November 18, 2025 – Zoning Board of Appeals – Video & Transcript
November 18, 2025 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Hi, good evening. This is the November 18th meeting of the Wayland Joining Board of Appeals.
Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted in person and
by every vote means in accordance with applicable law. The public meeting has been posted on the
agenda. This meeting may be recorded and made available to the public on a weekend as soon
after noon as is practicable. Times are approximate and some items may not be discussed in the order
listed or at the specific times estimated. All topics may be subject to deliberation and vote.
Where required by law or allowed by the chair, persons wishing to provide public comment or
otherwise participate in the meeting, they do so by in-person attendance or by accessing the meeting
remotely as noted above. Public comments are requested to be limited to two minutes per person.
So I guess with that, is there any public comment that we have not related to the cases this evening?
Doesn't look like there is here and assuming there's no one online?
No, obviously no one online.
All right, so the next item is review and approve the draft minutes of October 14th. Does anyone
want to award any chance to review these?
Yes.
Any questions?
I'd make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from October 14th, 2025.
Second.
We'll do this by roll call because we've got a mix. So, Mr. Perry.
Aye.
Mr. Hirsch.
Aye.
Mr. Sarian.
Yes.
Ms. Janice.
Aye.
Ms. Paul.
Aye.
All right. Those are approved.
You've got to do yourself.
Oh, definitely.
John White approved. So, there we go. So, thank you. Thank you for that, Mr. Hirsch.
All right. With that, we're going to move on to our first case. This is the continuation of
the CBA case 25-25-21 constituent road. This is the application of the Millbook Group LLC
for the property located at 21 constituent road from the business aid zone. The applicant
is seeking a restaurant used special permit to convert the property to a cafe and bistro,
including outdoor patio seating, although I believe that was pulled out of the application.
The structure is pre-existing and non-conforming as it does not meet the density and setback
requirements of the current zoning bylock. The property is also located in both the
Africa Protection District and the national and local historic district. Additional zoning
needs such as variances or special permits may be required. So, good evening. Thank you for
your patience with us. And I can report that the two members that have missed the sort of
alternating hearings have both watched the video, completed the monetization form, and are now
sort of all set to take this through. Great. And Mr. Chair. There's a preview. Sorry.
Hi, Mr. Chair. And I'm going to be recusing myself from this. Yes. Again. Thank you.
Thank you. All right. So, that leaves the panel that we have of Mr. Perry, Mr. Hirsch,
Mr. Saring, myself, Mr. White, and Ms. Palm. So, just to summarize sort of where we left off,
we reviewed the sort of three-part action that, from my review, Brooktown Council sort of showed
us that we need to consider for this project. One is great, reminding that the lack of off-street
parking is not substantially more detrimental than the current use. That would be step one for us to
deliberate. Step two is granting a special permit for the change of use on a pre-existing non-conforming
property. And three is a restaurant special permit. So, if you think about it, it's one finding and two
special permits. That's the same summation that we agreed to at the last meeting, and that was sort of
the subject that we sort of reviewed. And I know Ms. Paul is going to watch that meeting, and I always
just say our name is here for that. I do. So, with that, that was my takeaway, quick high-level summary
of our last interaction with you folks. And I guess with that, I'd let you let us know if you've had any
additional questions or sort of any additional materials you wanted to review at this time.
No, I don't think so.
Okay. Is there any other comment from the public on this?
Let's see if we have two. If you could, if you could give us your, come on up and just give us your name and address, please.
Thank you. I'm Gretchen Schuler, 126 Old Connecticut Path. And I did speak, I think, at the, I can't remember whether, was it on Zoom? The first meeting?
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
I can't remember.
Yes.
I may have. At any rate, I'm on the Historic District Commission as well, so that at some point we'll be seeing any changes made to the exterior of the property. And, but I'm not here about that. I think that you all are in a difficult situation.
This is a really wonderful opportunity for the town, but we have historic buildings in the middle of a very small space that don't have any extra land for parking. And that's a big issue. And I understand that. And I think that the town has to work together all of the boards to figure out how we can preserve these historic buildings with parking issues.
The other thing is that there are residential, there's a residential property directly next to this property, which is fine. And once upon a time, the history is that the person who owned that house also owned Collins Market. And it was Lobel's Market at that time.
