lemme double check the side. The other side is unchanged. The rear is un Speaker 4: Oh wait, excuse me. Did the height change? I have a note from last time saying that now it's one and a half stories tall instead of one. Is that correct? Speaker 3: The height hasn't Speaker 4: Changed. It hasn't changed. Okay. I'm guessing I was looking at a different Yeah, we have a stack of these. Sorry. I'm sure. Speaker 3: I'm sure. Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. So the, the rear does change for a moment. It goes, does the rear you have unchanged but it actually you go nine feet back, farther back.
Speaker 2: Correct. But that, but that's within Speaker 1: The, yeah, no, no conforming. It just wanted to be accurate. So it's today 46 9 and it was 56.2. So rear 56 Speaker 5: Recording compass Speaker 1: To, and that's not unchanged. It's now 46.9. Okay. Alright. So still comes down to the same thing. You have a conforming setback on the west,
which is now by way of this garage becoming non-conforming and the variance. Okay. And so I know we, we sort of danced around this some, but how did we sort of, if, if we did nuance the elements of the variance? Speaker 2: So it was had to do with the pool, the existing pool. Speaker 1: Okay, Speaker 2: Go ahead. On the lot. Speaker 1: Yeah, I see it there. Yep. Speaker 2: So, and you know, we, we built the pool 40 years ago. Speaker 1: Four 40. 40.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And it was done to accommodate the uniqueness of the lot shape. The shape of the lot is not squared. So because of that, and in order to comply with the lot requirements on the easterly side of the lot, the pool was placed to meet the setback dimensions in the backyard. So we had to move it towards the westerly line more than we wanted to because the lot is not squared on the easterly side. Speaker 1: Okay. So before we go to the board here, does anybody here wish
to be heard on this project at 12 Hemlock Drive? Okay. Seeing none folks, any thoughts here? So Rob is not here. So Andy, why don't you'll be on this one and Ari will be on the next one. Speaker 4: So I just wanna make sure I got this right since we saw you in January when the other fellow is here helping out. You haven't changed the dimension since then? No. Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. No, and I also would like to reiterate that our commitment to removing a lot of the hardscape
that is currently there, obviously the garage will be sitting there, but to the westerly side of, of our buts, you know, we're going to have a new fence line and we're also going to have probably plant six foot trees that will grow to 10 feet along the whole fence line. And that's not just on the side of the garage. I'm gonna go all the way back to, you know, the furthest point of the backyard as well. So, you know, I I, we feel like that will really, you know,
enhance the neighborhood and not be detrimental. I know that the abutter to the west is very happy that we're going to do that and he's gonna be part of the design of it. So, Speaker 6: And can I just add that I think you never saw her at the last meeting, these new dimensions because it was all with that attorney bringing up Right? The Speaker 2: The other Speaker 6: Option. The other Speaker 2: Option that could have been there, Speaker 6: But I don't, I don't think you ever saw the, that we took a foot off and that we, Speaker 2: I seven feet off. I Speaker 4: Did. 'cause I was really hoping to see some reduction.
So I, I have my notes here from January about, oh, it's 34 feet long now instead of 41. Right. Speaker 2: But it does end at the house as far as the variance area now. Yeah, that's right. Yes. Instead of going past instead of the, Speaker 7: So can you, can you take it one step further as far as I, so you were mentioning how putting in the swimming pool you needed to move it further to the west, to the west is to the left, correct. On the second because of that Sanford corner to the Northeast. Yes. So then how does that affect going into the setback on the, on the far west?
Speaker 2: Well I think that the discussion was that did we have a reason for the lot not being conforming? Right. Speaker 6: And also we, we could also maybe put the garage towards the back if the pool wasn't in that position, we could move the garage more towards the back. Speaker 1: That, that's gotta be it. That that's what I remember. Yeah. But, but for the chamford corner in the, what's that, the northeast, that pool would be plus
or minus east of where it is today. Correct. And then you could drive around the back of the house on the west side and park in the garage in the rear. But you can't now because the said pool, I think that's, that's, Speaker 7: That was put there because of the unusual shape Speaker 6: Of the wall. Yes. Speaker 1: Yeah. That that's right. Or a actually the statute says lot or structure, which is a, which is the thing that only applies as far as shape is concerned. 'cause soil conditions and
topography is tough for a building. So there, there, there you have it. It's how, how's everybody, how's everybody doing with that? Jason looked at me with a side eye. Speaker 8: No, I'm just having a hard time getting my head around a substantial detriment caused by the lot shape, size of topography. I, it doesn't strike me as a substantial detriment that somebody can't have a garage on a lot that's been there and been beneficial use.
They've enjoyed the use of it, or I dunno, that house was probably built a hundred years ago. Speaker 2: Thanks. 1954. Speaker 8: Yeah. 70 years or so. Speaker 1: So let, well, let, lemme give you an opportunity. Yeah. So the statute says that as a result of these conditions, it results in a substantial hardship to you. Right. Substantial hardship. So he, he says, where's the hardship? And so why don't you tell him what the hardship is? So Speaker 2: You're talking about a hardship for us personally, or
Speaker 1: It has to be for you personally. Yeah. So, oh, well, so again, again, I, I don't know if I drew this picture last or not, but I'll draw it this time. You should just keep it up, Mr. Jack. Yeah. So here's a square loss, right? And this is, this is ledge, right? This is the setback line, something like this, right? And most people would, you know, put their house here, I'm going to do the car. I no, that's bad. I did that wrong. Take it with you. Like here, that's the setback. Okay? There's the ledge, that's where you put the house normally,
but because of this unique condition in the back of this ledge here, you can't build a house where you normally would build it. So what you're asking to do is, instead is to vary the code to move the house To here. Right? But by doing so, you run in front of the front setback line right here. Right. But it's the only way you can get a house in the lot because 'cause of this ledge back here. So there's a nexus, a causal nexus between, in this case the, the topography
or the soil condition here that is creating the hardship. IEI can't build a house on my lot because of that. And thus I want to vary the code, the variance to push it forward in front of this front setback line. And I'm only asking for, you know, that much relief, right? So using that as the example, it's slightly different. You, your yours is associated with shape or so you tell us, right? So if, if using this as an analogy, the the hardship here is I can't build a house on my lot
and it's causally related to this soil condition. In your case it would be, it'd have to be, cause related to that doesn't work. But to shape, right, the shape is causing you not to be able to build what you want, which is a hardship, a substantial hardship, right? Correct. So try to like, try to connect the dots using this as the, as your guide if you will. Speaker 6: Well, wouldn't you, wouldn't you say that our hardship
technically, like you said ledge is our swimming pool because we can't move the swimming pool. So wouldn't that relate to the ledge that you are talking about? I think Speaker 1: What he's looking for, and I'm not gonna speak for him, although I'm gonna speak for him, Mr. Is, is why do you need the garage? He's like, you, you've lived there for however long you've lived there. That house has existed there for 70 years and it's been, it's been put to, you know, a beneficial use for families who live in this town. But, but what has changed? So people come in here and say, what's changed is I'm a growing family, I need more space. Yours may be we're, we're,
Speaker 2: We're older, Speaker 1: We're older, and Speaker 2: We're, we're approaching 70. And the storms that we all had to endure this past winter were really hard on us. Yeah. You know, a couple times I almost fell on my, you know what, and if I had direct access into the garage, I wouldn't have, you know, open my car door and fall fell. Sure. Fell on ice. So, you know, it's just really important to us to have direct access. And, Speaker 6: And I, I do want to add that in that left corner,
we do have a eight by 16 shed that is non-conforming that we're willing to take that out, which is 128 square feet and we're asking the board for 102 feet. Two, yeah. The 34 by three feet Yeah. That we're asking for. Speaker 1: It's a little bit, you, you're conflating two different concepts. One is square footage versus the setback line. But, but I get it. Speaker 6: I I just thought that No, Speaker 1: No, listen, it's all good. Yeah. Okay. So I, I I think, let's put it this way, this is as close as, as, as you can get to, to one, to, to try
to move the board. There's less subjectivity in this kind of appeal. This is being a variance as opposed to what you've seen and what you will see the rest of tonight, for the most part is more subjective, right? We're trying to weigh detriment to the neighborhood and that invites a certain more, quite a bit more flexibility in terms of the, the, the considerations of what's going on. Yours is statutory, right? These are the elements. You gotta meet the elements and we're trying to try to assist you so
that we can do our duty. Right. And so I I think I, I, I think I'm there. I brought myself there, but here we go again. You don't have to turn your cards over, but if you want to, can we Speaker 6: Listen to other folks Speaker 1: First? Nobody else wanted to be heard. Oh, I mean the board. Oh, you don't want to go first? Yes. I don't wanna go first, Andy. Speaker 7: Sure. I'm on the fence because it, I understand that it's only, you know, a small sliver that's, that's into the setback. Yet a variance is a, you know, important thing that we
don't really see a lot of variances. It's mostly filings and you know, I mean, you're right on the edge as far as just being able to kinda squeeze in, you know, a, a tight garage, but a garage at, at 12 foot five. I'm an architect and it's, you know, we know the parking spaces are, you know, nine feet wide. So Yeah, I'm on the fence of, you know, do you really need that extra three feet to, to park a car in there? Speaker 6: So can I answer that? Sure. One of the issues is, and I keep looking at dimensions
and you being an architect, you would know the foundation is gonna be 10 inches wide. Yeah. So right off the bat, I'm losing 20 inches on foundation. So if what we're asking for is gonna be tight for us to get my pickup in and open a door for myself and for Eva at that dimension that we're asking for your approval tonight. Yep. Speaker 7: Yep. Understood. So that's, that's, that's where I am. Speaker 1: Okay. Jason, if you care on the fence. Okay.
Speaker 9: I, this is one of the things that frustrates me is a house that is, has been compliant for 70 years, gets put to a tighter standard than a house that has been Speaker 1: Noncompliant. Take it up, take it up with the legislature. I know, and it does seem, it does seem inequitable, but the facts are what they are. Speaker 9: Correct. And, and there's a, and I understand the, the difference between a variance, obviously it's been on the board of a decade now, I guess, and, but it's a, this is one of those times
where you just kind of want to get things going. Speaker 1: Well, I, I, this what I can say and you didn't necessarily ask for a response, but I'll give you one anyways. That's okay. You know, a as you know, as much as we might like the people who are presenting and like the project that's being presented and there is no opposition, you, you can't ignore completely the statutory requirements. Right. Well, that, that said, you know, I, we, we have, you know, sort of twisted ourselves in knots here to try
to find them and, and, and I'm of the mind that it's intellectually honest to do so whilst admitting it's as close as, as as I can recall, the board ever coming to, to meeting the requirements. That said you, I could, I I have a hook to hang my hat. Okay. Ari's not voting, but you can comment if you will, if Speaker 10: You wish. I just think that, you know, stop me if I'm sort of speaking
of that something that I shouldn't, but I, I know we've talked about variances before and the issue of safety and granting a variance on a front stoop with the door opening was one that came before the board once before. And, and the argument was that it was a matter of safety for the person who lived in the house to have a door that didn't open into somebody's face or a or that didn't push somebody off of a front stoop that was, you know, not wide enough to accomp, you know, ac kind support two people standing in front of the house, they could open the door. So I feel I could get there. Were I voting?
Because I feel as, like you said, being intellectually honest if we're saying it's a matter of safety and we don't wanna have people who want to be in Natick, who wanna stay in Natick for, you know, a number of years to come, but need this accommodation to ensure that they can actually do so for their safety. That's how I get my head around it. And that's how I say that this is the kind of thing that, you know, if we're gonna grant a variance for reasons like this, it feels like the right thing to do. Speaker 1: You Speaker 4: Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I guess I'd say the way Andy put it is the way I've been feeling about it.
It's just, I mean, one of the things that I always have to think about is how do we explain to the next people who come looking for a variance and it's not based on one of the clear hardships. Speaker 1: You may get your shot, take a look at the list. Speaker 4: Oh, I did look, I did. Speaker 1: Okay. That said again, you don't have tip your hand, but you're, you amongst the rest of the members of the board are, you know, gyrating back and forth. But here we go. Do you wanna say any more? Speaker 6: I, I just wanted to say that we feel
that we're in a little bit different predicament because we do have something that we can give up as far as that shed. We want to make that right. Yeah. And get that out of there, which was 128 square feet. Right. And we're asking the board for 102. Yeah. Speaker 2: And, and our Speaker 1: Watch shape is not a hot ship. I'm gonna be there, I'm gonna stop you there just because again, if we were talking about you running over the total amount of square footage you can have that argument is right on point. But it's not, it's not what you're looking for. It's, it's all about that line. I, I suppose another argument that could be made is, and
and again, I I struggle with this could, you could measure that could be measured. Yeah. You could measure from the shed, but, but we don't, we we don't get to do that. Correct. The commissioner does. So Speaker 9: We talked about Speaker 1: This in Yeah. Speaker 9: August, Speaker 1: The commissioner gets to do the measuring and he's done the measuring and he, he has made a ruling and we respect those rulings unless they're what we, I think the collective wisdom is, unless they're obviously incorrect. And, and I'm not gonna say that that is in this particular case. Here we go. Yes.
Speaker 2: Can I just, can I just bring up the lot shape one more time? Is that not part of a hardship that we have? That Speaker 1: That's the, that's the unique shape that's the's. The, the cause and then we need the effect, right? The cause is the Speaker 9: Ledge, the effect is the Speaker 1: Inability to build where Correct. The, the ledge is. So you, you, you've, you've done it. I I I think you've done as much as you, you can do. I think the rest is, what's Speaker 9: That? As much as anyone, Speaker 1: As much as anyone could do. Right? So you need four out of five
and the voting members are 1, 2, 3, 4, and five down the end there. I'll go first. I'm, oh no, we're not gonna go first. We're gonna have a motion. We're gonna have a motion. But now I'm not gonna make you do that. If Speaker 9: Interesting. Speaker 1: You, you can go ahead and, and, and, and say Speaker 8: I, I could do it with help to make a positive motion, but, Speaker 1: Okay, let's go. I'm Speaker 9: Not sure. Speaker 1: Well, if you don't wanna do it at all, you don't have to do it at all. Speaker 9: If somebody else wants to do, that'd be great. Speaker 1: Okay. Does anybody else want to do it? Here we go. Is anyone
Speaker 9: Done? I haven't done motion. Speaker 1: Well of course we've done what Speaker 9: Here go agree. These Speaker 1: Are gonna give you section 10 48 section. Speaker 9: Goodness gracious. I've done it a couple times. I'm not voting. I can't, I can't. Okay, so what am I doing here? Just so make a motion to approve, approve the project. The variance for the garage on the west side? No, with the board. Finding that, with the board, finding that due to circumstances relating to soil conditions and in this case shape and
or topography of such lot, such land and structures, stop there Speaker 1: And describe the in shape, Speaker 9: Specifically being the Sanford corner on the northeast side, forcing the pool to be pushed further to the west and the garage not being able to be built behind the house, the existing structure and such land. This does not generally affect the zoning district and which is located in the literal enforcement of the provisions. Excuse me. And of the ordinance and bylaw would involve substantial hardship.
