Click to Home
On the Watertown Seal is a picture of an English Colonist and an Indian exchanging, as peace tokens,  bread for fish.  Captain Roger Clap landed at Nantasket Point in 1630 and rode up Charles River to Gerry's Landing with the first party of Watertown Colonists.
Go To Search
PrintEmailRSS
 

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

 

 
 TOWN OF WATERTOWN

Board of Appeals

149 Main Street

Watertown, MA  02472             

 

Telephone (617) 972-6428

Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman                                                                                                                             Facsimile   (617) 926-7778

Melissa M. Santucci, Clerk                                                                                                                                     www.watertown-ma.gov

Stuart J. Bailey, Member

Deborah Elliott, Member

Carlos Fernandez, Member

 

MINUTES

 

On Wednesday evening, June 24, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing.  In attendance: Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman; Melissa M. Santucci Clerk; Stuart J. Bailey, Member; Deborah Elliott, Member; Carlos Fernandez, Member;  Nancy Scott, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Steve Magoon, Director, Community Development and Planning; Louise Civetti, Clerk.

 

            Chair Vlachos opened the meeting, introduced the board and staff and swore in the audience. 

 

The first item on the agenda is to approve the minutes of the last meeting and the April meeting; however, Chair Vlachos postponed the vote to the July meeting. 

 

Ms. Santucci read the legal notice for the first case:

 

Kevin M. Smith, 259 Lexington Street, Watertown, MA, herein request the Board of Appeals grant a Special Permit Finding in accordance with §4.06(a), Alts/Additions to Non-Conforming Structures, Side Yard Setback, Zoning Ordinance, so as to construct a two-story rear addition, 15?x40.9?, over existing patio, maintaining non-conforming northerly side yard setback of 8?-8.1?, where 10? is required at 259-261 Lexington Street, located in the Two-Family (T) Zoning District.

 

 

Kevin Smith, owner, together with his wife and two children, proposes to put an addition on the back of the house, 15?x41?.  His case was pushed back one month because the Planning Staff suggested a redesign after he had planned to have a first floor bump out with the patio underneath and now they are enclosing the aboveground basement.  He said the house is a Federalist style and he now plans on putting hardy plank instead of brick on the exterior of the addition, changing the windows and then open-up some of the windows that were bricked up in the 70?s in the front of the house and add shutters to complement the architectural style of the house.  The framing and foundation plans were just received last night and he is not sure yet if he is going to do a sono-tube or a full foundation.  The latest statement is 6/9/09 and the plans are dated 6/23/09, pages 1-8. 

 

Mr. Fernandez urges the petitioner to check the building code regarding the spiral stair, as he does not believe that that can serve as a second means of egress for the apartment above. 

 

Mr. Vlachos asked about the accessory apartment.  Mr. Smith said it could be a two bedroom.

 

Ms. Santucci asked if the deck is subject to the rear yard setback.  Mr. Smith said it is labeled as a deck but it is more of a second floor egress.  Ms. Scott noted that this is the same situation as Loomis Street, where the board did not approve it. 

 

Ms. Santucci required clarification of the plan layout.  Mr. Smith explained that the street level is the first floor plan and the property slopes down towards the back so the rear is above ground ? the bedrooms on the first floor at the back of the house are not at grade level.  The addition is for the first floor apartment.  There are 2.5 stories above his kitchen.

 

No one spoke from the audience.  Chair Vlachos declared a business mode and read from the Planning Board report, which approved the case with no peculiar conditions and met the requirements of the special permit finding.

 

Mr. Fernandez is in opposition of extending the non-conforming conditions of adding a two-story addition to that side of the house.  Better interior design can reduce the addition by two feet and comply with the 10? setback on the side yard.  He has always voted against such applications and he will vote against this one.  Chair Vlachos clarified that such applications means alterations of non-conforming structures that are too big.  Mr. Fernandez said the neighbor is 8? away from the property line and it is a matter of having a tighter, better interior design at the first floor. 

 

Ms. Santucci asked if the opening in the family room is required for egress and if it is their back door.  Ms. Scott stated that there is a side entrance as well as a front door.  Ms. Santucci stated that the rear deck could be eliminated, as there are two egresses. 

 

Ms. Santucci asked if their plans could accommodate a stairway that would meet the building code.  Mr. Smith stated that the spiral does meet building code.  He chose the spiral to save space.  He added that the other house doesn?t come back as far if that has any bearing on the decision.  Mr. Fernandez said it is still a side-yard issue and the requirement is a good thing.   Mr. Smith said that is why he is here.