The, I think that the terrace in the back, outside terrace, I hope that there will be some conditions about lighting, screening. And I, I don't know how you could really manipulate noise factor. But I think that those are the kinds of issues that would be appropriate to address the,
the, the residential property. And otherwise, I just, I think that we're really fortunate that someone's come forward to try and preserve this building. And it's a wonderful building. And it's really one of the major features of our historic district. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, oh, sign in. Yes. Sorry about that.
Richard, do you need to sign in? Yeah. Sign here or here? Okay. Um, why don't you go ahead, Richard? Yeah. In the meantime, please. Yeah. Do you want to speak?
Do you want to speak? Oh, yeah, yeah. Go ahead. Oh, yeah. Sorry. No. Um, I'm a neighbor, uh, Marjorie Gaston, 11th District Road. Um, I, like Gretchen, uh, I think the building is a wonderful building and, uh, I'm excited like everyone else is about its reuse.
However, I was really hoping that the zoning board in the town would come up with some kind of a parking, um, solution or whatever before, uh, this was granted. Um, the, um, business itself, when it was last a market, when it was, um, Collins Market, had twice the parking, maybe three times the parking that's there now.
Um, it had, uh, it had, uh, diagonal parking. And when they redid the intersection in 27 and 20, um, they wisely felt cars should not be backing out into 27.
So they made it parallel. They did the same thing at Benson's Coffee Shop, which is now Spice and Pepper. They didn't want cars backing out into Route 20.
Um, I was very much hoping that, um, the town would be working with the state funding for bikeways and trying to
develop extra parking to the east, the freight house or something like that. But right now the parking in town, you just have those few spaces in front.
You have people parking all day. You have the depot. You have the library. You have other businesses competing at, at holiday time, the depot parking lot fills up.
Um, I would like to see this business succeed, as I think you do too. And I think right now they're, for the business they need to make a go of it, people need to be able to get there and park.
Um, and I don't believe they will be able to very well. Um, so I was hoping that, uh, there would be some contingency that you would say, yes, this is approved with the town moving ahead with other plans to provide adequate public parking.
We don't have that in place yet. Um, that's all.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Oops.
Okay. Um, I just have two, I guess, two quick questions for the applicants. Um, I am correct in saying that at the first meeting, you indicated that the outdoor terrace was not part of this application.
Right. Because it requires site plan review.
Uh, so it, in terms of our application here, it re we thought initially or obviously that it required additional setback relief, but then two folds. One, um, it didn't qualify as a structure.
And then two, it already has setback. It's already not performing on the setback relief. Um, so it's our understanding that it will need to go through subsequent review to be approved.
Uh, yeah. Yeah. Under the provision for the outdoor seating, which I believe is unique in Wayland. And it's unique in the fact that that's not a purpose or permits or bifurcated for that, where I think the planning board has to conduct a site plan review for any outdoor seating, even if it's two seats.
Right. Right. Um, indeed. Uh, again, uh, Jeff Fugino on behalf of the applicant, uh, good evening to the board. Uh, yes. And I think these, these types of matters, the lighting and the, and the screening that were raised, um, those are traditional, um, types of site plan review matters.
Um, I think that that's, that may be the best place for them, right? Um, yes, with that, um, do you have any other, I guess, any comments relative to what you heard from members of the public?
You're not obligated to respond to them. And, you know, it's just, uh, I just want to forge that off.
Yes. Um, well, we covered the first that those will be addressed. Um, and even in the initial, um, my initial meetings with the residential neighbor, I've kind of given her a verbal of what I had planned for that. And then we, um, certainly would be very considerate, uh, as much as, as we can, um, with the lighting and the screening and noise with, um, reasonable hours. Uh, so that is certainly on, on my mind to be a good, a good neighbor there. Uh, and also not,
not, uh, at issue here for, for this approval. And then on the parking, I know we had talked about last time that it's already non-conforming and to make it conforming would create new non-conformities.
But I just also wanted to share that the town manager had said that he is, since he is kind of sitting at the intersection of all the various boards and committees that need to go into this, I believe he's still continuing to look into those, um, possible solutions for the greater good of the business district.
And just as a reminder, um, I won't be opening, or this would not be opening until the summer. So we do have, um, quite a while to continue to look for those solutions.
Thank you.
All right. I guess with that, I think, um, the board, I'm comfortable kind of closing the public portion of the hearing right to the deliberation on this. You guys comfortable with that?