That being, that being safety and unable to Speaker 1: Inability to construct a, a garage to, to accommodate a modern Speaker 9: Truck safely accommodate a modern truck and vehicle Speaker 1: Safely. Speaker 9: So that's the substantial hardship to the petitioner. And that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment. Right. And the public good Speaker 1: As far as that, the, the detriment to the public. Good. We have a series of letters here from Abutters all in support of the project.
And I'll just put on that. And it's, it cannot substantially derogate from the intent of the code. Right? Yep. So let's just go here Speaker 9: Without nullifying and substantially interrogated from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or bylaw. Speaker 1: Okay, hold on. The bylaw section 100 provides it is to preserve and to promote the life, health, safety, morals, convenience and welfare of the townspeople. And I think we all think it supports those goals. So certainly there's no judgment to,
it doesn't derogate from the, the intent of the code and Okay. And, and it's also the minimum Speaker 9: And it's the, Speaker 1: It's a minimal variances, Speaker 9: Only three feet, minimal variance. And they conditioned on removing the existing shed. Speaker 1: Correct. Okay. As, oh, and Speaker 4: Do you wanna include planting the, the vegetated screen? Sure. Greenscape? Speaker 1: Yep. Yep. That's, so that's gonna be along the west side? Yes. Minimum of, what did we say? Speaker 4: We're going, I think we're planting six feet trees that will grow to 10 feet. Okay, so where they arbor? Yes. Or,
Speaker 1: Okay, so go ahead A okay. Speaker 9: Oh, and adding the arbor es along the west side between the neighbors Speaker 1: Vegetative screens planted at six feet. Height is planted at six feet. Speaker 11: And how long was that for the jury? Speaker 1: The length? The length. Length of the garage. Speaker 7: Length of the garage and to the back, back fence. Through the back fence. Getting Speaker 1: Of the garage to the rear of the lock. Okay. Okay. The two of us, this motion. Thank you sir. Thank you. Second. Okay, Andy.
Okay, so now I think we may not have to be roll call, but Andy Speaker 7: We're voting. Yeah. Yeah. Four. Speaker 1: Four. You convinced me. Four. Four. Okay. You're all Speaker 7: Set. Thank you all. Good luck. Speaker 1: Okay, good Speaker 7: Luck. Thanks so much. Next matter. Alright, we won't be back. Thank you. Speaker 1: Take care. The next matter is seven upland terrace. It's Lilja Donna Jean and Roni Mendez.
A request for a section six finding for tanning. Standing. Standing tear Don on existing one. Family dwelling in addition to the construction of an addition requiring relief from the front yard setback on a preexisting non dwelling Speaker 7: Lot. Speaker 1: Hello there. Speaker 6: How you doing? Speaker 7: Okay, a minute. Speaker 1: Alright, so nothing, so nothing new has come in, is that right? Speaker 6: No, no, no. Nothing new. It's the same. Speaker 1: It's the same. So we raised certain concerns at the last hearing, correct? Speaker 6: Yeah. We just, the chart was now correct.
You know, the chart that you guys have. This, this chart. Speaker 7: The chart. So the chart was resubmitted looks like. Speaker 6: Yeah, resubmitted today. Speaker 1: Oh, today? Yeah, today. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. Let's see. Speaker 7: 4:31 PM chair, chair doesn't have it. Speaker 1: I I do, do not, let's see. There's one in here that doesn't, that Speaker 11: You do not have the new one because it came in at four and you Speaker 7: Have the deadline for Speaker 1: All. Let, let's take a look at it. So this is, this is my marked up from last time. This, there was not, essentially nothing was correct. Right, right. So now do you have that one? They have now
Speaker 7: Said, was that the four? Yeah, Speaker 6: I have one in here if you, Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah. Wonderful. Yeah, thank you. Alright, Speaker 1: Let me see if this agrees with what I Speaker 7: Did. Yeah, this is the one that, the, the line between the zone right next. Okay. That's right. So almost all of the addition has to fall under. Speaker 1: So yeah, we're gonna have to check these numbers 'cause they, they don't agree with the numbers that I had last time and we look, so, okay, so here we go.
This is, so no new, no new plan has been submitted, correct? No, not new Speaker 6: Plan. We're staying with the same one. Alright, Speaker 1: So very quickly here. 14, 8, 10. Yes. Front is 1 58 12. That's not gonna change death. 1 21, that's one 20.49. One 20.49. It's front setback existing. Speaker 12: The only thing they,
this they messed up is on the front setback. Yeah. It Speaker 1: Should be 20.68 30, Speaker 12: But it's actually 20.7. Speaker 1: 20.68. Yep, I got it. They put 47 proposed is of course not 47. Right. Proposed is 20.68. Yep. Okay. The setback to the west is, so that's north. That's, that is the west, the front's the west object. Oh that must be preloaded. Yeah. The setback to the north, it says 71 2.
That that's not correct. Oh, maybe it's Speaker 6: The 70 ones. Yeah, that's the west according to the chart. Speaker 1: Yeah. No, but you put them, you put the numbers in the chart. That's what I'm checking. According. It's really the north, it's the north and the side set back. Yes. The south it's, it's, it's more than 50. Right. And we know that 50 plus. Yeah. Speaker 6: Yeah. That's the commercial. Speaker 1: And the pros is 50.2. Okay. The east existing is south. I don't know. It looks like 14 5 7. Yeah.
Yep. And then you're going 17.9, but that's gonna be the same. It's 14.6. So that doesn't change. The rear existing is, well it's you say 59. Yeah. 59. Four seven. So 59 5. And the re and it's x it's, it's, it's well in excess of that 50, 59 0.5 plus. Yep. The building coverage is not, what do we have a 30?
Is it, what is it? 10 10%? Yes. Six 12. Oh that's a variance. That's a variance. There's a problem here. And the height is not measured. Building Speaker 6: Height. I think we have the plans of Speaker 1: The height. The other time it said it said 34 or something. Yeah, 34. But now it's, now it doesn't say anything. 38 10 per architecture. Speaker 6: 34 10. Huh? The total height is Speaker 1: 34 10 34 10.
Yes. Is there a calculation? Speaker 6: Well yes, I think on the, on the police. The guy who, who went there, I think, I think he was the guy and the architect Speaker 1: Gentlemen. Speaker 6: Yeah, that is, Speaker 1: You were here in January, this stuff was not correct. We said go and fix it. We, Speaker 6: We have, we have, yeah. 2, 3, 3 months, Speaker 1: Two months. Two months. And you come back and, and really it's, it's in as it's in the same incomplete and inaccurate condition as it was back then.
Speaker 6: Okay. Yeah. We are gonna, I think we're gonna hire a new, new architect. I might Speaker 1: Be a good idea. It's no, no, no offense. I tell you what, why don't we allow you to continue it? 'cause the board will not be able to make a determination here. I think you listen, listen to very closely to what I'm saying. 'cause this does not appear to be borne out in any of the materials so far. If you are going, oh wait a minute, is this a split zone? It Speaker 6: Is a split zone. Yeah. Right. It's a commercial and a residential zone. That's the other, the other. So Speaker 7: If I could interject David, so looking at
what you have right in front of you, the certified plot plans, where is the break between the Speaker 6: Two zones? Speaker 1: It's the dotted line that runs Speaker 6: Right down line. Top of C two. Bottom it of inside that sheet C two. Oh you got a different one foot or two. This one shows the lock. The Speaker 1: No, it must be commercial two on the, on the Yes. North and, and RSC Speaker 6: Size plans that they submitted. Speaker 7: Right. Lemme, lemme Speaker 6: Get there. Speaker 1: Okay. What's the date? Thank you. I'm looking at the one dated 20 12, 23. Didn't even, so what's his, Speaker 6: I say the C two, I think that's what the lab does. Plan.
Speaker 13: This is not ready. We received the documentation at four o'clock. Staff has not even reviewed it. That means the building commissioner hasn't reviewed it, nor has this senior building. We've had two months. So an email went out, they said that they were gonna get new information. So this Speaker 6: Updated. I Speaker 1: Hate to do it to you guys, but I think you need to. This is Amanda. Go see Amanda. We're or Vinny. Or Vinny and, and, and, and try to figure out, I think we we're gonna need Dave just to weigh in on the split zone because,
because the way it's drawn right now. Oh, there we go. If you follow the 10% in the RSC, they're gonna need a variance. If you follow the commercial, they're not but I, I don't know. Okay, so we're gonna, we're gonna need you to sign something agreeing that we're continuing it. Both parties are continuing it. Okay. So when can they sign that Speaker 8: You decide tomorrow? Speaker 1: Can you go in and see them tomorrow? Yeah. Yeah we can come in. How fantastic. Okay, thanks for the cooperation. So we have a motion it, the next hearing is on
Speaker 13: Yeah. Speaker 8: April the 27th. Speaker 1: April 27th. April 27th. Seventh see on April 27th. Okay. Okay. Speaker 8: Move to continue to this hearing to the next meeting on April 27th. Speaker 1: Second. Second. Okay. Alright, all those in favor? Okay. We'll see you on April 27th but make sure you're going and see them. Yeah, I hate for you to have to come back and not have it complete. I get it. I get it. Okay. Take care. Okay guys. Alright, so now we're into this a new application. Oh yeah. From February but it got continued Speaker 13: And Mr.
Chair, just so you're aware, the next few applications, they were advertised for February. We did re advertise and resend out the abutter notifications just because it was canceled due to the snowstorm. Yeah. And tonight being the new day. Speaker 1: Great, thank you very much. So this is 21 Prescott Avenue. The applicant is re lodge le, sorry. Requests for a section six finding for the demolition of existing one family dwelling construction of a new one. Family dwelling on a preexisting non-conforming lot, which further requires dimensional variances for lot coverage and rear yard setback.
Speaker 8: Hello? Speaker 1: Hello. How you doing? How are you guys? Okay, so were you paying attention to the first hearing? Okay, let's see. Let, let's just see. Speaker 8: Alright, Speaker 1: So the lot area is too small. The frontage is too small, the depth is too small. Those are all 6, 6, 6. The front is existing non-conforming but will become conforming. So that's okay. The west side is conforming and will remain.
So the other side is nonconforming but will not change. So that's six rear is conforming and will remain. So Speaker 8: I thought the east side is, I'm Speaker 1: Just looking at the chart. Are you, are you Speaker 8: Upland terrace? No, I'm on Prescott. It opened up Prescott. That was Speaker 1: Weird. I'm on Prescott. Yep. Speaker 8: I mean it opened up upland when Speaker 1: I was on Prescott. Oh, 20. Yeah. 21 Prescott. Sorry about that. No worries. So then we coverage 25 14. Yeah that, that's the coverage right there. Yep. So that's the variance right there. Okay.
And then building height, 35, 25, 34 6 of that's conforming. And then we don't need to building area. Okay. And he says rear yard setback too. Speaker 14: It said that because it had a deck in there, but we're not gonna do the deck. Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. Okay. So rear yard setback, the way it's drawn today, there's 32.2. That's Speaker 8: What the commissioner wrote. Speaker 1: What did he write? Speaker 8: Building commissioner's letter denial letter states that relief must be granted in the form of a finding as well as relief must be granted
for dimensional variance for the maximum lot coverage and for the rear yard setback. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 14: But when I submitted it to him, I don't think I had mentioned taking the deck off yet. I see. Yeah. So that's probably why he mentioned that. 'cause I had noted it in the application for ZBA that we were gonna do away with the deck. Speaker 1: The December 3rd, 2025 plan though shows a rear yard setback of 14 feet. Speaker 3: The Speaker 1: Proposed, oh, that's the deck, right? Otherwise it's 20 feet, which is still five feet too big. Right. If you,
I I'm looking at your plan dated December 3rd, 2025 ZBA petition plan by corn. You see that one? Yep. So let's go. Oh, I'm sorry. Speaker 14: So if you look at where it says proposed deck, it says 12 foot deck and then 13 eight behind it. And then there's a line next Speaker 1: To it. Yeah. Speaker 14: 32 2. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Speaker 1: No deck. Sorry. Speaker 14: Yeah. We'll do a patio instead of a deck or, yeah. Okay. So Speaker 1: 32 2 32 2 Speaker 8: Is existing. Speaker 1: Yeah, but they're taking the deck, Speaker 8: Right? The proposed is the proposed house, the Speaker 14: Darker outline? No, this thing Speaker 8: Is, so that's the 25 8. Speaker 14: Oh you're right. Yeah. Speaker 1: So it's still both.
Speaker 8: This is the Speaker 14: Yep. Speaker 3: But that's still okay. 25 8 is okay then, right? Speaker 1: Sure. Yeah. Oh right, right. 25 8. Oh yeah, because that's, Speaker 14: Because that's the, it goes beyond to the existing. I see that now Speaker 1: 25. So let me just change that. Okay. It's, it's 25 8. So the rear setbacks 25 8, the minimum requirement is 25. So that's okay. Right. Alright, so now let's see about a, you, you're essentially going 3.5% above the building coverage on a
perfectly square rectangular lot. Speaker 14: Very small lot. Speaker 1: Yeah. That, that, that's not shaped. That's Speaker 14: In a, in a neighborhood full of very large houses. So press to maintain character and be comparable to our comps, Speaker 1: That's not gonna do it. That again, you saw this drawing back here. Speaker 14: Yeah, yeah. No, i, i, Speaker 1: I just, you know, using that as an example, how do you get there? I, I hear what you're saying. Those are marketing. Yours is the viability of the project as a whole. Can we sell it? Will someone buy it? Speaker 14: Yeah. And can a family of three
or four kids live there comfortably? You Speaker 1: Gotta start with something akin to the ledge, right? The other one, it was the shape that they had a, there was a chamford, there was a chamford line in the back, right? Like this. So that is a funny shape, right? That we're going, yours is square. We're starting out like this. What do you, you gotta point to something that creates the hardship. Speaker 14: Yeah, I thought, I thought the hardship was the lot size.
