Speaker 1: Before we jump into the hearings, we have a public speak section of the evening where any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda and it will be taken under advisement by the board. There will be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. This section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes and any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. Does anybody have anything they'd like to bring up that is not on the agenda? Okay. Seeing none then we'll just jump right in. We have the standard ground rules that we always go by
on these meetings, which is treat everybody with courtesy and respect. Direct all your comments to the board and if we see it appropriate, we'll have you engage in a back and forth, perhaps with an applicant and a neighbor. We, if there's a lot of comment on one issue, we just as soon have you sign on to a comment that's already been raised rather than repeat it just in terms of efficiency and we'll help guide you through the process. With that said, the first matter up is 41 Charles Street, an application for SNS development
for a finding per mass general law, chapter 40 a section six, and then any zoning bylaws, section four B and five A. The applicant proposes to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting non-conforming lot as shown the plan submitted. Hi there. How are you counsel? 41 Charles, let me just take a peek at the chart. So you lack the side, the area, you lack the frontage, you've got the depth, you don't have the front, but you're gonna increase it. So you're gonna go conforming your west
side is nonconforming, but you're making conforming. Okay. Your other side is conforming. You're gonna make it more conforming, your rear is conforming and it will remain. So coverage is good. Good. And the height is increasing but will remain below the maximum. Correct. So this is lot area and lot frontage. Speaker 2: That's where it is. And we're pulling it back and pulling it tighter. Speaker 3: Turn the mic on. Speaker 4: Yeah, that, that's correct. We're short on the frontage and the lot size, but we're pulling it back and more centered to meet the other setback requirements.
Speaker 1: Alright, let's take a look. Yep. It goes back. All right, so it's all here, right? This, Speaker 4: Yeah. And the heights measured from grade. It's a pretty flat lot. So it is at 30 feet. Speaker 1: Yeah, I I saw it, I saw the calculation. Anybody here to talk about this matter at 41 Charles Street? Sure. Come on up. If we could just have you go to the podium, sir and give your name and address for the record. Speaker 2: I'm Jerry Goodman, 39 Charles Street, right next door. Speaker 1: Hello there. Speaker 2: I overall supportive of the project. Please have a couple questions. Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 2: One thing that came up,
and I'm actually, I'll bring this up on behalf of the owner, 34 Trial Street across the street, that 36 Trial Street is a bot that is currently under construction. I'm sorry. Speaker 5: Sorry about that. Speaker 1: Alright. Speaker 5: Do I need to repeat any of that? I heard it, I think. Okay, I think we got it. Yeah. So 36 just is starting construction now and we have concerns about traffic and parking on the street in terms of being able to manage two properties directly across the street from each other without impeding access to our houses without not being able to park at our houses. Speaker 1: Let me just ask a question. Same guy, same developer.
Speaker 4: I don't know that it's the same, might be the same. One of the principles might be the same. I don't wanna say that if I'm not positive though. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Keep going. Speaker 5: Yeah, so we just wanted to raise that as a question and a concern about how that will be managed. Speaker 1: So let, let's, let's do one at a time here. So we don't have, we have no jurisdiction over the street right? But we can ask if there's any intention about keeping the, the cars and the trucks off the road. Speaker 4: Yeah, we'll, we'll obviously keep to the town code and, and building code and rules as far as when they can start. And my client builds a lot in town, so he's, he's familiar
with most of the areas and we don't get many complaints about that type of thing once it starts. And I'll make the note to him as well that there's another one across the street if he doesn't know about it and make sure the road's as clear as we can keep it. Speaker 5: Thanks, we appreciate that. Another question about water management. So we noticed that the property has a basement. I'll say that I think it was four years ago, I dug the holes in my yard. Jim White, who is the health director, came to my yard, looked in my yard and said, there is no way you can have a basement on Charles Street. No one can have a basement on Charles Street. So I just wanted to raise, we were really surprised to see that.
And one of the reasons I bring it up is storm water is a nightmare on our section of Charles Street in the winter we get thick ice because of existing water issues from other yards. And I'm worried that this is gonna increase water runoff into the street and make that problem even worse. Speaker 4: Sure. And, and I believe we will have a drainage plan that the building department is gonna require before they issue the building permit itself. So there will be a storm water management plan as part of the construction. Speaker 5: Okay. And like I said, we were just surprised to see the inclusion of a basement. 'cause we were told it was absolutely a no go.
It's not possible. And we have the exact same soil conditions, of course, right next door. Speaker 1: So I'm just gonna, I'll just give you something for the record here. I'm reading from a letter from Public Works Engineering to me dated March 6th. The project appears that it will exceed the threshold to require a minor stormwater permit, but does not fall within the A PD Aquifer Protection District. The applicant shall provide an appropriately sized stormwater infiltration facility on the lot to mitigate stormwater impacts soil testing to verify the design will be required. The information will be viewed as part of the stormwater permitting process
that will be done in combination with engineering and the board of health. Speaker 5: Okay. I I'm sorry, I I misread it. I thought it had already been done. Speaker 1: Which part? Speaker 4: I think I know where you, our plans show it, but in order for us to build that basement, we have to get the DPWA plan. Yeah. For the storm water that Okay. And if they say you can't put it in Yeah. Then Speaker 5: That's, I think I just misread one of the other documents. Alright. Yeah. What Speaker 1: Was the other, this in, in our experience should result in a, in a net positive. Okay, Speaker 5: Well that's good to know. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 4: The storm water plan. Yeah.