 

Chair Vlachos asked him if he had to change the stair, how that would affect the plans.  Mr. Smith said it would eat up space or square footage in the family area and the master.  Mr. Fernandez suggested that he eliminate the landing from the first floor and run the stairs straight down from the second floor to get under where they have the fireplace. 

 

Ms. Elliott added that Ms. Scott stated the spiral stair is allowable.  Ms. Scott said that this is considered a two-family for building code issues and the building inspector has looked at this.  He is expecting a fire rated around it.  Mr. Fernandez said that a spiral stair is an awful way to move quickly downward.  He added that he believes this is a bad call from a safety perspective.  Mr. Smith said that he is open to Mr. Fernandez?s suggestion of a straight stair. 

 

Mr. Smith stated that the rear egress and the staircase with the double door is one of the primary reasons for putting the addition on and he is going to hold firm to that.  Ms. Santucci said that it violate the rear yard setback as it is not a required egress and he doesn?t have a request for variance relief.  Mr. Smith said that he wants the rear egress and will take into consideration eliminating the side door.  Ms. Scott said that the rear is not required according to these plans.

 

Mr. Smith said with the Planning Board they made the back elevation symmetrical with the two-sets of double doors and redesigned the layout.  Mr. Fernandez said there is a balcony on one side and a stair on the other.

 

Ms. Santucci asked why he needs three doors at the basement.  Mr. Fernandez said that one would go for the second means of egress; one goes into the den and one on the side.  Ms. Santucci asked how he gets to the den from his unit.  Mr. Smith said through the existing basement that is not finished. 

 

Mr. Smith said that in addition to the proposal that they want, they are spending considerable cost and time to bring this structure back to its? historic prominence.  It is a federalist house from the 1830?s and Eli Whitney?s family and they are listening to the Planning Boards recommendations with the historical requirements although he is not in a historical district and they are trying to do what they can to help out and be good stewards of the property. 

 

Ms. Santucci said she doesn?t mind the addition and the extension of the non-conforming setback but there was a case last month where the board asked the petitioner to remove a third means of egress and looking at these plans, there are several means of egress.  Mr. Smith asked why they would want to limit their means of egress.  Ms. Santucci explained that the board couldn?t grant a variance if it was not requested in the legal notice.  Mr. Fernandez explained that the rear setback requires 20? and the stairway is 18.7?.   He suggested that if the plan got tighter with a better design, he would avoid most of these requests. 

 

Mr. Vlachos said that a variance would be needed for the deck or remove the deck or come back and change more things.  Mr. Fernandez said that he is dealing with 1.3? and 2? on the sideyard ? if the plan gets tighter, he can gain everything he wants.  Mr. Smith said it is not an unreasonable request otherwise; he would have put the 2? jog in the side that would not have looked good. 

 

Ms. Scott asked if he was willing to eliminate the stairway in the back.  Mr. Smith said he would eliminate the egress on the side.  He has two kids and that back stairway is how they get to the back.  Now they have to go out the side and down the side.  Ms. Santucci added that he can get out to the back from the family room in the basement. 

 

Ms. Elliott said they cut the width of the addition by 1.3?.  Chair Vlachos repeated the choices ? have the proposed addition without the rear exit; reconfigure this and keep the rear exit; or Mr. Smith added, I could do nothing. 

 

Mr. Fernandez added that on federalist style houses, the corners are important elements in the understanding and experience of the house and the fact that they are adding an addition that hides the corners is not historically sensitive.  The setback makes the historical standpoint clearer not less so.

 

Mr. Smith interpreted the side setback requirement for houses that were there before the side setback was in place and that house was there and it is not that much of a detriment to the situation.  Mr. Fernandez said that he holds a different opinion and will be consistent with his voting. 

 

Mr. Vlachos said he could continue the case, if he chooses.  Mr. Smith said he has already delayed this one month based on the Planning Board?s consultation. 