Speaker 1: No, the case law is very clear that size is not shape. 'cause otherwise everyone would come in here and buy little lots and just blow 'em out with variances. But you can't do that. So this, this comes as a surprise to most people because they say, oh yeah, we're trying to be reasonable. Use it a lot. Right? Nobody cares, nobody's against it. Just give us what we want. But we do have to follow the dictates. We're not really, we, we're not, we're not looking for ways to hurt the project, but we have to consider the elements of the area.
Speaker 14: Understood. Speaker 1: But given that this is, this is like normally what I would say to applicants is go and put together the best arguments you can now understanding what the elements of a variance are. Right? That is not gonna help you in this case. Speaker 14: Okay. Speaker 1: It's not what's gonna help you in this case is shrinking the total footprint to 25 Speaker 14: By 3%. Okay? Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 1: Three and a half percent. Three and a half percent and then three Speaker 14: Of the, of the footprint of the house. Speaker 1: The total footprint. Yeah. Okay.
And then, then you, then you're coming back here and you're only gonna need a section six finding. Now I'm gonna give you a head start because let's find out who here behind you, your neighbors, the butters, et cetera, what they think about this. And if there's issues then you can address them. Okay. Okay. So does anybody here wish to be heard on 21 Prescott Avenue? Okay. Oh yes, we have one. If we can just either come up to the, the Deus here or the roster or whatever they call that these days. The podium. What is the podium? The podium.
If we can just keep, what is it? Can we get your name and your address? Speaker 15: Yeah. Amy Keenan. 25 Prescott Ave. Speaker 1: Hi. What can you tell? What would you like to tell them? Speaker 15: I'm really excited about you guys changing up the house. Oh, thank you. My, my biggest concern is actually the construction. Okay. When they down Prescott and turn onto Kylie when they were blasting to try to open up somebody's backyard four or five years ago. Now my husband who works at home, hi. His office was shaking in the basement
and that was a hundred, 200 feet away. This will be 30 feet away. Yeah. So I'm very concerned because it just by, are you guys gonna be on a slab or are you doing a basement? Speaker 14: We are gonna do a Speaker 15: Basement. Okay. So then we're pretty, you're pretty much blasting 'cause we're right on top of bedrock. And then honestly the other two things that I was the layout of the house I loved, I actually, I was a little concerned with the, the third story, but it's a bathroom that would be looking into my bedroom.
So I can manage that one. I think it only Speaker 14: Has front and backward facing Speaker 15: Doors. There's one side window from the bathroom window, but it's a bathroom. That's fine. You have that massive tree that's between our two properties. And then we have a lot of low hanging electrical wires. So I'm just a little nervous about the construction piece of it and I was wondering if the tree was gonna come down. Speaker 14: We don't have plans to take down the tree, but it's not like non-negotiable or anything. Speaker 15: Okay. I was excited to see the plans.
I think it would be a really cute place for the neighborhood. Yeah, I know that there's kind of monster houses on one side of the neighborhood and the cuter sides on the other. But I think it's a nice medium. I'm just, I'm very concerned for the blasting. For the blasting. Speaker 14: Yeah. Yep. I think I can understand that. We would certainly do everything we can to accommodate. Yeah. And we know construction's not always convenient for, Speaker 15: It's never convenient. All parties. Speaker 14: Yeah. Yeah. But we will do our best. Yeah. Speaker 15: Okay. Speaker 1: So when you come back, we're gonna need a calculation of the heights. Is it a flat lot?
Speaker 15: The lot? Speaker 14: It's pretty flat. Speaker 1: Pretty flat. So just have your engineer follow the calculation that's in the zoning code, which requires you to do spot grades around the property. In this case we do spot grades around, around the outside and then average them. That gives you an average grade plane and then you measure from the grade plane. Average grade plane is the highest point on the, I think what kind of roof is it? It says it's a gable. Yeah. Yeah. So it says it's gonna be the highest point on the roof.
So that's gonna give you, this is average in plate that's top of your roof and that's your height. But we need a calculation to be Speaker 14: Okay. You want that from the, from the surveyor, correct? Speaker 1: Yep. Yep. And that way we know to trust this 34.6 which is just six inches short of 35, which is the max. Right. Okay. So why don't we have a motion to continue to April 27th Speaker 8: Motion to do this hearing on 21 Prescott two 27th. 27th. Or Speaker 4: Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Speaker 8: 27th where? Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Are you making a motion Speaker 1: To continue that? We Speaker 8: Continue. Oh, oh, Speaker 4: To continue. Okay. Oh can I, but can I make a comment first? Yeah, because go ahead. Oh yeah. So sorry to interrupt, but I already had some questions about this project because when I was looking at today, I was under the impression it was a slab on grade foundation. There was a notation from the, I think it may have been the town engineer who said there needs to be two feet of separation just from a slab.
Before you hit the water, did you do the estimated seasonal high groundwater tests? Speaker 14: Our surveyor did a bunch of tests and that was probably one of them. 'cause I know that we're gonna need, but Speaker 4: Yeah, we're supposed to have a record of what it came out to be. Okay. And I didn't see that. Alright. Speaker 14: So that's something else I can ask for from them as well. Speaker 4: Yeah. And 'cause Neil's to say there's a big difference between a slab and a basement and the water is a very big issue. Okay. So I mean we need to be reassured that that's,
or I need to be reassured that that's not gonna be a conflict there. So you don't know if the department of the public health witnessed test, Speaker 14: They sent somebody from the test from the town, didn't they test? Yeah, they did. I don't have the record though, but Speaker 4: I It's not in the file. Speaker 14: It's not in there. No. If I have it or if, yeah, the town would be, it was, it would, it's the town that would do this test right. Together with the survey. Speaker 4: Yes. It's like they observe it being done. So Speaker 14: They did, they did. I'll have to call and find out and see why it wasn't submitted. Speaker 4: Okay. 'cause yeah, there needs to be a substantial,
I think it's four feet between the bottom of the basement and the Speaker 14: Water. Yeah. But they did go there, so I'll have to track that down. Speaker 4: And the other thing is I didn't see any indication of grade and elevation changes for the lot since you're doing a big excavation and a big house. And that needs to be in the, in the plot plans and, okay. Speaker 1: Yeah, so the topographic and a grading plan, Speaker 14: I'm just taking some notes. Speaker 4: There's also, some of the elevations just don't have dimensions for the, Speaker 14: The, okay. So I think the only dimensions that you get
with this plan are from the top view. So you, I had to calculate, actually you're right, they don't have measurements for each elevation individually. So I ended up having to calculate it with the measurements from inside the rooms. Does that make sense? Speaker 4: No, they, they need to supply those numbers. It's required that. Speaker 14: Yeah, absolutely. Speaker 1: Okay, let's go Jason. Speaker 3: Yeah, I'll Speaker 8: Move that. We continue this hearing on 21 Prescott to our April 27 Speaker 1: Second. Second is Andy and all those in favor. We'll see you on April 27th. Okay, you got it. Thank you.
The next matter up is zero preble Street N. The applicant is one Preble, SRED. It says LLC Jeremy Valletta. The application is request for a section six finding for the demolition of the existing one, family dwelling and construction of a new one. Family dwelling on a previously nonconforming lot. Good evening. Hello, how you doing? I'm good. How you doing? Good. Oh right, right, right. So, okay Ari you're on this one. Okay. And let me just take a look Speaker 16: Like to start by saying, Ari is my
son's name by the way. Oh, Speaker 1: Okay. Sweet. And you are, don't you recuse me that don't Speaker 3: Recuse myself Speaker 1: And get a lot of Ari's are. Yeah. Are you Jeremy? I am, yeah. Okay. Alright, Speaker 3: So there's Joseph Speaker 13: And Mr. Chair. This is the one with the 18 feet of frontage, which is the reason why they're here in front of Speaker 1: You. Okay, good enough. Let's see here. Alright, 18 linear feet pri Speaker 3: The zoning chart, you know it's got the table but that's not the zoning chart. No. Yeah, we don't Speaker 1: Have the zoning chart. Do do you recall submitting a
a, a zoning chart that one would've been going over? It looked like Speaker 16: On the survey, there's two things. I think on the survey there was one in a top left area location. Speaker 1: I can't tell if that's the code or if that's got the information for this project. That's only what's required. It doesn't have, yeah, that's a copy of what's in the bylaws. Speaker 13: Yep. If you go to the second page, that's where it's provided, Speaker 1: You'll see on Speaker 13: The proposed property information. Oh, I see. But on this one, the one thing to note is that it says lot frontage minimum, it says 150.8.
There's only 18 feet of frontage, which is why they're in front of you. Speaker 1: Okay. So where, Speaker 16: And I think the survey from Framingham survey. Yeah, I think notes I the 18 feet lot frontage. Speaker 1: Where do you see the other dimensional? Speaker 9: It's on page two, Mr. Chair. It looks like there's property information. Speaker 1: Oh, right there. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 16: Below the, below the zoning bylaw chart. Speaker 1: Okay. 180. 180 1. Let's see. So 15 32, 1 10. So it says one 50.8, but it's 18, right?
Speaker 16: Correct. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. And then proposed is obviously 18, Speaker 16: Correct. Speaker 1: And that does not, okay, 35. So is there a height calculation on here? I don't think so. Speaker 16: There's not, okay. So on there I could give a breakdown of it. I know it's not on there, but Speaker 1: Yeah, we need, we would need that. But we we're gonna, we're gonna jump ahead here. I'm just gonna clean up. Okay. Stories setback. Setback. Yeah. The setbacks are all good. Okay.
Let's assume the ca the height calculation works. Your existing, your existing frontage is 18. And is there a house there now? Speaker 16: There is. Speaker 1: There's a house there now, yeah. Okay. And amazing. Speaker 16: Yeah, it's a pre-existing, not the, the property itself, a little bit of history on it actually used to be, I think used as a cattle run. And so Preble Street, there was the, was the cattle run that they used to use. So for some reason that became like the frontage, I don't know the antics of it, but, so yeah, they got 18 feet of frontage.
I assume the house that was built in front of it, at some point the property in its history must have extended all the way to South Main Street and at some point in time they must've allowed them to subdivide it off. Speaker 1: Wild. Okay. So, I mean, thank god it's an existing condition otherwise, you know, Speaker 16: Well, Speaker 1: I don't know. It'd be a tough sled, but tough sled. Speaker 16: I don't know if I'd be as smiley sitting here if there was not house there. Alright, Speaker 1: Well let, let's find out if anyone's here to talk about this project. Is anyone here on, it says one Preble on this topographic plan, but it's, it's, it's, it's really zero Preble, right?
Speaker 16: It's a blend. It's zero one, it's, yeah, it's a zero dash one. It's 1 59 South Main. It's kind of a mix. This Speaker 1: Project. Anyone here on this project? Speaker 16: Good summary. Speaker 1: Anyone? No one's here on this project. Okay. Okay. Does it, does anyone on the board have questions here? I mean, it's a strange one. I'll give you that, but it, it, it, you know, when you look at it, it doesn't, it's, you know, it's, it's, it's fairly routine from my perspective despite that very, very strange condition which is existing. So there we go.
Our, our only, our only determination is whether what's being constructed there is substantially more detrimental than what's there today. And I, I can't imagine. Look, look, it's so far off the street, it's well behind these other houses. No one's here to say anything. So anybody here have comments, questions, thoughts? Speaker 16: And to add, we did supply a few letters of support from the neighbors too. Speaker 4: Yeah, I I I'm disappointed that there's so much information missing that we just sort of take for granted so that we can evaluate these easily beforehand or relatively easily
before I, I mean when I saw this this afternoon and it's like, well this, it makes it difficult for one thing we're supposed to be, we are, we are tasked with comparing with the existing property because that's an important element in deciding what's gonna be detrimental to a neighborhood potentially because it's in comparison with the existing house. And I don't have the information or at least I couldn't find it, you know, since I didn't have the chart information on the existing house.
Do, is there a plot plan on here for the basement and what is the total square footage Speaker 16: Of the proposed basement? Yeah, the total square footage of the proposed basement's about 1497. It's under the property information site information chart. Let's basement level 1497. Speaker 4: Okay. Has the soil test been done yet? And what did that turn out to be estimated? Speaker 16: We haven't done a formal soil test yet, but from what we can see there, there is ledge on the front of the lot. So, and from what we can see in
the current basement of the house, Speaker 4: Oh well this has to do with water, you know, there no high groundwater. Speaker 16: Oh, to my understanding there is no high groundwater, but we haven't had an actual formal test with health department on site to review. Speaker 3: Okay. Mr. Chair Joe. Speaker 1: Not by us, by the board of health, right? Yeah. I mean normally people come here and they understand what the, where the water is so that they can design around it. Speaker 16: We did dig briefly Speaker 1: On it before, before, before you said it may be the case where someone would come before this board and ask for approval of a project
that then they go out there and realize that they can't build and then they have to come back. So, you know, there's some risk there if you will. But, but, but the ultimately whether you can or can't build what you want in terms of the basement that you're showing us as far as the water is concerned is the board of health jurisdiction. Okay. Any, anything else Gail? Speaker 3: No, that's basically Speaker 1: It. I, so this topographic plan, just so I'm looking at here, is this the existing condition right now? Speaker 3: Yeah, that is, Speaker 1: That's the existing condition? Yeah.
Okay. Speaker 7: I'm looking in the files for the abutters letters of support. Are they Speaker 3: In there? Speaker 16: I don't know if they're uploaded. I believe Amanda, did I email them to you? I think Speaker 13: I, I don't remember seeing them, but Speaker 3: I can Speaker 13: Stop sharing. See, Speaker 16: Yeah, I also, I have 'em on my computer and if I, if you want, I can forward it. Speaker 1: So here's what I'm inclined to do here. This is me speaking. There's five, there's four other voting members on this project. We need the height, we need, I wanna see the chart. You're gonna fill in the chart. Take this information that's been provided in this chart
and fill it out and put it in the, the chart that's provided by the town. Give us the height calculation. I think by then, by the time you come back, you'll, you'll probably have the, the basement figured out the water and whatnot. I'm not saying that's gonna be a requirement. It probably is to get Gail's vote. Yeah, it wouldn't be okay. Typically it wouldn't be typical for the board for the reasons of the jurisdiction. But she has particular concerns when it comes to basements. So Speaker 16: Yeah, I can, I can speak to the digging we did do when we were there, Speaker 1: But you don't have to speak to it today 'cause it, it's all about numbers, right?