Speaker 5: In just a, a selfish personal one, we have a fence between the properties and we just wanna make sure the fence won't be disturbed Speaker 4: If it's on your property. It certainly won't be. Absolutely. Speaker 5: I'm sorry, it's on the property line with the permission of the previous owner. Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I can, I apologize. I was reading you were talking. I wasn't paying attention. No, Speaker 5: No worries. I was just questioning whether our fence between the properties would be disturbed 'cause it's right on the property line. Speaker 1: Whose fence is it? Mine. It will not be disturbed. Speaker 5: Is there something else Speaker 1: David? And let's put it this way, if it is disturbed, it will be, it'll be fair enough. You'll get a new fence. So let, let me just,
I'm just gonna give you one more thing here. I'm reading now from the Board of Health, a letter from to me dated March 3rd. Soil tests were conducted in witnessed by the Board of Health on October 16th to determine the estimated season of high groundwater in order to provide a minimum of two feet of separation from the foundation slab floor and the, and eliminate the need for a sump pump. Indication of the seasonal high groundwater was observed approximately three feet below grade at the time of the soil tests. Final grade must be completed to ensure drainage from this site will not adversely affect
any direct abutters. Okay. Alright. Anything else? Speaker 5: I just have one design comment that I'm a little sad to see another house going up and is a brand new house that no one will ever be able to put useful solar panels on because of the direction of all the roofs and the only roof that would be appropriate is shaded by the hill. Speaker 1: But Speaker 5: That's just a overall comment. Thank you. Speaker 1: Anybody else wish to be heard about this project? Okay, seeing none. Does the board have any questions? Hearing none. Could we get a motion? Jason's not here. So who's feeling
no one's getting approved today. Jeff, how about you Ari, how about you? I Speaker 6: Can do it. I'll give a shot if you walk me through it. Sure. I'll, Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll walk you through it. Go ahead. Speaker 6: I would move that we approve the application per Massachusetts general Law Chapter 40 a section six and the its zoning bylaw section four B and five A to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct the new single family dwelling on the preexisting non-conforming lot as shown on the plan submitted. Speaker 1: I'd say provided that, I'm gonna just give you a hand here. Provided the project be built in substantial conformance
with the plans that are submitted, Speaker 6: The project be built in substantial conformance with the plan submitted Speaker 1: And that the finding is that there is, that this project is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming user or structure. Speaker 6: And the finding that this project is not substantially more Speaker 1: Detrimental. Speaker 6: Detrimental then event dental to the preexisting non then the preexisting nonconforming structure. Speaker 1: Exactly. Second. Jeff? All those in favor? Okay. You're all set. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. The next project is 12 Sunshine Avenue, an application
for Steve Carvallo for a finding per mass general law. Chapter 48, section six, and then annex zoning bylaws, section four B and five A. The applicant proposes to construct an addition on the existing, I'm sorry, the preexisting nonconforming lot as shown in the plan submitted. Hi there. Hello. Let me just take a peek here. See what we're up against. Okay, so you don't have the lot area, you don't have the frontage, you've got the depth, your front yard's nonconforming but will remain. So the side is conforming
and will remain conforming. How is it on the corner? Is this on the corner? No. Okay, so just here we have side, side yard setback. West, Speaker 3: Well maybe Speaker 1: Sunshine. Speaker 3: Sunshine. Speaker 1: So this 13 four existing and then it says 13 four slash 18. Three two at two edition. Let's see, 18 three. I see, I see. Okay, got it. Yep.
And the e setback is 4.5 feet, so nonconforming and will remain so slight slightly. So both Speaker 3: Are getting better. Speaker 1: Slightly slight, slightly to at least to the addition. Right. The rear yard setback is conforming and will remain so the coverage is well under, the height is not changing and the building girl, so that doesn't matter. Okay. Alright. Let's
Speaker 3: See. Speaker 1: Okay, I think I understand it. What would you like to tell us if anything other than what we can see, it's all there. Speaker 7: I'm James Jordan, I'm, I'm the HIC, this is Mr. Carvalho and Mr. Beck is his neighbor. That's the 14. So he's the, I don't know if it's east or west. Pretty straightforward raised addition, he heel copi, least intrusive to the soil, just giving Mr. Carvalho some additional floor space.
Make his house more useful. Got it. More valuable. Thank you. Speaker 1: Let's see. Okay, so I'm looking here at a March 6th letter from the Conservation commission says the lot does have wetland jurisdiction on the property. You're aware of this? Yes. Proposed work does fall within the limits of the 200 foot riverfront area on the lot and will require approval by the native conservation commission. Conservation staff would recommend a request or determination of applicability given that the work is, is in outer riverfront area and is proposed to be constructed on piers. Okay, so you're aware of that? Yes. Okay. Does anybody here wish to be heard on this project at
12 Sunshine Avenue? Speaker 8: Just say Speaker 1: A couple things come on up. Just give your name and address for the record if you would. Bob Speaker 8: Eck. I'm at 14 Sunshine a I put it in addition on my house back in 2010. And basically the same thing that he's doing, it's gonna extend back as far as mine does and I'm closer to the, the riverfront wetlands as they like to call 'em, which is really a puddle that dries up in the summer. So that's it. That's all I got. Thanks very much. And mine's on tears too, so no foundation. Alright, good enough. It's, and it's standing, it's structural
sound and it's still there. Speaker 1: Glad about that. Still works. Thank you. Okay, thanks very much. Anybody else wish to be heard on 12 Sunshine Avenue? Okay, seeing none. Any questions here? Thoughts, comments, concerns? Looks relatively straightforward, right? Alright, you want to, you wanna try it again? Speaker 6: Yeah, we'll go it again. Alright, Speaker 1: Here we go. Speaker 6: I would move that we approve the project at 12 Sunshine Avenue pursuant to master general Law, chapter 40 a, section six, and Natick zoning bylaws, sections four B and five A to construct an addition on the preexisting
nonconforming lot as shown in the plan submitted, provided that the structure is built in substantial conformance with the plans submitted herein and is not substantially more detrimental to the preexisting non-conforming structure. Speaker 1: Okay, second. Second. We got Jeff. Oh, or Alan. Okay. Okay. All those in favor? You're all set. Thank Speaker 3: You so much. Thank you Speaker 1: Very much. Thank you. P Next matter is 54 Pilgrim Road, an application for 50 pilgrim, LLC for a finding per mass general law. Chapter 40 a section six zoning bylaws,
section four B and five A. The project is defined as a standing tear down. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition on the preexisting non-conforming lot and structure. I'm sorry, in addition, on a preexisting non formula lot and structure on the preexisting nonconforming lot is shown the plan, I think there's a typo there somewhere, but we get it. Hello there. Hello. Good evening. 54 pilgrim. Hold on one second, let me take a look. Okay, so the lot's small, not enough frontage. The depth is there, the front's good.