Yes, I'll be clear.
Okay. Um, at a high level, um, I think I've given you, given the board sort of the, kind of the three tasks that we have to sort of, to talk about this project.
And I guess if I think about, uh, everything we've heard, both from the applicant and from the neighbor's municipality, I mean, I'm, I'm still convinced that this is an appropriate use for the area.
Um, I think there's a risk and not necessarily on a town. I think there's a risk to the applicant that, uh, the success of the business does depend in a suburb like Wayland on the ability to have vehicle access.
Um, I think it's impossible for us as a zoning board to compel, uh, other agencies in town to solve a town-wide parking problem that is really the responsibility of nobody and sort of everybody collectively at the same time.
Um, so as much as I appreciate the desire to sort of find a way to kind of conditionally approve a project, I don't think we as a zoning board can go beyond our scope and authority.
And sort of, you know, encourage, compel the town as part of the approval process with this project to sort of solve a problem, right?
That's my, that's my opinion on that.
And I think legally it's, it's questionable for us to be able to do that.
Um, I, I think that if we tackle those, uh, if we tackle those three components separately as sort of distinct pieces, I think we could kind of easily like work our way through this.
So I don't know what the rest of the board thinks, but, uh, sure.
Yeah, I think that, you know, first of all, I agree with you.
Um, I think that from the parking issue after, after the conversation at the last meeting is sort of the, obviously the key issue here.
There's been, uh, you know, an extreme amount of support from people in the town and extreme amount of excitement for the concept, uh, in this building and, and in Whalen in general.
Um, I agree that, you know, the, the biggest issues with parking are really the, the, the business concerns.
I mean, I, and so, you know, that first, you know, point to address, you know, whether off street parking is more detrimental than other businesses.
I mean, if there was another business in there that was wildly successful with, you know, there was an office space that had, you know, a lot of, uh, incoming and outgoing traffic.
I mean, why would it be on us or somebody to stop that?
I, I, so I fully am in favor of the, the, uh, project and, um, I think we should work through it in the manner that you said.
Yeah, I, I, I just want to kind of, you know, mimic what you guys are saying a little bit, which is the business itself is a, I think it's going to be a real value add for the community.
Um, it is very obvious that the town really wants this and sees it as a need.
And, and, and I think the, the, the elephant in the room still is the parking potentials and, um, but that's a business risk for the applicant.
Um, and overall though, you know, really rooting for you.
And I think it's going to be a real, real great add to the community.
Well, I was not here at the first meeting, but I was, as I listened to the video, it seems like repeat and repeat and repeat is the parking situation.
I have one, uh, idea that my, if it works, probably it will save your situation.
I want to describe a vision.
How many parking lots, restaurants have in Boston or Cambridge? Maybe none. But what, you know, what do they have? Valets. So what happens if one of your employees, if I, I think you have, you said that you have two different types of visitors, one take off. And then if they go and sit and have whatever they want to have there, one of your employees would violate it and park the car somewhere up the street, probably that resolves your parking situation, which is like, in my opinion, it is a really serious, serious issue. I know the town wants it, everybody wants it, but you know what, I don't want to create risk in creating accidents. But if this works, it resolves your property. So what are the four things about it? It's a, it's certainly an interesting idea. I don't know enough about the regulations on, or if there are any on valet parking, but it certainly seems, it's one of many options that I think on a business decision, the applicant could probably, probably take. But I think the risk to the town on the parking is extremely minimal. I think the risk is kind of 98% in this case on the success of, it's really on the business succeeding here. You know, I think if there's a parking shortage there, I mean, there are, there are parking shortages in areas, in the areas of Wayland now, and there are parking surpluses. There's massive parking surpluses in Wayland, at the town center, at the CVS. So there are, like, I mean, this town has got an inordinate amount of parking for the number of people that we have here. So it was not distributed in the right spot, I guess. Imagine if they create a convenience here for someone parking the car for them. Again, the risk factor, the danger, is a very, very serious issue. I don't want anybody getting hurt because somebody just inconsiderately backed up a car or a forward or so. It's an issue. Parking is an issue when there's a heavy traffic, you know, coming from there. I don't know what, how would they resolve that? I think that's for the applicant to figure out. That doesn't really, yeah. I think that's a great suggestion. Yeah, I mean, I'm just trying to say, if you go to Cambridge or you go to Boston. It's a great, it's a great point. Nobody has parking. I guess, you know, something for the applicant to think about. One of the issues with that is, yeah, one of the issues with that