It's all about numbers and, and, Speaker 16: Yep, absolutely. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Anything else anybody wants to say before we, we, we, we let 'em go. We continue it. Speaker 7: I'm making sure that the letters are on record. Speaker 13: I do actually have 'em, I found 'em, they were caught between an email, so I just uploaded Speaker 4: 'em for you. Speaker 1: Cool. Supply chart. Okay, so we have the, we have the support supply chart. Speaker 16: So between, if I understand correctly, between digging and the height calculation, are those the two seemingly outstanding items? Speaker 1: So need, I I, my notes here need height calculation
by engineer, right? This is that, I don't know how much, it's difficult to see that. Speaker 16: 'cause we have a full top topographic map. Very Speaker 1: Hard to see. It's very hard to read. Just 'cause it's, it's, it's, there's so many lines and it's so small, but maybe get a full size plan. Is there a grading plan Speaker 16: On that? There's no grading changes plan, no grading changes properties? No. Speaker 1: So, but I, I can't, I can't tell here what the, you have to put the, I think you should put the new ha Oh, there it is. No's Speaker 16: Existing. Yeah. 'cause on the plan we do have the height elevations of the home.
So with the current existing, with the proposed location of the house, with the existing height of the property Speaker 1: Has in. But is there a, is there, did someone figure out what the height is using the average grade plan. Speaker 16: They haven't done that calculation. Speaker 1: Yeah. That, that's the calculation we need. Speaker 16: Okay. Speaker 1: That, that's the calculation we need. So I'm ready. Need high calculation by engineer supply zoning chart filled out. Gail says, established Speaker 17: Groundwater Speaker 1: Elevation, establish Speaker 4: Seasonal high groundwater Speaker 1: Elevation for basement. Okay. Okay. Good. You got those?
Speaker 16: Yeah. So would that move us basically to another month for the next meeting, Speaker 1: April 27th. Speaker 16: Okay. I mean, are these all items that we could reasonably deduce by sitting here though? Because Speaker 1: I'll tell you, I'll tell you Speaker 16: After missing last meetings month 'cause of a snowstorm, the Speaker 1: Hardship of delay, it's a fair point by you that said, the, the height calculation we, we need, we need someone to certify the height of the building. Right now it just says, Speaker 16: Won't the building department have to make sure? And, and if when I go to do it and I apply for my permit showing a plan exceeding the height,
won't they have to then basically deny me because of, of seeking a variance at that point, Speaker 4: EV, am I correct in, in saying that all of the plots and elevations, they need to have the stamp of the architect and or engineer engineer, everyone has to have that official stamp by a professional who's standing behind those calculations. Speaker 16: Correct. Which I think the building department would reveal that. Speaker 1: No, it's up to you. So they, the engineer's gonna have to pick those spot grades around the outside, calculate average grade claim this line here,
and then that's all engineering. And then your architect's gonna tell us the well could be I guess the architect highest point on the roof. Yeah. Average which grade point gives you a height and it's gotta be 35 or low, correct. Or less. Right? Yep. So you bring, you put a plan before us and we say, this house that you're showing us on these plans is what we're approving. And then you go to the building department and they do their thing. If you bring in a house that's 37 feet, it's gonna be denied. Correct. But if Speaker 16: In this house currently sits at 31 31
Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 16: The current top line elevation's 31. And then if you see the back of the lot where it then slopes down. Speaker 1: So, but I, but I, you are telling me this right? Right Speaker 16: On the stand plan, it says that though. Speaker 1: Where, where does it say, where does it say correct Speaker 16: On the architectures? It's Speaker 13: On the last sheet of the document that you're looking at. And I also have it up on the screen. Speaker 1: Okay. Hold on a minute. Speaker 16: Yeah, it's drawing number a dash 200. Alright, Speaker 1: Hold on. A dash 200 Speaker 16: Proposed elevations. Speaker 9: But that's from Speaker 16: Which, that also does have the calculation based off average grade. It does, Speaker 9: Does that's from average. It looks like It's hard to say average
Speaker 1: Grade though. Yeah. See the red, yep. See the right here look, come on here. Speaker 9: Oh, okay. I got announcement. Speaker 16: Yeah. Yeah. And they're noting it as 30 Speaker 1: Yeah. Average grade. Yeah. 34 6 is what I'm saying. Yeah, Speaker 9: From average grade. Yeah. Speaker 1: That's not 31. Speaker 9: It's 31 from the front, but 34 6 Speaker 16: To the front, correct. From average Speaker 1: Grade. Yeah. Yeah. So 34 6. Okay. So that, okay, so that is, that's what, that's a stamp plan. So that's cross off the height calculation. And, and I, the, the zoning chart, the numbers here are so lopsided, I think I can get over that.
And the groundwater elevation, it's important to Gail and I don't know what's gonna happen here with, with Gail's. I can't say it's, it's not important to me because again, you can't build a basement problem in the water. Of course. That's what the Board of Health is for. So in terms of, I think I'm satisfied that the numbers are all here. I think the lesson for anybody watching here is don't make us pick this stuff out. Give it to us in a, you know, a cognizable form and you're in and outta here pretty quickly. I
Speaker 16: Think my apologies on that. No, no, Speaker 1: It's okay. Speaker 16: And Gale, to speak to it, when we did dig on the property, one of the days when we were there, just to identify the ledge location on it, we did dig down behind a little bit just to test to see how the soil was and where the water was. I do have some pictures I'd be happy to show you. Although I will go through the Board of Health, the proper channels for it. But no water was found. We dug down about six feet. Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean, again, it's just, we just need professionals attest testing. Speaker 16: Yeah. Actual soil evaluator Speaker 4: Due diligence. Correct. Speaker 16: Correct. Just letting you know. Speaker 1: Okay. So I've seen enough. I think we have enough here.
Again, we're, I think we're on the line in terms of what's required in terms of, you know, sort of checking all the boxes. But, but, but I'm, I'm okay. This is not the propriety of the project. Andy, do you have enough? You're not on this one. I'm not on it. Yep. Gail, do you have enough here to vote whether it's yes or no? Speaker 3: When I saw there was no zoning chart, I figured we weren't voting. Speaker 1: Yeah, I, I I think in, in, in, I mean in certain ca in many cases that that would be the case, but where the numbers are
so lopsided, right? I mean, we could look at a plan and easily deduce that these setbacks are massive and they're not, they're not, they're not running into any zoning issues with the numbers that we don't have. They're well in excess of what's required. So I think we, we don't need to slavishly sort of adhere to that requirement except where it's necessary. I mean, look, in a perfect world, these things would be filled out in every project and we wouldn't be doing this. But we are where we are. So the only, I,
you don't have to answer the question. I'm saying I've answered the question. I've seen enough to vote it. Whether you say yes or no, I, I Speaker 3: Haven't seen enough to vote. Speaker 1: Fair enough, Ari? I've Speaker 8: Seen enough to vote. Speaker 1: I've seen enough to vote. I've seen enough Jason. Yeah. Okay, so if you would, Speaker 8: I did have one question about the height. Did we establish what the proposed building height is? Speaker 1: 34.6. Okay. Speaker 8: From average, Speaker 1: Correct? Speaker 8: Correct. Yeah, I was just looking at the architect's rendering shows roof level 31, but it was not measured from the average. It was made from the
Speaker 1: Existing, I'm gonna show it to you out here. So you Speaker 3: See, you can see it. Speaker 8: Average grade. Okay. There it's three, four. Yeah, I was over here. Speaker 1: Yep. Yep. The higher one is 3, 4 6. Okay, do it. Speaker 8: In that case, I would move that we approved the project based on a finding that the proposed structure and project is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the previously non performing uses structure provided its filled and substantial conformance to the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments who submitted letters to the board, Speaker 1: Second Speaker 8: The second, Speaker 1: Jeff, all, I guess we don't need to do all those in favor. Yes.
Speaker 8: So Speaker 1: 1, 2, 3, 4. All those opposed four, one. You're all set. Thank you so much. Alright, good luck. Have a great evening. Thank you. Two. Now take care. Next project nine, Lotus half applicant. Jennifer and Ryan FLA bar. I hope. Thank you. Season Speaker 8: S Speaker 3: Flash. Speaker 1: Flash bar. Flash bar. This is in that request for a section six finding for the construction of three additions on the pre-existing non-conforming lot, which further requires dimensional variances of the side yard setback west and rear yard setback. Okay, let's take a look here. And you are Ryan. I'm Ryan.
Speaker 12: I Ryan, how you doing? Okay. Speaker 1: All right. So area is short. The frontage is okay. The depth is short. The front is non-conforming and will become more non-conforming. That's section six. The west side setback is non-conforming and will remain non-conforming. The east setback, ex existing is conforming and will remain conforming. The rear is conforming and will not be.
So this is 0.7. It we're talking about inches here. You, you say 25 is the rear set. According to the chart, 25 feet is the requirement. And you're gonna build a 24 7. Speaker 12: Yeah, Speaker 1: That's, you can't make that 25. Yeah, Speaker 12: I think we probably can make that 25. Speaker 1: Okay. So let's, let's just leave that open for now. Yeah, Speaker 7: I think in, in your site plan, it looks like you're, you're not into it anyways. You're, you're back from it. Speaker 12: Yeah, I think it, it was designed, it's designed to be within the setback in the back. So I'm not sure why it says 24 7 Speaker 1: That you're, that's a big deal.
That's a big deal. He Speaker 12: Knocked you Well no, I know, I understand. Speaker 1: He gave you, that's a variance according to the chart right now. But the coverage is 25. So you have nine, nine, you're going to 20.1. So that's okay. The height is okay. 35. 2325. That's okay. So he says, he says side west and rear, so side west. So it's not, I'm only looking at the charts. Speaker 7: Yeah, it's not really rear it's side west, Speaker 1: But okay. What, so he's got here in the chart side, west twelves,
the requirement 6.9, existing 6.9 proposed. You see that? Yeah. I'm not, is that true or not true? Speaker 7: So this is the existing house right here. Yeah. So they're he's, they they're into it. They're beyond it already, you know, by a fair amount. Speaker 1: Hold on. I I Is the commissioner? Is the commissioner correct though? Is that Speaker 9: So, so the, but it appears to me that the house on the west side is not violating the setback. Speaker 1: Okay. Let's see. To the west. So, Speaker 9: But, and the proposal, I mean the proposal,
Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. This is not correct. Does Yeah, this is, yeah, this is not accurate. So the, the real measurement is to the, to the existing dwelling. It's not given, but it's, let's call it 20 conforming, it's 25 plus to the west. Right? So this is it to 12, I'm sorry, 12 plus and it's going down to 6.9. So there's your other variance, right? So variance, Speaker 7: So it's this side right here, right. Speaker 1: So that's the west.
Yeah, west step back and the rear, because Speaker 7: They have Speaker 1: The rear. It's not, it's not, it's not in there. Speaker 7: If they can make that right. Speaker 1: Oh, existing dwelling 22, rear 25, 40 0.3. Oh no, I'm sorry, I'm going the wrong way. Speaker 7: Yeah, that's where the variance Speaker 1: 24 7. Well, whatever you, you'll make that 25. Yeah. To the rear. Okay, so this 25, Speaker 7: This one. Speaker 1: So rear the Speaker 7: Variance here, so this
Speaker 1: Isn't rear will be 25 Speaker 7: Feet. Speaker 1: So no Speaker 7: Really Speaker 1: Mess. So Speaker 7: If construction, if they were just going for the east, in the south, it'd be a fine. Speaker 12: So it says proposed porch. There already is a porch there, Speaker 7: Right? It's Speaker 1: Nonconforming. There is, Speaker 12: Yeah. There's already an existing deck there. Hold on. We want it to Speaker 1: Exactly on that footprint. Speaker 12: Yeah. The, the exact foot of the deck that's there. Currently we want to turn into a, a three season room. So I think that's why the six,
six nines there originally. Hold Speaker 7: On, Speaker 1: Let me just see. Yeah, you measure, you measure, you measure from that Speaker 7: Porch. You, you, you count that proposed porch. Speaker 1: Yeah. So six nine. Six nine. Speaker 7: Is that a variance? It's a structure. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a structure. I'm not sure. So that, so that, okay, so wait a minute. I see. Is there an existing, okay, this is there proposed porch? You're not, you're not showing Speaker 7: The existing. Yeah, maybe on the architecture. Let's Speaker 12: See, they might have the original, the plans, Speaker 7: Architectural plans. Speaker 12: I think the first, yeah, the first one shows existing
one page six, I think Speaker 7: Page. Are you looking at the architectural plans? Speaker 12: Yeah, Speaker 7: Well I, page sheet four is the new, Speaker 12: Sorry, I have it on my phone. I can show it to you. Eight Speaker 7: One oh one's existing. It shows the deck. Yeah. Yeah. But doesn't show with the I hear you. But it doesn't show with the setbacks, but Speaker 12: Oh, Speaker 7: You know what I mean, it's not even labeled. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Well, Speaker 9: A a 1.11 has the setbacks in red dashed Andy.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I see it. I mean I, you can kind of tell it's the same footprint as the existing deck from the existing plans. Just Speaker 1: 1.102 Speaker 7: Ounce is 12.2 12 two. Again, we're sort of hunting and packing here. Speaker 1: Oh yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 9: So, yes. And, and this is proposed Andy's, right? You don't know that, that patio. Right? Right, right. You Well, you don't know that it's not, you just can't tell. Speaker 7: You just can't tell, right? I can't tell. But I mean you can sort of, when you look at the interior dimensions, they give it right? They say, you know, they give a height and that they give a width and depth to each room.
So you can sort infer that it's, it's the same. Let's, well, here's a note here. Screen deck to remain in same footprint as existing deck. And is that on a stamped drawing? It's on a stamped drawing. Oh, okay. Is that on? That's on, that's on a 1.11. Alright, Speaker 1: So it's there. But but now how does Dave come up with the variance? Speaker 7: Variance Speaker 1: To the, Speaker 7: To the west? I was thinking maybe he's looking just at the site plan and it's the three inches on the rear. Speaker 1: No, because he says in both places. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 7: On the west then, Speaker 9: I don't know. He probably saw proposed port. He probably did what? Yeah. He saw proposed porch, Speaker 7: Thought it was new Speaker 9: And on the site plan.
Yeah. And assumed that was Speaker 7: New. Yeah. Speaker 9: Without looking at existing plans. Carefully. Yeah. Speaker 7: So you can tell how we're kind of hunting and pecking that we see what you're saying. But it's not, it's probably, Speaker 3: It could have been better. It's better labeled. Speaker 7: Well, it's, so we, Speaker 1: So I, I I think, you know, I don't want to ignore what Dave's done here, but it does appear that no variance will be required to the west. And he'd, he'd make the, the rear 25 feet here. Here's what I think you should do. Is there a height calculation on here? Speaker 4: Yes, Speaker 1: There is. Speaker 4: It's existing as 23 point 22 proposed is 25.6 on the chart.
Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 13: So based on that it is the variant or so specifically, I know Dave had mentioned that there are, so they would need section six finding for the construction of the three additions because it's a pre-existing non-conforming lot. Yep. Which then requires variances for the side yard setback on the west and the rear yard setback, which if he's gonna bring it to 25, then that eliminates that. So he does need the variance for the side yard setback on the west. Speaker 1: And then, so what we've been able to discern using
an architect over there is that the plans indicate that this proposed deck right here is existing and he's gonna redo it. Same footprint. On the same footprint, which means I get, Speaker 18: But Speaker 1: So this I crossed off 6.9. Yeah. And I wrote 'cause 'cause I measured to here, but then he says no that that's there. Oh. Not on the, so if that's, it doesn't, it doesn't show Speaker 18: That's Speaker 1: What it is and Speaker 18: 'cause it's even like the only place I was thinking the bottom of the basement. Yeah. I'm just trusting the church. That's not
Speaker 10: The deck. Is there, you can see a picture if Speaker 1: You'd like. No, because let, let, just let me just go here for a second. Speaker 18: There's the deck. Speaker 10: There's the deck. What Speaker 18: Is last specifically click Speaker 10: Verbatim and you, right? Speaker 1: Yeah, but I think, I think when we looked at it, we said this is a problem because there's no existing non-conformity here. That's why you need a variance. But what's not shown on this is that there's an existing dwelling underneath this gray par. So Speaker 10: It's already Speaker 1: So p So this is a fairly substantial change in your plans. I I I suspect that
Yeah, that 14 two Amanda to the front is already existing nonconforming in 22. Oh it is? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, you know, let, let's just, let's just talk about for a second. Let, let's say there was no, forget that you, you, you'd be making an ar you're prepared to make an argument to get a variance of that side setback, right Speaker 12: Where the porch is. Yeah. I didn't think that I needed one 'cause the porch Speaker 1: Is already there. Okay. But that's but, but the building commissioner thinks you do. And I think the reason is do you know what the reason is why he thinks you do?
Speaker 12: No, because I didn't think I needed, Speaker 1: Needed one. Yeah. The reason he think the, we think the reason he thinks you need a variance is because when you look at the, the, when you look at the ZBA petition plan Yeah. It's not clear that the, where it says proposed porch, that there's a porch there already. And so if there's a port, if there's a porch there already, you don't need a variance. So my recommendation to you is, is to, we would continue it anyways because we want to get clarification from, from the building commissioner. But, but here's what I think you, you should do. Yeah. It's confusing. Totally. You got a pen? Yep.
The, the first thing is, is, is rejigger the dimension on the one story edition to the rear Speaker 12: To 25 Speaker 1: To 25. Right? Then that wipes out one variance right off the top. Yeah. And then have your, your engineer show that there's an existing structure where you're proposing the west deck. Okay. And then make, okay, we have the height and is, is there substantial grading changes here? Speaker 12: No, not to the, the only we, we have
to move the septic tank. Okay. But that's it. Alright, Speaker 1: So let, let's find out if anybody's here and we can address. Is anyone here on nine lotus path? Okay. Nobody's here. So you don't have to be concerned about that for the time being. So anybody else want to give him some insight here? I mean, without the variances I think it's eminently doable. Yeah. With the variance. We're not even gonna visit it. 'cause I don't know if it's doable or not, but I'm not gonna jump through those hoops again. Well, Speaker 12: I'll still have the variance in the front though.
Speaker 1: No, that's, there's no variance in the front because you already, he says your house already, according to him, he says setback. Speaker 12: So Speaker 1: You're already nonconforming. He says requires dimensional. This is him. This is the commissioner. Yeah. Dimensional variance is from the side west and rear we took the rear out by extending it, reducing it to 25 feet. Yeah. And then we took out, I think the west is a mistake because when you look at this plan, you can't tell. Yeah, understood. You have an existing non-conformity. Speaker 12: Okay. Speaker 1: If, if that deck is there today, then you, you don't need a variance. Yep. You get the benefit of having a non-conformity structure.
Okay. Alright. So all that said, you know what you gotta do. Speaker 12: Yeah. Is there anything else related to, I don't Speaker 1: Have anything. The project. Anybody else have anything? No. Okay. Now address those and you should be good. Alright. Okay. So 27th Speaker 8: Move to continue this hearing on nine Lotus two. April 27th meeting Speaker 1: Second. This Jeff And all those in favor seat you the 27th. We thank you. Okay, thank you. Wes sets aside. Mr. Jeff, Speaker 8: Sit back. I'm not gonna be here on the 27th so we'll be not these ones discontinue. Speaker 1: Well you guys gonna be your on 27th. Oh, alright.
We'll be here. So you'll read the note. You're here. I'm here. You don't need to read the notes. Yeah. Okay. West's. But yeah. You want to leave? Speaker 8: No. Speaker 1: Okay. West side making a note. West side setback. There is a deck there today. So needed. Let's see. Bill, commissioner. Okay. Oh hi. Okay, here we go. The next matter is eight Vernon Road. Applicant.
MTMB properties. LLC by George Richards. Esquire. A request for a section six for the demolition. Resisting one. One. Family dwelling in construction, a new one. Family dwelling on a existing night formula. Hello. Speaker 19: Good evening. Speaker 1: A straight section six. You kidding me? Right. Speaker 19: Hopefully that's the case. Alright. I believe Speaker 1: So. Let's find out. Hold on one second. Speaker 3: And this is Ari, Speaker 1: No excuse husband. Yeah. Oh Speaker 3: That makes it easy to it's it's all you. Speaker 1: 'cause he's switching. Is is there a zoning chart?
Speaker 19: Yes, there is a zoning chart. Yes. Speaker 1: There's not one in mine. Speaker 19: Give you one if you'd like. Speaker 1: If you can, that'd be great. Oh, sorry. I got it. Sorry. Thank you. It's hiding there. Okay, so the lots, the lots small. The frontage is short, the depth is good. Front is good side. Good. Other side. Good rear. Good coverage. Good height. Good. We got a calculation for the height. Speaker 19: Yeah, I can discuss that when we get into it. Alright. Speaker 1: Okay. So just this is the lot, right? All about the, it's
Speaker 19: Really the lot and the frontage. Yep. Those are the, yeah. Two things we can't change. Speaker 1: That's right. Everything Speaker 19: Else is in conformance. Speaker 1: Yeah, we got 'em. We got the existing, we got the existing now that I can read with these old eyes. Okay. Proposed single family. Yeah. Oh, and you got, you have your infiltration already on there. Good. Alright, go ahead. You want, what would you like to tell us? Speaker 19: That's okay. George Richards from South Na Law and I have Eric, Eric La Forest here on behalf of the applicant. If any questions are needed, as we pointed out a lot areas slightly short and frontage is short.
We went through DPW Board of Health and con com letters and we have no issues with those and those can be incorporated in decision. So we'd submit this is not more sub detrimental to the neighborhood. We did not receive any abutter feedback and there may be somebody here tonight that we're happy to listen to, but there were no letters uploaded to the site. And the only question really is the height. If you go to the I I took the 33 73 off the engineer certification of the height. But if you go to the architectural plans, it actually appears that the height is 14.2.
And if you also look at the both existing site plan and proposed site plan, it's a very flat level lot. If you look at it online, the elevations are all about 1 0 2. You said Speaker 1: 14 point, you mean 30? Speaker 19: 34. Speaker 1: 34. Oh geez. Speaker 19: We're building a small house. It's Speaker 1: Expensive. Speaker 4: We're going down, Speaker 19: Keeping the cost down. My apologies. 34.2. And the calculation on that zoning summary I think is incorrect. He has his 33.7, but the, the architectural plans on a
2 0 1 and they do have both sides at 14.2 Speaker 1: 34 2. I'm 34. Okay. Yeah. 34 2. And I do see that the lot is absolutely flat. 1 0 1 0.5, 1 0 1 0.510 1.510 1.410 1.4 8, 1 0 1 0.39. So it's a couple inches max. Okay. Speaker 19: I think that's it. But we're happy to answer any questions
or again, if there are. Speaker 1: Sure. Okay, well let's find out letters. Pleasant. Is anyone here to speak about eight Vernon Road? Eight Vernon Road? No. Okay. Okay. Board getting there. Getting there. What is the proposed gross floor area of this home? Speaker 19: I believe it's 38. 98 is the total gross floor area. Speaker 1: There's gonna be a, a finished basement according to the plans or no, Speaker 20: No. Basement, partial finished attic. Okay. It's a, it's a slab.
Speaker 1: Slab. Okay. Speaker 4: So oh yeah, on, on the, while we're talking about that. So is it a crawlspace that we're talking about underneath? Because one of the letters said something about crawlspace and Speaker 20: I did see that letter. It is, I, my attention is not have a crawl space to have a slab on grade. Speaker 4: Okay. Alright. And so have you performed the soil test yet? Yes, because I Speaker 20: Didn't see it and there was, it's, we have done the storm water management plan, the water table came back. I, so there's a full, it'll be submitted
with the building permit, but that's kind of the reason for the, for the slab. Speaker 4: So do you have the numbers for what it came out to be? How low, how far below Speaker 20: Average? I don't have it in front of me now, but again, I, I believe the storm water management plan was, will it, it will be submitted with the building permits. I don't have those numbers right in front of me right now. Speaker 19: It will meet the minimum two feet separation cited by the board health Speaker 4: Essentially. That's exactly what it was. Yeah. Hmm. Okay. Speaker 1: Anybody else? Speaker 4: Also, looks like you are changing the elevation.
Is it going up two feet? It looks like the existing house tends to have like 1 0 1 and the proposed is 1 0 3 most of the time. Speaker 19: Yeah, it does look like it's being raised about a foot and a half. Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. C 1 0 2 0.3 on the existing survey. Speaker 19: Yeah. It varies between 1 0 1 and 1 0 3 on the existing and pretty much all 1 0 3 on the proposed. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 4: And what, so was the height calculated from average grade? Speaker 19: Correct. Which is basically 1 0 3 Speaker 4: Existing Speaker 19: No. Proposed. Speaker 4: Yeah, but existing, we need it from existing.
So is the 34 2 from Speaker 1: Existing the build the building commission? He, he measures from proposed Speaker 7: Well we, yeah. Speaker 19: The proposed average Speaker 1: Grade, we, we can, we can take into considerate, let, let's put it this way. Hmm. If you come in and, and raise your grade by four feet and then build 35 feet on top of that. Right. This board can say hold, hold up a sec. That's really 39 feet. Right. But the building commissioner would not ding it for height based on that. His ruling, which we, which we follow, is
that he measures height from proposed. It is part of the calculus that this board can consider is whether or not doing so creates a substantial detriment. But we don't, but what we don't do is say you're four feet above the, above the height requirement now and you have to go back, you know, this should have been dinged for height, you know, so it's the proposed grade is where the average grade is taken from according to the building commissioner. Speaker 7: And it's also according to the zoning
bylaws as well. Correct? Speaker 1: I don't know that it speaks to it, it doesn't speak to that, I don't think. It just describes sometimes Speaker 7: It should be cleared up in town meeting, I think, you know, Speaker 1: Knows it should. Yeah. It just describes how to calculate the, I it's, that's a problem, but not when to take those calculations. But the building commissioner has been quite clear, but again, that doesn't take the, the board of appeals out of the, out of that Sure. Discussion, but in this case it's, you know, a foot and a half either way. But good for dodge and with no, no opposition, no comment.
You know, that it's unlikely to, to, to have any impact. Okay. Speaker 4: So I also have a question about the driveway. I didn't see dimensions for how wide the existing driveway is. I, it looks as if the proposed is gonna be 22 feet wide. Is that correct? I can't tell for sure. Okay. So here's an odd thing. I was looking in the bylaws today about driveways. Now I don't know if folks have run into this recently, but it says that residents driveways shall not be more than 21 feet wide at the right of way.
Line for one or two family dwellings. And this being a one family dwelling, it's, if anyone wants the number I can show you. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Show show that to me. Speaker 4: It's B 17, section 10. Speaker 1: The page number at the bottom? Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 4: BB 17 Speaker 1: VVV. Okay. Speaker 13: The page numbers are not gonna be the same because that appears to Speaker 4: Be old. This is 2022, so they probably changed, but it's under, let's see, it's the section, Speaker 13: It's probably vd, Speaker 4: It's under special
requirements section five. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 4: These things, I know you're working on this and god bless you. It's just, Speaker 13: It definitely in section numeral five or VD. Yeah. And do you know what the next number is on Speaker 4: 10 10 entrance and exit driveways? Speaker 3: I Speaker 4: It is the first one A. Speaker 1: Is it, is it, what's the, what's the one above a parking facilities required by category of parking demand? Speaker 4: No, it's, I'm looking at Speaker 1: What's the number that precedes the letter? A Speaker 4: 10 entrance and exit driveways.
So it comes after eight pedestrian safety, 12 nine interior drives, 10 entrance and exit driveways. And that's a kind of a long section. And the 11 is marking, 12 is surfacing and drainage, et cetera. Speaker 1: Residence driveways, and I'm not sure if this is gonna be the verbatim, but it's, it was changed in 2024. Residence driveway shall not be less than nine feet or more than 21 feet wide at the right of way line nor less than 13 feet or more than 25 feet at the curb. Line of loss for one or two family dwellings.
Article 21, 20 24 spring ATM 5 9, 20 24. Speaker 9: What's the difference between the right of way line and the curb line? Speaker 19: I was just gonna ask Speaker 1: The sidewalk. It could Speaker 9: Be a bigger piece, Speaker 1: But No, I Speaker 9: Think that property line Speaker 19: Versus the pave Yeah, it's property line versus the pavement I guess. Speaker 4: Yeah. So like if generally six feet past the property line is usually, no, it depends on the, there's Speaker 9: No standard. Yeah, it's Speaker 4: All Okay. Okay. Speaker 1: Curb line. Oh wait a minute. Speaker 9: So the right of way line is the property generally the property line now?