The side's non-conforming. And is this a corner? So let's see, 10.9, but the additions 14.1, is that it? Speaker 9: Correct. Speaker 1: Let's see, 14 one. Okay. Yep, I got it. Ten nine. Yep. 14 one. Okay. And then we have the east side is non-conforming, but it will become conforming to the, to the addition on the other side it's tucked in
and then we have the rear yard setback is conforming, it'll remain so the coverage is conforming, it'll remain so the height is going up, but, or remain below. Okay. So the first question is, is there a height calculation on, on the plans? Is, is the, is the lot fairly flat? Speaker 9: Yes, sir. Speaker 3: Flat. Speaker 1: Alright. Any grade changes being proposed? Speaker 9: No sir. Speaker 1: No. No grade changes. Okay. Okay. Speaker 10: Can you explain square footage? Speaker 9: Yeah, square footage is about 3,500 square feet,
but there's gonna be an open foyer, so it's actually 33 50. Speaker 10: Okay. On the zoning chart it's 8,800 Seems large. Speaker 9: Yeah. Speaker 11: That might have been a, yeah. Is that a typo then? It says 8,814 square feet. Speaker 9: Currently. Speaker 11: Well, currently proposed. Speaker 9: Proposed, Speaker 11: Yeah. I think that line is sort of outta whack. The fir, it says required, but it's, there's no real floor area that's required. And then existing And then proposed. Speaker 9: Yeah, proposed leave square. Sorry, go ahead. Speaker 11: Well, do you have that, do you know, do you know what we're looking at? We're looking at that
Speaker 3: Zoning chart. Speaker 11: Do you wanna come take a look at it? Speaker 9: Yeah, I actually have that. I can pull it up. Speaker 11: Okay. Yeah, it's just that last line. Speaker 3: We're wondering Speaker 11: What you said of 30 something, a hundred square feet sounds much, sounds much more accurate, so, Speaker 9: Yep. Speaker 1: Yep. Speaker 3: And are you Mr. Speaker 9: Yes I am. And that is my partner Shlomi right there. Speaker 3: Okay. Do you see what we mean there? Speaker 1: Do you see what he's talking about? Speaker 9: I know what he's talking about. I'm just trying to find a file. Okay. Yeah, sure. But the 11 square footage proposed should be 3,500 square feet. Alright, Speaker 1: So we're gonna just change that in the chart.
It doesn't have to be filled out. Yeah. This part, so it's not critical, but plus or minus 3,500. Okay. Speaker 3: Not covered? Oh yeah, probably. Right. Speaker 1: So there's a note here from Public Works Speaker 3: Document. It's just a typo. Yeah, it's just a typo. Yeah. Yep. Speaker 1: Saying applicant may still want to provide an appropriate decide storm water infiltration facility on the lot to mitigate stormwater impacts. Any plans to do that Speaker 9: For the storm water, Speaker 1: Storm water infiltration? Speaker 9: I was told that I didn't need to do the storm water by when I came by here and spoke to Vincent. Speaker 1: That's a discussion
you're gonna have with the Board of Health. Speaker 3: I, Speaker 1: Okay. I don't see anything else. Does anybody wish to be heard about this project at 54 Pilgrim Road? Yes, ma'am. Hi there. Just give your name and address for Speaker 12: The record. My name is Nancy Plaster. I live at 10 Ranger Road, which is directly behind the lot at Pilgrim. Yes, ma'am. Just a couple questions. The, the height of the second floor renovation, how significantly higher will it be going according Speaker 1: To the, the, the, the chart here? It currently it should 32 at, hang on one second.
It's currently at Speaker 3: 2020 Speaker 1: Feet and it's going to 32. Okay. The max in that district is 35. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 12: So the landscaping in the backyard, there's a large tree which kind of blocks the backyards from each other. Is that gonna be removed or is that gonna stay? Speaker 9: Depends. Do you want to be removed? Speaker 12: I don't want it removed If that this, if it's gonna be that high, if the second floor is gonna be high, then we Speaker 9: Won't remove it. Speaker 12: And then the, the fence that separates the two yards, I believe is, is yours
and it's, it's pretty damaged right now. So I just wanna check and see if that's gonna be Speaker 9: Fence will be replaced. Okay. Speaker 12: All right. Those are my questions. Thank you. Speaker 1: Making note, Harry. Speaker 6: Yeah. Where's the location of the fence? Speaker 1: Rear. The rear. Speaker 9: Rear. Speaker 1: Anybody else have any comments, questions about this project at 54? Pilgrim board? Have any questions, comments, thoughts? So Speaker 11: Just a review here, it's, it's only frontage. Speaker 1: It is lot Speaker 11: Size. Lot size and frontage. Speaker 1: Lot size and frontage. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 11: Yeah.