is, they're catering. The cafe is more like a quicker coffee type situation. So maybe for dinner, I could see that. That's what I'm saying. If it's a quick pickup, then it's not a problem. But if it's sitting, they have to, I mean, if one of the employees, if they have, they don't have to hire a valet company or so. One of the employees can take responsibility to park the car. That would resolve your problem, in my opinion. It is one of the solutions we are exploring when the time comes, especially because those peak hours would be the complimentary closing hours for several of the businesses nearby. Rent those slots. Already in discussion. I guess, so, Ms. Paul, do you have any other thoughts here? I probably don't have anything to say that hasn't been said already. But it seems like the applicant has been very diligent in looking into every possible opportunity there is to create spaces and figure out a way to resolve this. So, I mean, aside from the obvious parking issues, I mean, I think that this is a great addition to the town and everybody seems very excited about it. So, I'm happy to support it moving forward. So, I'm sure the applicant will do everything that she can to maximize the amount of space and people who can visit the bistro. So, I guess with that, looking at Section 401.1.2, the key issue is making a final that the proposed use here, which is going to be provided with no parking, is not really any different than the current use, which also has no parking. And, you know, I know that the building has been through multiple uses, and I know that the applicant has submitted a lot of material that sort of went through the parking analysis the applicant had done to sort of show that the amount of spaces proposed here is not any different, really, from the amount of spaces that were available, in which case they're both zero, from the previous use. But I also think she demonstrated that her use doesn't have any more potential users than the existing use inside the building right now has for that. So, I think, you know, by that standard under 401.1.2, I think it's pretty easy to find that replacing one use, that one commercial use, one permitted commercial use in a district, right, on a building that has no parking, with another permitted commercial use in the same district that also has no parking, for which the applicants demonstrated there's not a substantial difference in the amount of vehicles needed. So, I think that's a pretty clear finding that I think we can, as a board, easily support. I don't think we need to, we also don't need to vote on a finding. This is really just a unanimous discussion. Right. So, does everyone agree that I think it's a simple straight forward finding, that there is no, there is no detrimental effect to the change of use? Well, I don't, I don't, I don't, respectfully, I don't necessarily agree, because the existing building, the existing businesses in that building, they don't have any parking, and they don't, there is no parking. There is no parking provided. There was no parking before. There is, there's no parking before. There is no parking now. And they're both uses that demonstrate the same vehicle traffic. So, it's, it's, it's a, it's a, it's kind of like arguing a negative. It's like, there's zero parking providers. I'd be happy to, to discuss further. I see the point. I, I totally understand where you come from on it. And I, I would agree. If there was, with the business that was already there, no parking, no parking now, nothing's technically changing from a parking perspective. Do we hope that there's better options? Absolutely. But technically, it's not really changing that aspect. So, I would, I would agree with you. Yeah, and our ability to control the parking, not on our site, is, is, it doesn't exist. Our ability to sort of, to condition some other form of parking relief isn't, it's like legally, we don't have the ability to do that. Well, what if they find a solution for that, like finding everybody? They, they, they can, they, they can find that. But I, I mean, my review with, uh, town council was very straightforward. That, like, we, we can't, we can't, we can't, we can't, we can't legislate sort of particular vehicles. I'm just suggesting. No, it's a, it's a very, it's a very good suggestion. Yeah. But the, the other thing is, it becomes, it becomes, this argument becomes, it's, it's highly technical, but it's simple at the same time. Like, if this use is not, it's not permitted, the building ultimately has no viability as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a structure. Because, right. I listened to the video. I read the thing for three times. It's all about parking. Correct. So, I mean. Yeah, to me, it's, it's, it, it comes from the fact that it's either, you know, if we think it's not, if we think this use is more detrimental, you know, than the current lack of parking, then, then that would, that would be a very different position. But, yeah. I wouldn't say it that way. I'm just suggesting that, you know, if we can improve it, if they can make this work, it can be improving, improving the situation. Yeah, and we could, we could talk about that as we, if we make the finding under 401.1.2, which I think we did, if we go on to the step two, which is we have to grant the special permits for a change of use on a pre-existing non-conforming, right? The fact that, that there is a, a, a, a use change or something, and that's separate from the restaurant permit. But I, I guess with that, I, I would make a motion under, uh, 203.1 that, let me find that, find that language here, um, that, uh, this