 

Mr. Fernandez said he would want to see the side and rear setbacks in conformity.  Ms. Santucci does not have an issue with the side yard setback but would want the rear stair eliminated as it violates the requirements.  Ms. Elliott agrees with Ms. Santucci.  Mr. Bailey agrees with Ms. Santucci.  Chair Vlachos stated that this would not pass tonight if there were a vote.  The choices are to get a denial and not do anything or to eliminate the rear deck (and it would pass tonight without the rear deck), or reconfigure the addition to jog it in or pull it back perhaps.  Ms. Scott suggested building it in compliance and avoiding the request before the board.  Mr. Vlachos added that he could continue it to next month.  Ms. Santucci will not be available at the July meeting, there will only be four members present at July, and a unanimous vote is necessary ? which Mr. Fernandez has stated would not pass.  It would then have to be continued to September.  Ms. Scott said if the applicant is willing to remove the stairway in the back, the board could vote tonight and pass the request without losing an additional month.  Ms. Santucci explained that if he decided to make the addition is 12?, add the rear stair, and take off the side door that could be done as a modification because it is within the same footprint.  He can have the vote this evening.

 

Mr. Smith said he would take off the rear door and the rear landing deck.  Mr. Vlachos said the control plans would be modified to reflect that change and new paperwork would need to be submitted.

 

Ms. Santucci motioned to grant the request for the two-story rear addition, maintaining the non-conforming side yard setback of 8-8.1? with the removal of the rear deck with the conditions as stated in the Planning board report.  Ms. Elliott seconded.  Voted 4-1 Granted (Mr. Fernandez voted in opposition).

 

 

   


 

 
 TOWN OF WATERTOWN

Board of Appeals

149 Main Street

Watertown, MA  02472             

 

Telephone (617) 972-6428

Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman                                                                                                                             Facsimile   (617) 926-7778

Melissa M. Santucci, Clerk                                                                                                                                     www.watertown-ma.gov

Stuart J. Bailey, Member

Deborah Elliott, Member

Carlos Fernandez, Member

 

MINUTES

 

On Wednesday evening, June 24, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing.  In attendance: Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman; Melissa M. Santucci Clerk; Stuart J. Bailey, Member; Deborah Elliott, Member; Carlos Fernandez, Member;  Nancy Scott, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Steve Magoon, Director, Community Development and Planning; Louise Civetti, Clerk.

 

Ms. Santucci read the legal notice:

 

Perkins School for the Blind, 175 North Beacon Street, Watertown, MA herein requests the Board of Appeals to grant a Special Permit Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 5.00(f), New Construction Exceeding 4,000 Square Feet, Zoning Ordinance, so as to permit alterations of Lower School Building - removing school house area (37,000 sf) and convert to residential space; further decommission use of 3rd fl area of Potter & Glover cottages (14,800 sf); construct 3-story school building, 53,786 sf inclusive of basement, 234? x 126?, having a proposed sloping roof height at 54?-11?, exceeding allowable 40?; providing 6 additional parking spaces, where 13 add?l are required. No student or staff increase.  Seeking waiver on height and parking. Various site improvements including relocation of  westerly 108-space parking lot with new drop-off area and reconfigure existing north parking lot; raze 2 residential houses; open second vehicle access drive from N. Beacon Street; at the property known as Perkins School for the Blind, 175 North Beacon Street, located in the Two-Family (T) Zoning District.

 

 

Warren Tolman, Attorney, Holland & Knight, and resides at 30 Stoneleigh Circle, Watertown, stated he extends regrets from Steven Rothstein who had a prior commitment but very much wanted to be here and is very involved in the project.  Mr. Tolman, speaking personally as a life-long resident of Watertown, states that Perkins is a jewel in Watertown, a great neighbor, an active member of the community and the world.  Part of their 100-year history there are buildings that have been up and are in need of repair.  The decrease in enrollment from 300 to 200 over the past 20 years is hard to believe but a reflection of the greater need that these students have with more challenges than before.  He is proud of Perkins and their commitment to the community.  Mr. Tolman read the letter from Steven Rothstein, stating that these major renovations will not increase the number of students.  The letter detailed the request and all of the changes that will take place.  Mr. Tolman then introduced Mr. Hoffman.

 

Ken Hoffman, Holland & Knight, wants to be sure his memo from May 21 is in the file for the board regarding a Dover Amendment case.  The two items differing on the ordinance are height and parking.  Parking has been determined to be 13 new spaces; however, they do not have students that drive and the count for the auditorium space at one space per eight seats does not apply as they have a large wheelchair contingent and other handicap aides, which render the auditorium capacity to be not equal to a conventional capacity.  The height is in excess of the ordinance as they wish to make the building architecturally similar to other buildings on the campus ? a flat roof would not look in character.  In his May 21 memo, the Boston College case is exactly on point for parking issues and the height question. 

 

Dan Dyer, Miller, Dyer, Spears, Boston, MA, Architect, gave a brief overview of the plans stating that Perkins really has three schools on campus:  an elementary school, a secondary school, currently located in the Howe Building, and a program specifically for deaf/blind.  Three programs on campus?