I appreciate the fact that it's, you're not trying to max out the coverage of the site, not maxing out the height of the, that you could go to. Speaker 9: No problem. Try my best. Speaker 1: Okay. With that straight, straight shooter. Okay. Anything else? Anything else? Okay, we'll close public hearing. Here we go. Speaker 6: I would move that we approve the project at 54 Pilgrim Road pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40 a section six NA zoning bylaws, section four B
and five A to construct an addition of the preexisting non-conforming lot and structure on the preexisting non-conforming lot. Provided that the structure is built in substantial conformance with the plans contained herein and is not substantially more detrimental to the pre-existing non-conforming structure. Applicant has stated that they will keep the large tree in the backyard per the neighbor's request and replace the fence in the rear as well. Speaker 1: So the last two, I'm just gonna minute are conditions of the approval. Okay. Yeah. And then also for, for all of them,
it's gonna be and in accordance with the requirements of the town departments. Okay. Second as amended I, her Speaker 13: Neighbor, I thought it would be much later. Speaker 1: Oh, could I Speaker 13: Add a comment or is it too Speaker 1: Late? We closed the public hearing. We, because you're here. We'll, we'll listen to you. Speaker 3: Do we need a motion to reopen? Speaker 1: I think we do. Yeah, Speaker 3: I moved. Speaker 1: Yeah. Motion Speaker 3: To reopen Speaker 1: Second. We got two seconds and a third. Okay. All those in favor? Alright, so back open. Just come right to the podium and give your name and adjuster the record. Speaker 14: I'm Rebecca Fallon. I live at Seven Ranger
and I have no objection to what they're planning on doing. My only comment and concern is we have had catch basins repeatedly on ranger flood. They aren't always well situated in the road, but I'm concerned about more runoff from them having more on there. I saw one of the senior, I think it was the engineer report, suggested perhaps having something that was more permeable on the lot. So if that was possible I would love that. But hearing that he's keeping the tree, that does make me very happy because there's less to be flowing away when there's a tree helping hold stuff down.
Speaker 1: So this is what I can tell you. We, before you got here, we asked a question about whether they were gonna put in any storm water infiltration, which is not mandated, but Speaker 14: I did, I did. See it was not mandated, sir. Yeah. Speaker 1: So the answer was no. But I can tell you this, that the board of health requires the following. Speaker 14: Thank you. Speaker 1: Huh? I don't see one. Is there anything in here from the board of Health, Speaker 14: There was something online, it did not require tons of work being done on anything. Here it is. It mentioned about like asbestos needing to be mitigated if there was any,
and a dumpster that the town approves basic Yeah. Things that I would expect. Speaker 1: Yeah, normally it's, it's got some additional language here, but, okay. Well you've heard now about some concerns on that lot in particular. So you might wanna rethink the, the storm water infiltration because obviously you don't want storm water running off your lot into another one. We're not gonna condition it on that because the, it's not required, but I think that's something that you should consider. Okay. Of course. Anything else? Speaker 14: No. Keeping the tree will also help.
We've had so many trees disappear, so I know you're not required to, but thank you. Problem. The tree canopy is very helpful. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Thanks very much. Yeah. And Speaker 14: Thank you so much for having Speaker 1: Speak. I wasn't sure. Okay, so we'll close the public hearing again reclose. And Speaker 15: We have the existing motion on the floor. Speaker 1: Do we vote on it? Not Speaker 15: Yet. Not yet. Okay. Speaker 1: Was it seconded? Speaker 15: Yes. Speaker 1: Yes. As amended. Seconded. Seconded. As amended. As amended. Okay. All those in favor? You're all set. Okay. Speaker 3: Thank you all. Thank you. Alright, Speaker 1: Thanks. Next matter up for public hearing is 47 High Street,
an application for Robert and Mary zko for refining per mass general law. Chapter 40 a section six. In the native zoning bylaws, section four B and five A, the applicant proposes to raise the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the preexisting nonconforming ladder is shown on the plans of move. You just hold on one second. Let me take a look here. 47 high streets. Okay, so the lock's small, the frontage is not there, the depth is there. Is this a corner? I don't think so. Again, not
Speaker 3: A corner. No, Speaker 1: Not a corner. But there's, there's two depths, there's two figures for depth. Speaker 16: Well you got one. Hi Jim Roberti from attorney from Wellesley. I'm looking at the, the, the what he calls the certified plot plan and he's got 1 47 79 on one side and one Oh I see Speaker 1: It. Speaker 16: The courses. It's the courses. It's the courses, right? Yeah, yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay, I'm with you. Okay. Speaker 3: Okay. Can you say your last name again? Speaker 16: Roberti. R-O-B-E-R-T-I. Alright, thank Speaker 1: You. In any case, it exceeds 1 25. Speaker 16: Yeah, it exceeds Speaker 1: The front yard setback is nonconform,
but what we brought into conformity, Speaker 16: Well we're bringing that back in. Right? Speaker 1: The side, the west side is conforming will be reduced but remain conforming. The east side is conforming will be reduced but remain conforming. The rear is conforming and will be extended. The coverage is conforming and will remain. So o the height's going up but will remain below the max. And is tell, tell us about the lot if you would. Is it relatively flat? I it looks, yeah. Yes. Speaker 16: Yeah, I'm looking at the contract. Speaker 1: Any major grade changes? It's relatively flat lot.