Yeah, Speaker 1: In this case that would be 22 feet Speaker 9: Probably. There Speaker 1: It says re residence driveways shall not be less than nine feet or more than 21 feet at the right of way line. Which on this plan is where, where it meets the, where it meets the direct, where it meets the street Speaker 19: Pretty much. Yeah. Where Speaker 9: Yeah, they Speaker 19: Could meet, looks like the lot line and of course they did a direct measurement across beyond that. But then Speaker 1: It says, but then it goes on to say nor more than 25 feet at the curb line. Speaker 4: Yeah, Speaker 9: Yeah. It gives you the flare out. Yeah. Oh
Speaker 1: Yeah. At the curb line. Oh yeah. So you flare Speaker 9: Out. But where they are the same, the curb line and the right of way line. Yeah. Well you still have to meet the 21, you mean for 21? Yeah. Speaker 19: Pleasure. The board if you want us to, hopefully you won't have to come back with a new plan, but note that that will only be 21 feet. Sure. We have no problem with that. Speaker 1: I think Amanda, that's probably worth raising. It's not something we've ever, ever done before. It appears that he, it's funny that that was amended. I, from what I read and what you have in front of you,
they should be different. Were they? Speaker 4: No, they're the same word for word. Yeah, word for word Speaker 1: Yet. Yet there's, Speaker 4: I used, I still use this one because all the changes that have been made since 22 donor fact. Speaker 1: But that's, you said that's 23, right? Speaker 4: 22, yeah. So, oh, oh wait, I'm sorry. Lemme double Speaker 1: Check. It seems to Speaker 4: Indicate that there was an amendment 22, March 22. Speaker 1: It seems to indicate there was an amendment in 24, but it was word for word. Speaker 4: Yeah, Speaker 1: I don't know. Okay. So we could condition it on 21. Okay, that's not a problem for you. Nope. Okay. Does anybody else have anything else they wanna raise? Speaker 3: No. Alright.
Speaker 4: Wait, no, there was a, sorry. It's always gonna be me. I noticed that one of the letters said that in order to verify the design, the estimated seasonal high groundwater had to be performed. So we talked about this earlier, but did you say or did we, did they're all starting to run together. Did you say you have already performed that? Speaker 20: Yes. It's been with the public health with the, yep, exactly. Speaker 4: Yep. Yeah. And, and you don't have the number in front of you? Speaker 20: I don't have the report here with me with the tables,
but I do have a full plan and, and it's, I believe it's been uploaded with the building application, but it will be if it hasn't. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. Anything else? Alright then we'll close the public hearing. Jason, Speaker 8: I would move that we approve the project based on our finding that it's not substantially more. That's method to the neighborhood then the witness is nonconforming use and structure provided its bill and substantial performance with the plan submitted and any requirements from town departments will submit letters to the board with the condition or clarification that the driveway has to be
the plan showing the driveway should be revised to show that it complies with zoning, which we understand to be the 21 foot, 25 feet with request. Speaker 1: Second. I'll second. Jeff. Did I say who's on this? Andy, you're on Andy's on that? Yeah. Okay. All those in favor? Yep. All those opposed. Okay. Four to one. You're all set. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Sure. Speaker 1: That was, which one is that? Speaker 3: That was Speaker 1: Vernon. That was Vernon. Next project up is one 50 Woodland by silver development. LLC. Request for a section six, finding
for the demolition of existing one. Family dwelling and construction of a new one. Family dwelling on a previously nonconforming law. Counsel, Speaker 3: How you guys Speaker 1: Doing? Good. And you Speaker 3: Peter Harrans. I'm here for the applicant. Speaker 1: Okay, hold on a second. Let's see. Okay, the lot's short frontage is good. Depth is short. Front setback is non-conforming but will remain will be made. Conforming side west is conforming and remain. So yeast side back is
conforming and remain. So the rear there is is a corner. Yep. So two fronts, two sides. Right. So the other one is, what's the other front? Front. Hold on. Alright, here we go. So you have written in the 40, 40 feet existing 33 proposed 40.5 to Woodland or to Scarsdale, Speaker 21: Which dimension? Speaker 1: The front it's, it says 40 feet required existing is 33.6. Proposed is 40.5. Speaker 21: The front yard set back on the, the new proposed building.
It's 40 from, from Woodland, Speaker 1: 40.5 from Woodland? Yes to Woodland. And then the rear is actually the second front and that's 40 feet. And so what's the number to Scarsdale? Is it 42 6? Yes. Speaker 21: Yeah, my eyes aren't great but I think if you zoom in on the plan. Speaker 3: Yep. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. Okay. And then the coverage is 19.1, so that's good. The height 34 8. And do we have a height calculation? Speaker 21: It's on the architectural, yes. Good. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright.
So and then is this, this is a grading plan here. Let's, or let's see, 2 0 3, 4, 3, 2, 1 on the drawing. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 10: Dos, Speaker 3: It's not there, right? Speaker 10: Yeah, I'm not seeing the, the height on the architecturals. They seem to be just dots and the, wait, Speaker 21: Which one are you? The one you had Speaker 10: Floor plans dated Monday, January 26th. 2026. It should be. I see some, but there's not top of the roof line. I don't see a number. I just see a Speaker 21: Front elevation. I thought it was, it's not on the, the top of the roof floor.
I'm sorry, I thought I thought it was Speaker 10: On. I'm looking Speaker 9: At it. Right. So you do have on the, on the site plan proposed average grade and existing average grade. And they're about two feet apart. So more than two feet apart. Speaker 1: See that Speaker 9: On the foundation section? Yeah. Speaker 21: So they have it on the, on the site. I thought they had it on the architectural too. Speaker 1: Proposed basin form Speaker 21: Typically. Speaker 1: Oh, proposed average grade 2 0 4 0.7. And do we have a, Speaker 7: Okay, Speaker 1: I mentioned that. Do we have a a a, an elevation or the height of the, the peak?
Speaker 21: I think it would be 34.8. I'd have to confirm that, but I believe that that's what Speaker 7: It says. 34.8 UN proposed. Yeah, Speaker 1: It's not on the architecturals, right? The architecturals Speaker 7: Don't have number. It's on the site plan, I mean on the Yeah, I can Speaker 21: Have it. I mean as a condition it required can have been included in the architecturals submit, but I think they took it, it was on the site plan. They showed where they came with the, Speaker 9: I think you're gonna want to bring that down because of you. 34.8 from the proposed grid, which is two feet from the Speaker 21: So high. Okay. Speaker 7: From the existing. Yeah, I agree with that. That's
Speaker 9: Very tall. I think that's one of those times where Speaker 7: We Yeah. Yeah. Is there a reason why they're raising, why you're raising the grid? Speaker 21: I'm not sure. I'd have to check with 'em as to why they pushed it up there. I think it might have to do with where they're put in the house, but I can check with that. They'd have to, they'll have to adjust it anyway. Send it. They're gonna, if it close Speaker 8: Over, what do you think this one is on a bit of a hill, that area of woodland and yeah, I, I'm a little bit familiar with it. So it may be that just position the house changes the grade or you wanna level the yard a little bit more. But Speaker 21: I think that's what it is. And I know they have to take up the pool so where they reposition it
after they dig that, that might had something to do with it. But if we have to adjust it anyways based on how they calculated, I'll make sure. Speaker 4: So, so what I noticed was, well the basement plot isn't included in the drawings, but the board of health says that the groundwater is 4.3 feet below grade as much as six feet below grade. I'm guessing that the reason the grade is going up by four feet is because they wanna do a tall basement and
Speaker 1: It's only two 2.3 feet. Speaker 4: What's 2.3? Speaker 1: The average grade elevation change? Oh 2 0 2 4 to 2 0 4 7. Speaker 7: Well, still to your point, Speaker 4: Okay. That's not what Yeah, well the point point being that the water is so close to the surface that I don't see how you can possibly dig down far enough to, I mean, stay high enough that you don't run into groundwater that's too close to the bottom of the slab for the basement. So it's already running into water. And also, yeah, I also didn't see the plot plan
for the third floor and looks like there is a goodly amount of space up there since it's such a tall house. But the big issue is you're, you're putting in a three car garage on Scarsdale, correct? Yeah. Speaker 21: That's what the plan shows. Yeah. Speaker 4: So the, I didn't see any lines describing how that driveway is, what the width of the driveway is, but it can't be less than 35, 38 feet wide. And this is a one family house. So that means it's past the 21 foot wide limit.
Speaker 7: So the, well it's Speaker 1: Is that, is that supposed to be the limit at that, those particular spots or any place along the path Speaker 4: At the public right of way, I guess. Right. Speaker 7: So it, it's a little hard to pick up. But is the, for the applicant, the, so is the proposed garage a proposed driveway here? I guess it is. It's not labeled in any way. It's not there, but it's, but there are lines that show what, I mean what Speaker 21: If I'm looking at the 12 Speaker 7: Feet at the street, I Speaker 21: Don't know how much attention they paid to the driveway. It looks like the drive, the walkway comes off woodland.
It looks like there's a, an entryway and then the, Speaker 7: I can't turn off, Speaker 21: I have to break out the number myself, but if the driveway does come into where the three car is, it's some, some fraction of the 92 feet along Speaker 7: Far. This is the new, we see where the driveway wants to be thousand 21. Where, Speaker 4: Okay, so that's not an elevation line, that's the driveway. But it, it's not dimension. So no. Yeah, Speaker 21: I was just guessing. I'm trying to the gauge it and I'm not even sure it's to scale as far as where the driveway would be set. Speaker 7: Okay. See this is it right here. Goes deep.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then it's Speaker 7: That, so yeah, as long as I Speaker 4: Cut, but we still don't know how wide it's No, we just know it's not three cars wide. No, Speaker 7: Mr. Chairman That's good. Are or myself. I'm sorry, I forgotten again. I think it's Ari. Speaker 1: I think it's Ari. Be honest Speaker 7: Ari. Alright. Speaker 1: Okay. Well it would appear that at least at the, at the curb line and at the, and at the right away it's 21 dash 25. Right. 21 at the, at the, at the right of way 25 max
at the curb line when you come out. But it can but it, but it can immediately widen after you get that Speaker 7: To that spot. Speaker 1: So Well Speaker 7: And ga are you clear that from what's drawn? It looks a a lot less than 21. It's Oh Speaker 4: Yeah, when I saw that this afternoon I thought that was another elevation line. Okay. So good, good to know. That's not 38 feet wide. Good to know. Speaker 1: Yeah, right. Okay. You it curves. Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I thought that was an elevation line. It's like probably 12 feet. I didn't realize it was the driveway
but it still doesn't have the dimension for, you know, how wide the driveway is. Yeah, yeah. Or at least unless I've missed it again. Speaker 1: I don't think so you would say Max 20 20 21 Speaker 4: Is the max Yeah. Speaker 1: 21, 25 in a accordance to his zoning. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Okay. Did we see if anybody was here? Is anybody here to talk about this project at one 50 Woodland Street? Come on up. Any, any, whoever, whoever. If we could just get your name and address for the record. Yep. Speaker 22: Andrew Mulley for Scarsdale Road. Speaker 1: I over there. Speaker 22: How you doing? So I'm not an architect, don't know everything,
but I am the abutter to this house and I just know that what I see there and what's proposed and what was there is a far, far cry from there. My biggest concern is the driveway on Scarsdale. If anybody knows that area and know where they're proposing that driveway, it's gonna be logistical nightmare trying to back out or pull outta that driveway. If you know Scarsdale Road, it's a narrow road to begin with and if you know Woodland, it's gonna be a nightmare building a house there. I hope they all know because whoever they hired to just clear the snow pulled in the middle of the road.
If you know that road, it's a narrow road. They gotta be cognizant of what the hell they're doing there and what they're building. So far they haven't done it. I we'll see where we go from here, but that's, that's all Speaker 1: I think. I just want to comment on the, on the driveway. Speaker 22: You should, you should be aware of where you're building. Yeah, Speaker 1: That's all. So did I know if you notice on the plan that this is the kind of driveway where it allows you can back into this wider part of the driveway and then always go forward out. Speaker 22: Yeah. Great. Go pick a look. Speaker 1: No, I'm just saying it doesn't, doesn't appear that you'll need to back onto Scarsdale. Speaker 22: I You can't.
Speaker 1: That's why I think they design way, yeah. Know driveway. It has like a, you know, like a, I follow, I a back in area I follow can pull out forward. Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, no problem. Alright. Yes ma'am. Your name and address if you would. Yeah, Speaker 23: I'm at 1 48 Woodland right next door. And my name is Shirley Miller. So I have con concerns. We've been living there since before a neighborhood across the street, the Davis Brook neighborhood. And there were, it was, I believe a seminary.
Since that time we've had about 27 homes built there. We've witnessed three accidents. We're in an area right next door to one 50 Woodland where Woodland Street comes down in front of our house. I, I refer to it as a speedway, the Woodland Street Speedway. Now, because there is a, a block of, of the road there where there are no homes and the people come speeding through since the construction from across the street in Davisburg Drive. There was an incident one night where somebody hit the brick wall while they were detonating the home and they knocked down a home behind us.
They had a lot of trucks parked in front of our house for the construction. We've had construction around our house for the past 26 years. And there was a young lady who hit the truck that was parked in front of our house. We needed to call 9 1 1. There was another incident where somebody was coming down the hill, coming across the way there and there they, they were in an accident. We are there is Rockwood to our right to our left is Scarsdale and right across the street is Davis Brook Drive. And so this has been a, a concern we have written to the town, selectman
for the town police about the traffic there and the speedway. And when people are coming out from behind us on Scarsdale, around on Rockwood there, they have to come there because there's a tree to the left of where they wanna build this new home there that blocks the, the visual field there for cars coming up. So my concern is the safety. We have dogs, we walk our dogs. Sometimes you'll have 20 cars pass in front of you. What will be done when we have the construction there and then will there be detonation going on? We had detonating for a lot
of the ledge that was across the street. We had detonation behind us where we had a big rubber tire blanket. I think that's what you call it there. So we then shake, rallying and rolling. So my concern is about the detonation where the neighbor next door to us, lovely neighbor we had for many years. She has a swimming pool. I imagine they're taking out the pool there, there was a septic there. So I'm concerned about detonation and what will be done with traffic, with safety. Speaker 1: So let let me ask you a question 'cause what this board needs to concentrate on is, is whether what's being built is substantially more
detrimental than what's already there. So today you have a driveway that leads onto Woodland, correct? Speaker 23: We lead No, we go into Rockwood. Not Speaker 1: You, not you. This house. Oh this Speaker 23: House does, yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. So you have a house with a driveway that backs onto this very busy narrow street and that driveway's being moved onto a sort of a quiet side street. Correct? Is that not correct? Speaker 24: Not it's not that quiet. Speaker 1: Scarsdale, yeah. Is Scarsdale is not a quiet street. Speaker 24: Actually also a bus stop right there. So Speaker 1: Scarsdale is a dead end, right.