 

Tape 1 of 2, Side B

 

Mr. Dyer continued, stating that they tried many options including staying within the existing facility, which was built in 1910 and does not meet the needs of the students today.  The students have to go outside to go in between classes, as these buildings are more vertical than horizontal.  They cam up with a scheme to redo part of the lower school with two new residential cottages and with the extra space, they will decommission the third floor and use it for swing space.  They will build the new school with 40,000 square feet plus a basement.  Mr. Dyer presented a couple of drawing boards showing the campus and the location of the new buildings, parking, existing curb cut, a drop off, emergency exit, and stated the new plan is a much safer plan for the students.  They chose to build three stories as opposed to two, so it would not take up open space and keep the campus green.  They feel the building should have a gable roof to blend in with the 1910 architecture and it is not usable space.  The height will be 52 ? 53?.  The auditorium and the gym have flat roofs and there is a green roof incorporated in the front of the building to bring the scale down.  Mr. Dyer noted that the existing buildings are three stories and narrow at 32? wide.  A school building needs to be 60? wide. 

 

Steven Garvin, Engineer, was sworn in and began by explaining the drainage.  One concept is to go away from putting a lot of structures in the ground for retention (the Planning Board, Conservation Commission and DEP) have all look over this project.  They tried to utilize the existing pond for a ?country? drainage perspective to minimize the amount of pipes.  There is an outlet for the pond through a 10 inch pipe, which works its? way through the MDC system to the Charles River.  A gate will be added to reduce and restrict for larger storms to hold back the water for a short time to improve the stromwater water quality through structures in the parking lot area but then allows everything to flow over land.  The roof drains will infiltrate underneath the relocated playground and works its? way to the pond. 

 

Mr. Fernandez asked if they had considered the LEEDS certification.  Mr. Garvin explained that the project is being designed from a LEEDS perspective and have submitted to the CHPS Program, which is similar to LEEDS for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which is more structured towards schools.  They have added a green roof for environmental and educational purposes. 

 

Mr. Fernandez asked about the parking lot.  Mr. Garvin said they have worked with conservation and they have left 8-9 feet on the parking way to feed the trees and vegetation along the edge as opposed to feeding into the drainage.  They are finding ways to infiltrate additional water into the environment and save some of the trees. 

 

Mr. Fernandez asked why the parking lot is all paved and is the biggest green opportunity.  He is surprised they have not pursued the environmental quality of the Perkins School for the next 100 years by not falling back on traditional parking products. 

 

Ms. Elliott asked Mr. Fernandez what types of materials he is speaking of.  Mr. Fernandez said not asphalt, more shading so that the hard surfaces do not retain so much heat?

 

Mr. Garvin said an existing parking area is being redesigned to allow for a green patch through the middle of it.  They need to have hard surfaces and straight edges for the students and faculty.  The soils are very poor and they considered a pervious surface; however the silt material underneath would require a tremendous amount of structure.  It is not an increase in pavement; they are keeping the trees to increase the shading.

 

Mr. Bailey asked if the two trees that are near the new entrance could be saved by moving the curb cut further down.  Mr. Garvin said the curb cut is existing and there is a hill further down.  There is also a street across the way and would limit the ability to take a left turn. 

 

Marilyn Pettito Devaney, 98 Westminster Ave., a lifelong resident and proud to have Perkins, a historic site and her late mother-in-law was the switchboard operator at Perkins.  She has known Mr. Rothstein for 20 years and he cares for the neighbors and community.  She is representing the Commission on Disability and they are pleased with the ADA accommodations.  The neighbors on Riverside Street will benefit from the lessened cut-through traffic.  She added that Watertown has always been sensitive to the needs of the students at Perkins and as a child she thought all cities and towns had bells ringing when it was safe to cross the street. 

 

Chair Vlachos declared a business mode and reported from the Planning Board and Staff their recommendation to approve the petition with conditions along with the site plan review criteria and the ordinance for excess height in regards to the Dover Amendment and parking with lower requirements due to the students.

 

Ms. Santucci said the waiver for height and parking is appropriate for this use and literal enforcement would be detrimental to this site. 

 

Mr. Fernandez said this is a campus setting and the zoning guidelines are not a good match.  The setbacks are over 100? and he agrees with Ms. Santucci in supporting the application.