Any significant grade changes proposed? Speaker 16: No. No. Speaker 1: Okay. And do we have a, a height calculation on the plan from the average grade plane? Speaker 16: Let's see. Speaker 17: Yes. The average, Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 16: Building, well, building height is 35. It'll go up to existing. The existing is 26 and a half and they'll go up to 32. Speaker 1: Okay. The, the chart says 26 and a half to 33. Yeah, Speaker 17: That's what's Yeah. I mean, but we can, we can lower it. Speaker 16: Yeah. 33 Speaker 1: Highest ridge, 30 point 30 feet, eight and a half inches.
Is that what, is that what you're seeing? Well, Speaker 11: That's to the top of concrete, so, oh, that's on topic. We get down to grade. It's probably what they're saying. Yeah. What do they say? 32 ish? Speaker 16: 33. 33, right. Yeah, Speaker 17: I mean we, we put 33, but we can lower it. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. It's not Speaker 11: Five. Yeah, right. That's, yeah, definitely not five. Yeah, Speaker 16: We have elevations included I think within the package. Speaker 11: Yep. You do. Speaker 16: Garage is in the front, taken out the old garage, which is kind of an old dilapidated thing that's coming down. So
Speaker 11: That's what was in the back. Yeah, Speaker 16: That's in the back. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 3: Alright. Speaker 16: The four bedroom, three and a half. Three and a half bath. Chris? Yes. Three and a half bath. Two car Speaker 11: You said? You said three and a half bath? Yeah. Oh, how many square feet? Two and a half. Speaker 16: Yeah. Two and a half. Excuse me. Speaker 11: Two and a half sounds better. Yeah. For Nick, yeah. Wellesley maybe, but not, yeah, Speaker 16: I think it's around 3000. Yeah, Speaker 18: Just under 3000. Speaker 16: Yep. Which is what people want today, that size house. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay.
I think we understand the project. Does anybody wish to be heard about the project? Come on up. Use your name and address for the record. Speaker 18: My name is Glenn Glader and I live at 28 Reynolds Avenue, which is almost kitty corner to this property. I sent you guys an email, I made a mistake in that email in which I said I would no longer be a member of the planning board when this came before you, but that doesn't happen till tomorrow. So as of right now, I am still a standing member of the planning board, although I am not here in that, in that regard, in that capacity. I am not gonna read the email. Hopefully you read the email that I sent you.
I'm not gonna read it at this point. I have one concern and that is that the proposed house is out of character with every other house around it. I, when you guys are deliberating, is it gonna be more detrimental to the neighborhood? One of the things that I don't hear is what are the houses around this one like, because that to me is what helps to determine whether it's gonna be more detrimental to the neighborhood. So in my email, I sent a little chart that I gleaned from the assessor's site of sizes, living area of the houses around it
and the lot sizes of the houses around it. And what's proposed right now is gonna take the existing house, which is the smallest house in the neighborhood, and make it the biggest house in the neighborhood. It's going to triple the, the living area. And I'm not opposed to a new house being constructed on this site, I am opposed to a new house of that size being constructed on this site. If it was 2200, 2300, maybe even 2,500 square feet and designed a little bit differently, I think
that it could fit in with the neighborhood. There are houses that are similarly sized around it. I'm thrilled that they're making it slightly more compliant by pulling it back off the street. But it's gonna be pushed right up against as, as close as it can legally to the house on the south side. One other thing I'd like to just point out, every time you said East and every time you said West should have been North and south east is across Speaker 1: High Street, you're right. I see the compass now on the plans.
Speaker 18: Yes. And I think that's a mistake in the application because the documents refer to east and west when it should be north and south. Yeah. I'm just gonna Speaker 1: Make a note Speaker 18: Here. So the, at any rate, I, like I said, I'm not opposed to, to a new construction going in there, I just think that what's proposed is too big and maybe a little bit too high, so, Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks very much. Speaker 18: Thank you. Speaker 1: Anybody else wish
to be heard on this project? Speaker 16: We have Mr. Zko here. So my, my client Speaker 1: Hold on one sec. Speaker 16: My client is, Speaker 1: Hold on one sec. Okay, sure. Does anybody else wish to be heard on the project other than the applicant themselves? Okay. Okay. Seeing none, happy to hear from your client if you wish. Speaker 16: Sure. We, my client's, Chris here, who's the builder, but Mr. Zko is here with his attorney. Okay. And I think he can speak best to the neighborhood character better than, than, than I can. Sure. So if he'd like to come up. Speaker 19: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Daley. This is John Zko and he's also an engineer
and he'd like to speak to the board Speaker 1: If you could. Absolutely. Thank Speaker 19: You. Why don't you, Speaker 20: I assume the microphone is on the green light's on. Speaker 1: I believe it is. Speaker 20: Thank you. And for the record, my name is John Middle initial M Zko, Z-I-C-K-O. My residential address is four Byron's Way in Franklin, Massachusetts. And I am the personal rep for Robert w Zko. Date of death, July 2nd, 2019. I, I grew up in that house, lived there since 1963 and am am well able to speak
to the character of the neighborhood. I would point out that at 44 High Street, there is a house that has a living area. And this is all from the Natick GIS assessor's website. There's a living area in there of 2,416 square feet and another building with 420 for a total of 28 36 square feet. And that's on 15 hundreds of an acre. And at 54 High Street there is a 2,730 square
foot house, 2,730 square feet living area on 14 hundreds of an acre. So to say that, you know, there, there are bigger houses on the street, there are smaller house, this is one of the smallest houses on the street. But to say that it's totally out of character, I think is, is somewhat of a mischaracterization. Speaker 1: Just for the record, we're talking about 38, correct? Eight 20. Speaker 20: I'm sorry, I didn't understand that Speaker 1: You, the proposed is 3,820 square feet. Speaker 20: I would, I would need attorney Roberti to speak to that.