That runs, it's not a Speaker 24: Dead end, it's a U shape Speaker 1: Around, wait, Scarsdale runs into Libby Road, right? Yeah. And there's a circle back there. Yeah. Or if you took a left on Rock when you come back to Woodland, right? Correct. Okay. So as far as like the construction, all of this construction with this project, any project that's built in in the Commonwealth has to be built in accordance with the requirements of the building code. This board doesn't deal with building code issues, that's for the building commissioner. So as far as, we can't put requirements on times of of of that.
They're gonna be using Jack Hammers or Dynamite or whatever it is they're using to, to build the, to dig the, the foundation. But what about speak to this project and how this project is gonna be more detrimental than what's there today? Speaker 23: Well the visual field, so you're gonna have a taller structure. So you have people coming outta Scarsdale, you have people coming up on Woodland Street where you have people coming. So if this is my house here and here's the proposed new home,
you have traffic coming down here from the cottage side street and they come down, Beauts have a visual field of what's going on here. Speaker 1: Is your driveway on Rockwood? Speaker 23: We're on Rockwood, right? Yeah. Yeah. So we come out to that every morning. We take the left there or a right to go onto Woodland Street. Yeah. But it's just a real tricky area. Sure. And so I worry about the height of the new house there and just all the different visual fields. Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm our husband. Yeah. Come on up. Just give us your name. Bill Miller. Okay. Speaker 25: The other thing is the house is gonna be way too big
for the other houses surrounding it in that neighborhood. That was the original neighborhood that's surrounded that. It's a small cape with a one car garage there now with a swimming pool. So it's got more of elongated lot as you can see by the picture. That house, when it gets built, there won't be a much of a backyard at all. It'll be right on top of Andrew's house and the height of that house will probably shade his and his is another cape across the street from him is a cape that was expanded but smaller. There are no bigger houses that are 4,600 square feet
until you get down onto Libby. And those were built at the same time as they built the houses across from us on Davis Brook, Davis Brook and Farm Hill. Right. Which are all five and 6,000 square foot homes over there. And not on one acre lots by the way either. So that whole development was an exception. Okay. So now we've got an exception with, you know, we're building a house that should be on a, a lot size that's at least three quarters of an acre that they're gonna put in where all the other houses are probably in the neighborhood
of maybe 2000 square feet. That land added onto his, he is probably around 2200. But you, you're gonna put a 4,600 square foot house next to mine, which is a raised ranch. It doesn't make sense, you know, if it was across the street with the other big houses, it would fit in the neighborhood. So, you know, if they would build something that was a little bit more conducive to the size of the, the neighborhood and wouldn't stand out and, and basically take up almost the whole footprint of the, the current lot, you know,
that would be a much improved plan. Speaker 21: I just, a quick question on your last point. When you said the height, the site line, you, you were talking about safety. Were you talking about safety like Yeah. Okay. I just, I just wanted to make sure I understood. Yeah. Speaker 25: Concern about the safety. Yeah. That's gonna be what a three story home it's gonna be sitting there with, you know, most are one or two. Speaker 1: Okay, thanks very much. Hi there. Speaker 26: Good evening. Walter Klowski at five. Libby here in support of the Abutters, also on the issue
of safety and coming out of Scarsdale, the big tree was mentioned. So you take your life in your hands every time you pull out and you want to go left. I've noticed even the existing house when they parked in the driveway, you can't see to the right. So my concern is what this building, fencing, how it's designed, will prevent us from safely going out into Woodland. Speaker 1: So let me stop you there just for a second. So the car's in that driveway, that driveway's gonna be gone, so That's correct. Speaker 26: Yeah. So, so I would be concerned about shrubs and fence on that corner.
Speaker 1: If we were, if we were to approve it, we, we would condition it on no, no shrub fencing or anything that would just Speaker 26: On it in the record. Speaker 1: Yeah. No unquestioned. Yeah. Yeah. Thank Speaker 26: You. And then I'll just double up and everything else that was set. Alright. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. It's a lot of house. It's a lot of house. Speaker 25: Actually. The driveway as the plan is right on the corner just about Speaker 1: Not exactly. That's not what it shows. Speaker 25: So take a walk out there. You Speaker 1: Can, I I can see the plan. I can see the plan. It's, it's not, it's not anywhere close to the corner. No, no it's not. I mean,
you wanna take a look at the plant, come and take a look. I, I'm looking at it, but, but I'd like you to look at it too. You're the one who lives there, right? Or can we put on the screen? Speaker 25: Yeah, can you go on the screen? Speaker 1: I I don't have anything. I have just what you see come and look. No, no. Amanda can help us come and take a look. There we go. There you go. Okay. So I'm gonna show you what's on that screen right there. So this is today and this is the driveway today, right? Right. So if you're coming out here, you want to go right, you have to look across these cars. Right? Right. So now it's gonna be moved back here.
So this is the entrance, right? Speaker 25: Actually the driveway is over here. If you look at the drawing of the, the three car garage is the first part of this building. And this back part's not garage. Speaker 1: I, I'm showing the driveway here. Speaker 25: Can you put up the picture of the house again? Speaker 1: So just go to the, Speaker 25: Go to the side. Speaker 1: Go to go to the, the proposed site plan. That's what you, where I see the driveway. Speaker 25: I see Speaker 1: This is this plan the one you have. So this, Speaker 25: I think you go down the next one, it's gonna show the different elevations on Speaker 1: Each side. Okay. So, so stop right there.
The driveway is right, there's the southern part of the driveway. There's goes like this goes up make, why did you come down? Speaker 10: That's what I see. Speaker 1: Yeah. The other side. Speaker 25: So how many feet are we clock in there? Speaker 1: Maximum 21. That Speaker 25: Doesn't even count. So they're gonna be, you know, that's a bus stop. So there are cars on rainy and snowy days parked there with their kids in them. Okay. In the morning and in need, Speaker 1: This is this, this tell me, tell me this, this here, okay.
Yeah. Is a more detrimental condition than this here? Speaker 25: No, that less I, I'll agree to that. Alright, Speaker 1: Good enough. Okay. So it's a lot of house. It's too big for the lot. That's what I say. I have concerns by two butters. One directly next to it. Did, did you wanna say something? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. They with the neighbor? Yeah. Yeah. From they got someone on Libby saying the same thing. They, they co-signed what, what you folks said. And I, I don't know what the, in terms of whether it will shade it,
but these are small houses, existing houses and you're putting a very substantial house on a lot and you're raising the grade, which is gonna make it that much more imposing. I I wouldn't be in favor of it. I'm not Speaker 25: Voting, but I wouldn't be either. Speaker 8: I, it's a big house. I might not approve it because of the height problem by raising the grade and exceeding 35 feet. That's be my concern. Speaker 1: I agree it's a lot of house, but I will say I much prefer the driveway on Scarsdale than questionably. Not even. Yeah. That, that, that makes it much safer.
It's almost worth pr. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think that that's a very, that's a substantially improved condition. Alright. Speaker 10: I, I agree with everybody, but everybody has said it's too big, it's too tall, Speaker 1: You know, Speaker 4: Same. And also, can you tell me, did I, I'm not seeing the architect or engineer stamps on the side front rear elevations. I see it on the plot plan, but I don't see it on the elevations. And the reason I noticed it in particular was because the building inspector pointed out that it was not there in the letter that's in the file.
Okay. Speaker 21: I'll have him stamp. I I'm assuming we're gonna have to come back in with some adjusted plans as is. So, Speaker 1: Yeah. So you said dimension the driveway, right? Correct. But, but, but keep in mind, yeah, we still don't have that either. That this Gail uncovered what appears to be a requirement, not appears. There's a requirement in the code that Gail, we, I don't think anyone here was aware of my, I guess issue. Speaker 21: I assume that it came, it was building code as you started, like the site work. You had to see like, Speaker 1: So the zoning codes is 21 feet the right Speaker 21: Of way, I guess I've just never seen it on any
plans as part of the dimensions. So Speaker 1: Driveway, dimension, the driveway, 21 feet at right away, 25 feet at Kerwin. I mean, I think it's worth, they're here. It's worth getting some feedback from them. You heard what they had to say and, and I don't disagree with, with, with much of what was was expressed in light of that. Does anyone else wish to be heard in light of that? You want a continuance, right? Oh yeah. Yeah. Okay. So reduce, okay,
so, we'll Speaker 9: It's, and it's not me because I won't be here, so maybe, Speaker 1: Okay, so yeah, Jeff's not gonna be here on the 27th, so we'll go ahead and well Andy, will you be Yeah, I will be. Okay. Yep. So yeah, next. Alright, go Speaker 8: Ahead. Okay. I just moved that we approve, not approve. We continue this hearing on one 50 Woodland to our next meeting. April 27th. Speaker 1: Second. Second Ari, all those in favor? See you the 27th. Thanks. Speaker 21: Thank you. Speaker 1: And folks, for those of you who spoke
and wish to give some additional feedback to the council, I think he's gonna step outside. It might be worth having that conversation. The next project is 46 Woodland Street. It's Sunil and Chpa Kadam, a request for a variance dimensional side yard setback for the construction of a garage on the east side of the existing one. Family dwelling on a preexisting Nonconform law. Hi there. Speaker 27: Hello. Hi. Speaker 1: And can you just give your names for the record? Speaker 27: Yeah, my name is Sunil and my and we're architect of diabetes here. Hi. Okay. So I know people are coming from January meeting
to February meeting to this March one. We are coming after six years from 2019 into 2026. So on the, Speaker 1: I'm gonna stop you just for a second while I just try to catch up with you. Sure. I'm gonna take a look here. Shit. Okay, so this chart is not filled out. Is there a reason it's not filled out? Speaker 27: I filled as much I can Speaker 1: About it's, it, it, it has to be entirely filled out. So, but, so your lot is too small, but there's nothing meant there's nothing indicated for the frontage.
So let's see, is there a stamp plan? Yep, yep. So the frontage, it's on a corner. Is that a corner lot? Speaker 27: It's knocked, Speaker 1: It's not, what's that? Runs up a right away that runs up in between. Speaker 27: So right next to my house, this is 46 Woodland. There is a 46 A and 46 B before the next house. Speaker 1: What's this? Speaker 27: That's the lot owned by some developer. There was a proposal road in between our two houses to connect the neighborhood backside. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Speaker 28: It's a, yeah,
it's a developer easement from the house was built in 1952 and the developer had put in a, a road easement that basically stops at the back of the property there. It does nothing and it goes nowhere. Speaker 1: I wonder if you get frontage off that. Alright, well I'll tell you what, is anybody else here on this project at 46 Woodland? No, there's nobody, we won't be able to, to do this based on the incompleteness of the application. So you need to have this thing filled out in full.
But you're here. So let, let, let's see what we can figure out. Well, hold on a second. So this, so you need a variance, right? So, but I, I can't tell that from here. Okay. Your, your west setback, that's the east setback. Speaker 28: So, so the lot basically is very similar to your diagram that's on the board there with that ledge in the back there. And when the original house was cited in 1950 or whatever, it has that 30 degree rotation from the,
from being parallel to the front of the street. And because of exactly as you have it drawn there, that's, that's the property that they were dealing with. There's actually, they left us a sculpture of ledge in the existing basement as well. They, you know, they just kind of worked with what was there. And it's kind of the high point on Woodlawn woodland. Speaker 1: I, I think you, I think you have it here. You probably have the, the, like the four corners of a variance because of the way the building is cocked. Just, just because of the way the building is cocked. In other words, if it weren't cocked you could put it,
you could put an addition maybe on either side. Correct. But 'cause of the, the, the way that the, the building is shaped, yeah, it, it really essentially prevents you from building in the side yards, which is where these additions would go. But, so I, I think you got that but, but let me just, I'm looking back at the chart here for a minute. Front yard 40, 34 5 34 5. Okay, that doesn't change. Then you have side yard west, 20 feet, 20 feet, seven feet. Speaker 9: I think his side yard set back east, yeah. Is the seven. Yeah. Speaker 1: So, and then the west doesn't change
27 9 27 9. Speaker 9: It does a little bit, but it still remains compliant. Speaker 1: How does it change to the, there's Speaker 9: A proposed addition. Yeah, it a sliver. Yeah. Speaker 28: And then we also have this, it's Speaker 9: In material. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Speaker 28: I'm sorry. We also have the site plan from 20 18 20 19 from the previous variance it was granted for the same Oh, the same condition. Speaker 1: Is this a modification or new? This is a new variance. Speaker 28: It it, yeah. So because of COVID they, they didn't build and then it expired. Speaker 1: Oh, so they were granted this to do this exact project. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 28: Yeah. Speaker 1: That's our decision Speaker 11: Should be recorded. It's the stuff I, this cubicle, Speaker 4: They're two different board members I believe voting on it that are no longer on the board. Speaker 1: Judge, Speaker 11: It's abi clip together Speaker 1: Trying to see what we said. Yeah. Speaker 4: So the plan hasn't changed at all, at all in any regard. Speaker 28: The the portion, a portion that's we're seeking relief on has not changed at all. Correct. Speaker 9: What has Speaker 28: It's, the addition is a little bit longer, but, and so what was granted was a 15 by 24 foot
garage addition at the 24 feet that it goes toward the rear of the lot line. We're now past the 20 foot setback. So it's, it's really just the front scooching it as was originally granted from woodland is the 15 by 24 where we're going 15 by 36. And that final 12 feet is now with outside of the setback of the 20 feet. So it conforms, but it's to get regranted, whatever the case may be. So Speaker 9: Lemme put it another way. If you went, if, if you had to do the exact same project that got approved in 2019 Yeah.
So then that we'll just say we're not, but, but this is, I'm not saying we're not, but yeah, that's approved and then you could come back. You wouldn't have to come back here to build the little square between 24 and 36 feet. You could do that as of right because you're not, no, you still would've to come back for section six at that point. Okay. Speaker 28: Yeah, that's, that's Speaker 9: I see. But I see what you're Speaker 7: Saying. I, I totally missed what you just said. Don't worry about it. So is it the same project or not? No,
Speaker 9: It's, they, they're going right here. See how this is, this is the 20 feet goes through here. So they're doing this square 12 by 15 square, but that's all within the setback. That's the only thing they're Speaker 28: Adding. So that back right corner as we go back further, which is what we'd like to do on the revision here, is now conforming with your current bylaws. It's just that 15 by 24 foot section that we're seeking the relief Speaker 9: On. But you're also, I see a, a proposed addition right here. Correct? Yes.