 

Mr. Bailey asked if there is an issue with the cars (traffic) being moved from Riverside to North Beacon Street.  Mr. Garvin said there is a report from VHB using the existing curb cut and it states that it is an improvement on campus and for the neighborhood.   Chair Vlachos added that there is a traffic study by VHB dated November 15, 2008.  Mr. Magoon stated that the staff concurs with the report. 

 

Ms. Elliott supports the proposal; she states the building is beautiful, the parking lot fits into the landscape, saving some mature trees and adding landscaping.

 

Mr. Magoon stated that Perkins is a wonderful asset to the community and as an international institution, any community would be proud to have.  Perkins has lived up to the reputation with staff and replied to any issues brought to their attention and the waivers are in line with the Dover Amendment.  Ms. Scott and he reviewed the conditions and some of them have already been met ? especially the looping of the water as the applicants engineer has addressed that issue and provided that connection (condition #16, and showing on the revised plan). 

 

Chair Vlachos stated that this should be narrowly construed as this is a campus situation and the height and parking waiver are not something the board considers lightly.  These students do not drive.

 

Chair Vlachos said his earliest memory of Perkins was as a child of 4, stealing peaches from the trees with his sisters.  He is glad that they are financially sound enough to embark on a building process like this as the only time they have come before the board was to put signs up on North Beacon Street.

 

Mr. Fernandez said the issue of water consumption and energy savings and site planning issues relating to LEEDS rating is not a small matter and Perkins has an opportunity to continue to be a leader and deliver new construction that reduces the carbon footprint and follows all of the LEEDS certification requirements.  It is not a cost issue anymore, there is not additional cost for these better design solutions.  He would urge Perkins to pursue the highest certification possible as the LEEDS program is changing in 2009 and a new rating for schools is coming out.  They should deliver the best construction for schools, including the parking lot.  Hard surfaces are many and not only asphalt. 

 

Ms. Santucci motions to grant the Special Permit for 4.00(f) with the waivers for height and parking as discussed.  Ms. Elliott seconded.  Voted 5-0, granted.

 


 

TOWN OF WATERTOWN

Board of Appeals

149 Main Street

Watertown, MA  02472             

 

Telephone (617) 972-6428

Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman                                                                                                                             Facsimile   (617) 926-7778

Melissa M. Santucci, Clerk                                                                                                                                     www.watertown-ma.gov

Stuart J. Bailey, Member

Deborah Elliott, Member

Carlos Fernandez, Member

 

MINUTES

 

On Wednesday evening, June 24, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing.  In attendance: Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman; Melissa M. Santucci Clerk; Stuart J. Bailey, Member; Deborah Elliott, Member; Carlos Fernandez, Member;  Nancy Scott, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Steve Magoon, Director, Community Development and Planning; Louise Civetti, Clerk.

 

Chair Vlachos took Other Business before the continued case, as he will recuse himself from the continued case. 

He explained 531 Main Street appears to be working out and the issues seem to be resolved.  He then swore in Bill Daniels.

 

Mr. Daniels explained that since the board met the last time, they have communicated with the zoning office, the church fellows, and the nursery school.  In a letter of June 15, 2009, revised June 24, 2009, answering some questions, they outlined the changes.  They have relocated the HVAC unit, cut the concrete to reroute the refrigerant lines and are patching the (areas where the HVAC was located).  They have worked with Charlie Casella, from the church, how to work this so there is no disturbance to the church or the neighborhood.    He then showed a drawing of the original electrical panels and then he showed the smallest unit for the two-meter gang they can install (19x60).  They are installing a solid vinyl fence surround for screening which will prevent children or anyone from getting to the meter without being able to unlatch the fence.  He then read into the record a letter from David Martin, Maintenance, Watertown Cooperative Nursery School, thanking the ZBA and Nancy Scott for keeping them informed of the installation changes.  They have reviewed the plans and all concerns have been addressed.  The AC pad and unit will be relocated to the south elevation, as approved on the control plans, the conduit will be routed underground so as not to run across the Main Street elevation of the building per the ZBA?s request.  The generator switch gear will be removed and located interior.  The meter head will be removed and relocated to the location originally called for in the control drawings.  The screening will be a white vinyl fence or gate that will not intrude onto the adjacent sidewalk or block the window.  The building will be repaired and restored to its previous condition. 

 

Chair Vlachos asked for anyone from the audience to speak ? no one spoke; however, when asked if they were happy with the changes, several audience members nodded in agreement. 

 

Mr. Fernandez asked what will happen to the down spout that was cut.  Mr. Daniels said the hose bib on the side of the building will not be obscured and the down spout will be relocated so there is not any water in the area of the meter ? it will be angled down so as to not deposit water next to the foundation of the building. 