Speaker 17: No, that's incorrect. Yeah, Speaker 1: I'm, I'm reading it from the chart. Speaker 16: Okay. So Speaker 17: That would, that would include the basement, Speaker 16: So second floor area. Speaker 17: So anything above ground, above ground. If we didn't, Speaker 16: 29 80 29 80, yeah. Above ground basement. So yeah, first floor living area is 1328 and second floor is 1605. Speaker 15: I have a question. What is the percentage increase? Square footage wise? Speaker 17: You've got that Speaker 16: Of the house or of the law coverage?
Speaker 15: The house. Speaker 16: Okay. So we're going from, do we have that, Chris? Speaker 17: Yeah. And what date the exhibit? Well, according to the assessor, it's what, Speaker 16: 16 0 5, 13 20. Speaker 17: Hold on, lemme check that Speaker 16: Chart. 29 33. Speaker 15: So a third basis Speaker 16: Parcel 4 56 for the garage. Yeah. 29 33. What's the, the current Speaker 17: Sewing chart. Speaker 1: While you're doing the math on that, let, let me just tell you before we come up with a figure here, what, what's going in the basement? Speaker 17: Yeah. Just finished a yeah,
finished basement. Just a rec room. Speaker 1: Right. So in, in Natick the gross floor area includes the basement. Okay. So the, I'll just put it on the record. The sum of the, this is gross floor area. The sum of the areas of all stories of a building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the center line of walls, separating two buildings, including any floor area below grade when usable for residential office business, storage, industrial, other purposes, but excluding any area used exclusively for heating, air conditioning
or other mechanical equipment which services the building. So I think the figure is Speaker 16: Probably, I think yeah. Speaker 17: Okay. I didn't know if that Yeah, I thought Speaker 16: Not extra bedroom. So it's a still four bedroom house. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. So it will be the biggest, it sounds like to me, at least according to the chart that we've been provided. Okay. Anybody else wish to be heard? I still, yes ma'am. Oh wait, percentagewise, maybe we can bring you a microphone. No, no, it's okay. You're good. Speaker 21: I've been hobbling like this for weeks now. Okay. Very proud. Mike. I pushed you off. Okay.
Speaker 1: Again, your name and address for the record. Speaker 22: My name's Gail Wein Roberts 26 Western Avenue. I live a few blocks away from this application and I would like to point out that whenever a much larger house is brought into one in our traditional historic neighborhood, it changes the calculation, the, the average for that street. And it's frequently, I, I know I'm telling you what you already know, but it does change the calculation
going forward for what is going to be largest, smallest, et cetera, for the obvious reasons. And it has created real issues. The other issue is when a much larger house goes in, it raises taxes for the neighbors because the selling price is, excuse me, much higher than the original house was. So for instance, in my, in my location where there used to be an apartment house, which sold for about $700,000 three years ago, there are now three
separate units that sold for more than a million each 1.2 to 1.4 million. This is definitely impacting our taxes and I know that there's been a lot of talk about how this is a good thing for Natick because it's raising tax revenue, but it is not good. It is a detriment for people who live nearby and are now having our properties assessed at a much higher amount. So I think Speaker 1: I I don't think that's within the area
of our review. Speaker 22: I know it isn't directly, but since you're trying to calculate detriment of substance Yeah. That is substance record, Speaker 1: That to the extent that this board is determining detriment, that is not one of the reasons. Purpose of the zoning code is to promote the life, health, safety, morals, convenience, and welfare of the townspeople to lessen the danger from fire to improve and beautify the town to protect real estate from damaging uses of adjacent property and to further the social and economic prosperity of the community.
The following regulation for the use supremacy and the construction location use of the building are hereby established under the authority of chapter 48. So I, I don't think that is a, a relevant basis for the board to consider, but thank you for the input. Speaker 22: Yeah, well, and, and I'll just retreat to the bit about how it does change the calculation of, of detriment for that neighborhood based on the size. Speaker 1: Very well. Thank you. Thank you. Does the board have any questions?
I think it's, I think it's Speaker 15: Returning to my question. I'm just curious if you had a chance to calculate a percentage of Speaker 16: No. 'cause I can't find that original number. You know, I don't see it on any of the paperwork at all what the originals square foot of the house is. We know, Speaker 1: Well we're gonna get some input here, some additional input here Speaker 16: Because we were at 38 right now. Speaker 1: 38 20 is what's indicated. So if you had to arrived, sir, just again, we know you are, put it on the record again. Speaker 16: This house right now is what Glen Speaker 18: Glad Speaker 1: Have you stopped just for a moment. Just in 20, excuse folks, gentlemen. Gentlemen, Speaker 16: I'm sorry.