Speaker 27: That's the, on the on agent side. This is the Speaker 7: Plan from Speaker 27: From yeah, this is the word plan. Yeah. Speaker 7: This is, oh are you showing us the other addition anywhere? So, I'm sorry, why are we looking at this one? That's, I don't have, this is what was approved previously. Right? Okay. Variance. It was approved Speaker 9: And it was a variance, not a objection. Six. Speaker 7: Oh, okay. This, I'm looking at the wrong because of the location. Okay, hold on. Okay, Speaker 27: So we were told by the town that this is well only varied for two years. So when our contractor filed for the new permit, he said this is now expired. You have to go to the zoning
Speaker 7: Board again. Okay. So, so I'm sorry, I'm catching up to it. So the variance was granted before Yes, Speaker 27: 2019. Speaker 7: Yeah, I had it. I must been looking from, they didn't grant Speaker 13: To the decision. It was a section six finding that the board granted Speaker 9: How did we grant a section six on what was shown? Speaker 7: I know. Was there something already there? The garage right there. Speaker 13: So according to what was provided under case number 2019 dash 21, the reason for the hearing to obtain a section six finding that the proposed addition will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing non-conforming use slash structure of the neighborhood construction construct. An addition with one car garage attached to the existing garage and then Speaker 7: Oh zap, that's Speaker 13: Pretty, but that was a section six finding and now it is been determined that it needs a variance because you're within seven feet. Speaker 7: Right, Speaker 9: But they were within seven feet earlier, weren't they? Speaker 7: Yeah. Correct. Speaker 9: That's why I was confused how we Speaker 7: Okay, well I guess, Speaker 13: I'm not Speaker 7: Sure. I guess we're here, we're here now, right? Yeah. Okay.
I mean I think he's got, he's got it on all fours, but, but the question is, I, I gotta look at this. Control those plans. Okay, so that's 36 by Speaker 1: 57 foot step back and then this is an addition here. Introduce pencil. It's a photo. Yeah, it's a photo or something. I'm not sure. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Alright. Okay. I I I think who else has questions here? Anybody else have questions?
I mean, I, I I think as I said, I, I think this falls within the paradigm and, and that is if you take a square loss and you put a house on it, what looks like this? You put addition there and addition there and be okay. Right. Setback wise. Right now take that same house and cock it to the side. Now you can't put the additional, right. So it's the shape of the house as it's situated on the lot that creates this creates the hardship essentially.
You can't, you can't build out in either way because of the way, the shape, let's call it the shape of the house diamond. Speaker 28: And there's no grade in change either. We're working everything with the gr as it currently is. Speaker 1: Okay. Anybody else have anything? I just, if I could take a minute, just wanna look through the plans one more time. Yeah, if you don't mind. Speaker 27: I mean, out of all the houses in that neighborhood, ours is the only one which is like digital estate. All of those houses runs the parallel to the road. Speaker 1: Oh right, right, right. Yeah, sure. Thank you. Speaker 4: Well I did have a question about the stamp on,
on the elevation pages. I was looking at it. I mean it's, it's obviously photographs of the actual plans. Like you can, you know, see that it's photographs and, and there's the stamp looks like it was added on and like glued on or taped on or something. 'cause it's got an irregular edge around it. Do you know what I'm talking about? Speaker 27: Which, which? Speaker 4: The, about the professional stamp on the, on the, on the pages. Like I went through all the pages and,
and they all seem to have, Speaker 27: You mean Speaker 4: This stamp the same? Yeah, well what was in the, what was in the portal today? I don't know if that's exactly what you have, but I mean I just, I have not seen that before. So I was wondering why it looks like it was applied separately. Speaker 28: We did, it was done electronically on each, on each set. I mean Speaker 7: We Speaker 27: Submitted the PDF and we have the hard copies if you want to take a look. Speaker 10: Yeah, I think you're saying they, they paid, that's an electronic, they fixed that electronically because these are majority hand drawn seems like. Okay,
Speaker 4: So the white order. Speaker 10: Yeah. Yeah. It was a fixed things electronically after. Speaker 4: Okay. Alright. That answers my question. Thank you. Speaker 1: But are these, are these plans that we're looking at, that are in, that they're looking at now? For this project or for the old project? Speaker 28: For the current one? For the current. Everything. Everything was submitted. It's for the current. Yeah. Speaker 1: Who, who's that? Who is that name? That should Speaker 7: Be this gentleman here, right? Speaker 1: Virginia. Have not would Woodbridge? No. Woodbridge. Woodbridge, Virginia. A town outside of DC Technology. Speaker 7: That's Speaker 4: Right. Speaker 1: We know have a name Woodbridge. That's the person's name.
Who's that? Believe who's Woodbury? Speaker 4: Virginia. That is a city in Virginia. Speaker 1: But we're wondering the plants who stands? Oh no, it's Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It's Speaker 7: There is a person. Yeah. What Mario? Mario? Speaker 10: It's says Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Speaker 28: Mario? Yeah, Speaker 1: Mario. Speaker 4: Mario. Henry Shakur. Speaker 28: He lives between Virginia. Speaker 1: Who? Who is Massachusetts Speaker 28: In Paris. Speaker 1: Wait what? Speaker 4: Registered architect. Speaker 1: Who is Mario? Speaker 28: That's my business partner. Oh, Speaker 1: Perfect. Okay. Speaker 28: Yeah. Speaker 1: Why does it say Woodbridge, Virginia on it?
Speaker 28: Yeah, we're licensed in like five states and four countries. Speaker 7: No, I know, but why does it say Woodbridge Virginia on it? Speaker 1: Maybe that's the headquarters of the company. Speaker 7: It doesn't usually you don't do that? No, I don't know. It just seems really strange. Speaker 1: That's an odd super Speaker 4: Amp. I mean it says Commonwealth of Massachusetts but then it says Woodbridge Virginia. Woodbridge Virginia. Maybe Speaker 10: Think maybe Is that the name of the per Speaker 4: But then there's but then there's oh, or a company Speaker 10: Woodbridge, Speaker 7: Virginia. I don't know on mine. It doesn't have my town on it I don't think. Not a hundred percent sure Speaker 10: On your stamp is Andy is is your name sort of underneath where the Mario Chaco?
Is that where your name is on the stamp or is your name where it says Virginia Woodbridge? Speaker 7: I would have to go back and take a look. Speaker 4: That's, you don't have the tattoo? Speaker 7: Not yet. Maybe I will. I've got others. But it's just a question. I just, the building commissioner I'm sure would catch it. It was so strange. But, but yeah. This is the new project. Speaker 1: We are gonna just take a three minute recess. Speaker 7: Yeah. Bathroom. Speaker 1: Okay. And his Speaker 8: License is current. Speaker 1: That's all we, okay, so the hearing's closed. Jason, Speaker 8: I would move that we approve this project based on our finding.
It's not substantially more to the neighborhood than the preexisting nonconforming use of structure. I'm sorry, is it variance? Oh it's variance. I missed that part. Sure. Then I move that we approve the project based on our not even a finding based on the fact that that helps owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or structures. And specifically in this case, the fact that the building is on an undersized lot. But it was twisted approximately 45 degrees to fit on that lot.
And that is the current shape of the lander or structures as well as the fact that it's next to a a paper street. So there's the next door butters a little further away I think is relevant. Ownership of that might be in question, especially affecting this land or structures on, but not generally affecting the zoning district which is located and that a literal enforcement, the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. And in this case it's the need to put these additions on one in particular for the garage to
increase safety of the use of the property and getting to and from your vehicles, especially in the winter that the petitioner that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to public good or without nullifying or substantial daring from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. And were there any conditions? Speaker 1: I don't think so. That's Speaker 8: All. Speaker 1: Second, who do we say is on this Ari? I think it's Andy. I think it's Andy. Okay, Andy. Okay. So all those in favor? All those opposed Five all. You're all set. Good luck. Good luck. Thank you all so much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Take care. And last
but certainly not least is 53 Beacon Street, Lauren and Robert Kott request for, oh my goodness. Another variance dimensional relief front yard setback for the construction of a pergola on the northeast side of the existing one. Family dwelling on a preexisting non-conforming lot. Are you the bakos? We Speaker 29: Are their neighbors. Their Speaker 1: Neighbors. They're not here. Speaker 29: It looks like they're not here. Speaker 1: Oh. Which would've been, Speaker 29: Which would've been nice to know ahead Speaker 1: Of time. That's a first. Oh my goodness. Were were you in favor of opposed?
We been here the whole meeting and you stayed the whole time. Yeah. Would you learn anything? Were you in Right? You kind of Speaker 29: Just thought you improved everything, so glad Speaker 1: Not even close, but were you a favor or opposed? Well Speaker 29: We're, we don't care as long as they have, they're on the, you know, a side our corner lot I guess our, our we or the abutters on the east side. So as long as you don't push it back into our sort of 10 foot setback on the east side, we don't care that much. Speaker 1: Well right now there's not gonna be a project. So we're gonna, we're gonna what Amanda, we wanna open
and continue or do Speaker 29: We want to, Speaker 1: If we deny it, then they wouldn't be able to bring it back for two years. Just open and Yeah, open and continue. Speaker 4: Well I was, I was going to go ahead echo. I was going to ask about the conservation commission comment saying that the, the perlo is sitting on top of the cultec and it's not, it can't stay there because of the weight. So, Speaker 1: So is it, is is that the Speaker 29: Underwater what
Speaker 4: This storm water infiltration unit and the house was only built five years ago. Right. So yeah, Speaker 29: We were actually here in front of the board when they were building. Speaker 4: Oh, okay. Yeah. Speaker 29: But they were also going to do this sort of thing where they build it up, you know, four to six feet and then had 30 something feet on top of it. So Speaker 4: Yeah, Speaker 29: It was interesting. Then they got, Speaker 4: Yeah, I was going to ask, had, had they addressed that? Because the drawing that I looked at this afternoon, it wasn't clear to me whether they had cleared sufficient. So they hadn't changed it. Speaker 13: I have not heard anything. Claire was not out
or not in today, but, oh, okay. She also was on email, so she did not Speaker 4: Provide any of that. Yeah, the board of Health was concerned also. Yeah. Speaker 1: Are you at 2 26? Are you the Wix 2 26? Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So do you see where that is? Speaker 29: Well, so what, what happened was we know that there was a, we know that they, when they built it, they had to put underwater, you know, ground groundwater mitigation system in because the house is, you know, three x of what it used to be. We believed it was underneath the patio they put out there, which is laid kind of two by four, you know, stone pavers or large stone paver slash treads.
And I think it's underneath that. So I don't think, I think they would've to move that entire patio to do it. But because their house is situated so far on the left side into the back, near near our property, there's only land on the right side of it. So that's where they're trying to put in, I guess where they have that drawing there in the red. I think that's where it's expected to be. Yeah, it's on top of Speaker 1: You. You say it's 12 feet off your back, off your line and, and you say, oh, it's okay, but if it's a 10, no, Speaker 29: Well that is not rule though. Speaker 1: No, no, no. I'm, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. But right now nothing's gonna happen. Unfortunate part, but I
Speaker 29: Think there, there's supposed to be 40 feet off the, the frontage or you know, the front, since their front yard is both on Bacon Street and Speaker 1: That's right Beacon. Yeah, 11.4 Speaker 29: 40. We didn't wanna push back 40 from Beacon. Speaker 1: Oh, oh I see. To our yard. Speaker 29: Yeah, right. Exactly. Speaker 1: To go behind their house because then it's, or Speaker 29: Even to be further Speaker 1: Back either way toward your lot line or further to the, further to the south, you don't want that either Speaker 29: Actually for the South. Yeah. I mean Speaker 1: To go further behind their house. No, it wouldn't fit back there. Wouldn't fit back there and no closer to your lot line right.
To to the east. Exactly. Okay. Well unfortunately, I guess, you know what, we're gonna make some notes because there may have been some sort of confusion over dates and whatnot. So I'm gonna make a note here that says Applicant no show to two neighbor Wicks appeared no closer to East. And I'll say no further to South.
Although I have to be honest with you, I'm not sure the argument that could be made to put that 2019 feet closer to Bacon Street, you know, given the drawing if you will. Right? Yeah. So, and may maybe it doesn't get built, I don't know. But what, I guess what we're gonna do is in a neighborly way, open it up, open the hearing, continue it for one month to April 27th. If you want to come back, you can, it might not be a terrible thing if you don't come back. I've got these notes here. Okay. Alright.
About what you said. Okay. So thanks for your patience. Yeah, Speaker 3: Appreciate it. Alright, thank you. You learned a few things. Speaker 29: We've learned a lot today. Speaker 1: Ready to go home and build a new addition to your house. That's right. It's a slow night in Nick. You know, let's don't forget about your height calculation. Speaker 3: Thank Speaker 1: You. See you later. Okay, so let's go ahead and hold the hearing's open. The applicant is not here. We're gonna do 'em the courtesy of continuing at a month to April 27th. Right. I Speaker 8: Move to continue the hearing until our next meeting, April 27th. Speaker 1: Second is Ari and all those in favor? Yep.
Alright, so, okay. Did, do we have minutes to approve for you? Speaker 13: Yeah, I had sent him out but I drawing a blank of which addition it were. Speaker 1: I, I entirely rely on GA's Keen Eye. Speaker 13: I'm pretty sure it was November 24th, 2025. October 27th, 2025 and September 29th, 2025. I wanna say I have the 12th done, but Speaker 3: I can't remember. Speaker 1: So let me just for a moment here, I'm just gonna put this thing into the, the continued hearing tonight were, Speaker 13: Yeah, so seven Speaker 8: Upland 21 Press, seven
Speaker 1: Upland was the one that was, Speaker 8: Oh, the first one was approved and what was approved. Upland continued. Speaker 1: CC 4 27 Speaker 8: Prescott Continued travel was approved. We do with nine notice. Speaker 1: Oh, we continued that Speaker 3: Continues. Speaker 8: Regard was approved. Speaker 1: Continue. CC 4 27 46 rule that was approved and Beacon was Speaker 3: CC 4 27 Speaker 1: Applicants.
Oh, show. Okay, Speaker 13: So all of the minutes, January 12th, 26th, November 24th of 25, October 27th of 25, and September 29th of 25 were all sent back on February 18th. Chief Speaker 1: Gail, Speaker 4: I'm curious to hear what others have to say. Speaker 1: Oh, I, I, I rely entirely on you, on Speaker 4: I don't know why. Speaker 1: 'cause you have a very keen eye for detail. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 1: Are you gonna share anything with us now? Just accept the copy. Speaker 4: No, I'm not, I'm not going to not this month.
Speaker 1: Okay, good enough. Look good to me. Speaker 8: Second. Speaker 1: All those in favor? All those opposed? I'm abstaining. We have one abstention Speaker 3: Keep. Speaker 1: Okay. So is that all our business for you? Speaker 3: Yep. Speaker 1: Thanks Amanda. Now.