 

Ms. Scott clarified that the new control documents will be the plans submitted tonight from SAI as an amendment.

 

Ms. Santucci motioned to accept the amended control documents site plan.  Ms. Elliott seconded.  Voted 4-1, granted.  Mr. Fernandez voted against, stating the historic elements of the building are his concern.

 

 

 


 

TOWN OF WATERTOWN

Board of Appeals

149 Main Street

Watertown, MA  02472             

 

Telephone (617) 972-6428

Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman                                                                                                                             Facsimile   (617) 926-7778

Melissa M. Santucci, Clerk                                                                                                                                     www.watertown-ma.gov

Stuart J. Bailey, Member

Deborah Elliott, Member

Carlos Fernandez, Member

 

MINUTES

 

On Wednesday evening, June 24, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing.  In attendance: Harry J. Vlachos, Chairman; Melissa M. Santucci Clerk; Stuart J. Bailey, Member; Deborah Elliott, Member; Carlos Fernandez, Member;  Nancy Scott, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Steve Magoon, Director, Community Development and Planning; Louise Civetti, Clerk.

 

Chair Vlachos recused himself from the next case and reminded everyone that since there is a four member board left, a unanimous vote is needed to pass.  He formally appointed Ms. Santucci to chair the remaining case.

 

Ms. Santucci appointed Mr. Fernandez as the clerk and asked him to read the legal notice:

 

Araxie Margosian and Haigaz Markarian, 15 Carlton Terrace, Watertown, MA, herein request the Board of Appeals to grant a Special Permit Finding in accordance with §4.06(a), Alts/Additions to Non-Conforming Structures, Side and Front Yard Setback, Zoning Ordinance, so as to permit removal of  existing roof, 46.2?x 26.9? and reconstruct roof with easterly side shed dormer, 13.375?x 34?, maintaining non-conforming side yard setback of 6.2? ? 6.3? where 10? is required and further raze front entry porch, 8.5?x 6.8? and reconstruct to two-story and enlarge to 10.2?x 6.8?, maintaining non-conforming side yard setback at 6.3? where 10? is required and n/c front yard setback of 12.9?, where 15? is required at 15-17 Carlton Terrace, located in the T (Two-Family) Zoning District.

 

Wayne Pelletier, Architect, stated he was asked to help the residents design a plan for the aesthetics of the home due to the last plan having multiple angles on the home.  He looked at how to bring the hip-style back onto the home.  He took the drawings from the last entry and took photos of the existing home as well as showing his plans to note the differences. 

 

Tape 2 of 2 , Side A

 

Mr. Pelletier redesigned two options ? B1 and B2.  He said the dormer is not extending the entire length of the house.  He also has photos of existing houses in the area that have the dormer right up to the front of the house and photos of homes that have the dormer set back ? like his plans will show for this petitioner.   He reintroduced the hip roof on the house ? the slope has increased as the legal ceiling height requires them to raze the ridge.  Mr. Pelletier spoke in detail of the ridge, gable, dormer and trim; explained the size of the interior is not changing; keeping the recessed balcony; and continuing the gutter-wall continuing the roof across.  B2 adds the gable detail accent over the two-story entrance for curb appeal and to be consistent with the neighborhood.  The two-story roof will continue around the house. If the board accepts the plans, he can have the original engineer re-stamp the plans.  Mr. Pelletier then went through the photos of the neighbors homes. 

 

Mr. Fernandez asked if he considered a hip roof over the back as opposed to a shed roof.  Mr. Pelletier said they can do that. 

 

Mr. Fernandez asked if the chimney has a cricket.  Mr. Pelletier said it will get a new one. 

 

Ms. Santucci said this is an improvement over the drawings submitted last time and she chooses option B2. 

 

Ms. Santucci declared a business mode as there were no speakers from the audience.

 

Mr. Fernandez is in favor of B2 with the hip roof in the rear and a cricket on the chimney.

Ms. Elliott prefers B2, as well.

 

Mr. Fernandez motioned to approve the application with the revised control documents, option B2 with a condition that the hip roof be added to the back porch (Ms. Scott added:  This will continue as a two-family house ? the third floor cannot be used as a separate unit.).  Ms. Elliott seconded.  Voted 4-0, granted.

 

 

 

Ms. Eliott motioned to adjourn.  Mr. Bailey seconded.  Voted 4-0.  Meeting ended at 8:45 p.m.