We're just trying to get the number. That's okay. Speaker 18: It's Glen Glader, 28 Reynolds Avenue, the chart that I put together, which, which matched up where I had the same houses that were, that Mr. Ziko mentioned earlier, previous speaker mentioned earlier for 47 High Street, the gross living area currently is 919 square feet. Yes. Speaker 1: So we can do the math ourselves. Right. Speaker 18: I'll also point out, since I have the microphone, that the lot size that is mentioned in this application also differs from what the assessor has as a lot size. So if the application is correct, then
I think the town is owed some taxes. And my guess is that I'm gonna stop my No, no, no, I'm just, that was, that was an aside. My, my my guess is that the assessor's size is correct and the lot size is 99. 99 67. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. Thank you. That'll have to be resolved. But again, I don't think that's a base. I, by my math here, it's little over four times larger, which is too large in my opinion, I Speaker 16: Think. But you know, it's only 40 feet wide. We're actually bringing it in more compact.
Speaker 1: Let me, let me just finish. Okay. It is going to dwarf the buildings in that neighborhood and it may be what people want, but what people want and what people guess are two different things. So if you could do it as of right, you know, you're not here and, but you aren't here. And we have someone who lives, two people who live in the neighborhood or saying this is substantial and the numbers are fairly outsized as far as these things go. I mean, this board is relatively liberal in granting section six findings.
I see somebody nodding, who knows who, who knows. But, but this is, this is substantial. So what would you like to see? Well, it's, it's not what I want to see. I think it's what the neighbors want to see. So I I what I heard was we wouldn't oppose something that was more in line with some of the, i I take it recent projects in the neighborhood that have gone substantially larger than the existing. Just not Fort Thomas, not, not Forex. Yes sir. Your name and address for the record, if you would.
Speaker 23: My name is Alan Marks from Framingham and I'm partners with Chris Todi, the builder. And one thing that we could do is eliminate the finished basement, which would remove about 800 square feet and it would bring it down to 2,980 square feet. The other thing is the, the width of the home is 40 feet wide. I don't know if you've seen the elevation.
Do you, do you have that? Yeah, I think for 40 feet wide it's a very attractive home that would fit in the neighborhood and it would not, it wouldn't look like a McMansion. It would look like something that belongs there. Speaker 1: It's 40 feet on a lot that's 66 feet wide in a neighborhood that would otherwise require 110. Right. The frontage requirement in this district is 110.
You got 66 and you want to put a 40 foot wide building on it. So it's all relative. These, all these numbers have meaning. Here's what I think. Here's here's what I think we, we, we, we often do, right? 'cause this board is, is tends not to be punitive. And we could roll the dice, you could roll the dice and we could vote, or we could listen to what the neighbors are saying. And what I heard was some very thoughtful comments, not the kind of fire and brimstone host of horribles kind of thing. More like, eh, it's, it's just too big.
But I think there's things that can, can work. So what we typically do is have you folks, we continue it, we are gonna do a couple things. If that's the case, we are gonna check the numbers, right. Make sure that the numbers on this are bonafide. And then I think what's typical in these circumstances is that a conversation occurs with the people who have some say in the process we're informed substantially by the neighbors. You watch the three hearings before yours, there wasn't anybody in here opposing it. They kind of, they sailed through without much difficulty.
So this is the conversation I think that should be had and I would encourage you to have it. Speaker 16: So, so I just spoke with Kristen, you know, I think we'd like to continue it Great. And have time to speak to the neighbors and maybe redo the plan if we have to. Speaker 1: Okay, great. I recommend you redo the letter, right. So we get some comments. Yeah. But Speaker 11: Some more commentary for when you guys go away just so you could, again, as David is saying, sort of tell where the certain members may be leaning. One way to evaluate this when looking at is it detrimental to the neighborhood or not, is imagining, you know,
this house done the same house or similar throughout the neighborhood. And one thing we see a lot of times here, and this is really one of the most egregious examples of it, is having the garage so far forward from the front door. It's something where we've also seen a lot of examples of, with this very similar design setting the garage back behind the Yep. Which, you know, which I think we could all agree, typically we don't see the garage slamming you in the face in sort of traditional residential architecture. It is coming more and more prevalent
and it's really to the detriment of overall design and the neighborhood who wants to go down and see a bunch of garages, you know, seeing you, you know, staring you in the face. So I would say that if, if that didn't change, I think you could tell which way I would vote specifically. Yep. Speaker 1: And as long as we're on the subject and, and while I appreciate the sort of instant feedback in terms of willingness to redesign, et cetera that we heard over here with regard to the basement, I think
that's a conversation that you're really gonna want to have with the neighbors, which is to say it does change the total square footage, but it would be, it would look the same. It still look the same, right? It would look the same. And there's a height issue, there's a massing issue. So that, that's, that's I think part of the conversation. But I, listen, I'm really, I really appreciate your willingness to, to, to have that discussion. And so if we could get a motion to continue to Speaker 11: April 28th. Speaker 1: April 28th. Speaker 11: Motion to continue to April 28th. Speaker 1: Second. We have a second here. And all those in favor?
We'll see you on the 28th and then maybe you step outside and you exchange contact information. Speaker 11: Thank you. What time? Six 30. Thanks. Six Speaker 1: 30. Yeah, Speaker 11: Six 30. Thanks Speaker 1: For your time. Thank you very much. Speaker 11: Thank you guys. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, see you April. The next matter up for hearing is Speaker 11: Just Speaker 1: Let these people worldly move their way out. We'll just let these folks leave so I don't have to yell. Speaker 11: David, take your time. Speaker 6: They wanted to roll the dice. Speaker 11: How Speaker 6: Would I, would I say would I vote regardless of whatever my vote is? Right? I say vote to approve the project. You're Speaker 11: Gonna do the motion to. Okay.
Speaker 6: Because that's, it's based on what I would do essentially, but I wasn't sure if that Speaker 11: Changes the, that motion doesn't pass you, you listen, you liked it. Motion to, yeah. I don't know if Speaker 6: That's okay. So I can actually was my prerogative or just sitting up the board to vote Speaker 11: Properly. Speak up. Usually the person who speaks up, he's gonna file's gonna do a Of course. Yeah. Right. Okay, Speaker 6: That makes sense. Speaker 1: Okay, here we go. Alright. The next matter of republic hearing is nine Phillips Street, an application of Dmic Collins for pi, excuse me,
for a finding per mass general laws chapter 40 a section six. And then in zoning bylaws section four B and five A, the applicant proposes to demolish and remove an existing one story room on the south side of the building in a rebuild at one and a half. Story addition on a pre-existing non-conforming lot and structure on the pre-existing non-conforming lot has shown in the plan submitted. Speaker 11: Okay. Speaker 1: Good evening. Good evening. Okay, let me just take a look here. We're gonna see nine Phillips. Okay, so your lot short. Your frontage is good, your depth is short.
Your front is short but will remain. So, oh, this, is this a corner? This must be a corner. Two fronts, two sides. Okay. So you got the first front is short, but it's not gonna change the second's. Short front's short and not gonna change. The side south is the same. It won't change conforming the other side, conforming it won't change. The coverage is going to increase insignificant your heights not changing. Okay. So let's see.
Oh, so okay, you, you, you've got, you, you're giving me the side set back to the garage. Correct? Yeah. Okay. Okay. I get it. Alright. Yep. Okay. That being tighter? Yeah, yeah, sure, sure, sure, sure. I was just thinking how, how could the footprint not be changing, but I see why. Okay. Existing, Speaker 3: Fuck. Speaker 1: Oh, so there's a tear down and a rebuild. Correct. Speaker 24: The the proposed addition is taking up most of the footage, footprint of the existing wing that was probably a outbuilding at some point
and brought in 'cause of the state of the construction of it. So there's nothing worth salvaging in the frame there. So I'm basically rebuilding that footprint. Extending it out the rear. Speaker 1: Yeah, slightly out to the Speaker 24: Rear. Yeah. Another 120 foot Speaker 1: Carrying that little corner back a little further. Yeah. Okay. These plans are really nice to look at. They really are. Well he did them. I know. Oh my goodness. And it's a compliment. It's meant to be, they just are Speaker 11: 3D renderings of every project. Speaker 1: Yeah. They came in and I was like, Speaker 24: Wow, I, I sit at that side of the table often
and getting complete submission is half the work. So Speaker 1: I mean, it just makes it look so attractive. It really does. I mean the different, Speaker 10: It helps your case. I mean Speaker 1: It ain't free. Speaker 24: No, but it was for me. Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean this is, is just so nicely designed. Is this a neighbor here in the back? Speaker 24: Nope. Nope. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Speaker 24: He's here for a good time I guess. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. I mean, the good news is you can look behind you and not see very much. So that's the good news. So Speaker 11: I, I have definitely sort of intrigued. Oh, we do have plans. Okay. I was going online.
Speaker 1: Oh, here. You want me to come over there? I can, I can. Oh, Speaker 11: So I, I got stuck on the rendering, Speaker 3: But lemme Speaker 11: Guys see where the plans are. Yeah, I Speaker 1: Don't, no floor, I don't see any floor plans either. Okay. Alright. So let's see here. We, yep, I, I'll do the old flip for you. Yep. You saw those. This beautiful. Yep. There we go. Existing basement, first floor. Yeah. Over there, right? Yep. Yep. Second floor. Oh, so these are all existing. Okay. Yeah, west is north, existing south. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: So this is the yellow is all new, new box bay
rebuild out of all be demolished. And this, this is new here. New bathroom. Yeah. Okay. Does anybody wish to be heard on this? No. Okay. Hearing none, I, I don't have any questions. As I said, this is the model, you know, that, that for for submission as far as I'm concerned. Go ahead. Thoughts, anybody? Anything? Let me just take a look at the, the letters here, which I presume you've already seen.
Okay. Have you seen the letter from the board of health? Yes. Yeah. So they're just saying here does not appear to increase the imper. It is the recommendation that some means of infiltration provided to mitigate stormwater runout if no means currently exists. That's a discussion you'll have with the Board of Health. Yes. Okay. Anybody else? Anything here? Alright, we'll close the public hearing. Do you want to do another one? Sure. Alright, do it. Speaker 6: I move that we approve the project at nine Phillips Street pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40 a section six, and the Natick zoning bylaws, sections four B and five A to demolish
and remove an existing one story room in the south side of the building and rebuild a one and a half story addition. Provided that the structure is built in substantial conformance with the plans submitted herein is not substantially more detrimental to the preexisting non-conforming structure presently there and is built in accordance with all, with approvals from all town departments. Speaker 1: Second, Andy? All those in favor? You're all set. Thanks very much. Thank you very much. Thank you Peg. Welcome Michael. All right. We have some business for you, right? Yes. Do you have two January 27th or January 27th
Speaker 25: And February 24 that need approval? Speaker 1: Anybody have any questions about those? Alright, let's do one at a time then, right? Is that the way we do or we're doing both lump. Okay. Lump. Alright, you're on. Speaker 6: So I would vote that we move, motion that we approve the, the January 27th, the January 27th, 2025 minutes, as well as the February 24th, 2025 minutes. Speaker 1: Second. Second. All. Okay. All those in favor approved. Move to adjourn. Second. All those in favor? Adjourn.