board grants a special permit for a change of use on the existing, the pre-existing non-conforming. property, because I think it's clear that as part of this motion, the application is not against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which the use, business, or structure occurs, and is not more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, fumes, odor, dust, or other rejectable features, and that the use does not otherwise, is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangerous. The, um, we'll, um, second on that motion. Second. Um, any amendments to that motion, not? So, just to make sure, as far as, for based on the application, that we are not providing any dedicated off-street parking, as part of this approval. That is correct. Okay, I just wanna make sure that that's a part of that, which would be a separate expectation from what was originally requested. I talk about the original application. Yeah, I just want to make sure that with the card. I believe so. I think wasn't it relief from that? I think it was relief. Relief. Relief from the requirement. In which that's not going to go. Any conditions to this motion? On top of our standard conditions? Well, yeah, but we don't actually need, I think those conditions would apply to the second special permit, which is the rest one. This is literally a special permit allowing them to change the use, not indicating what that use is, but swapping one permitted use that provides with another permitted use. There's no request for relief for an additional use here. It's another permitted use. I don't see it. Okay. All in favor, we'll do this as a roll call. Mr. Perrick. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. Sarian. Aye. Ms. Ball. Okay, how are you? Aye. Sorry. Mr. White. Aye. Okay. So we have granted a special permit to change, a change of use on a pre-existing non-conformer property. So this brings us to the second component, which is the applicant also needs to be needed for a restaurant special permit under section 1102.1.1. So I was going to find that language. So the language here is straightforward. A special permit, in this case from the ZBA, we have to satisfy ourselves if there's a clearly established need for this business in town, it's going to be served. The premise is, it's not going to be against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood. And it is not detrimental because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, or dust, or other detrimental features. It's the same language as before. However, there is the added component that we have to identify, we have to be satisfied that there's an identified need for this. So any discussion on the restaurant special permit? I think that, I mean, there was, as the applicant pointed out, there was a survey done in town saying what businesses would be most wanted. And the coffee shop, the cafe was number one. So I think it's pretty clear that it is what the people of the town want. And then the overwhelming expectations on Facebook, also with the community outreach, um, that can be seen is, is pretty substantial as well. So I can definitely see a value for the community. Any, uh, comments on that or? I agree with that. All right. Um, so the other, other components of the, um, uh, restaurant special permit all tied to the site plan review, which is not part of what we're considering because the whole site plan review is typically concerned with parking lots and parking lot, uh, components, lighting, et cetera. Um, but the site plan does also, there's another section of bylaw that the applicant and their council is aware of, and that has to do with the outdoor patio. That needs a special, that needs another permit, I believe from the, uh, planning board, just for the outdoor seating only. And then, and that is where the issues of screening and lighting can be addressed. If we have, if that comes up, um, we didn't hear anything about signage for this, which is also a separate permit, but at this point, I mean, that, that typically a lot of applicants, if you do that as a separate filing later. That's our intention as well. All right. Um, I, so with that, I would make a motion under 1102.1.1 that the ZBA is satisfied that there's a, a need for this. And that the proposed use, um, of the premises is not against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which such use occurs. And it's not more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, humorous odor, dust, or other objection of our features. And that such use is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants or their property or dangerous to the public health or safety. Second. Um, any amendments or discussion on the motion? Thanks. So I think to this one, we would probably want to add, um, some conditions that, uh, the, uh, project has to sort of be, uh, in substantial conformity with all the documents that have been submitted. Um, there is no off street parking provided for, um, and this is something that the applicant is fully aware of. Um, the applicant also needs to secure approvals approvals from any other town boards as may be required for the ancillary components of this proposed use. So, uh, we'll do a roll call for this. Um, Mr. Perry. All right. Mr. Harsh. All right. Ms. Paul. Hi. Mr. White. Hi. So that is approved. So this is a long process. So you are off to your next step. Um, so again, uh, thank you for your patience as we worked through this and, uh, thank you again for, um, uh, thorough application and, you know, we're excited to hear, uh, how this unfolds. Well, thank you for your, uh, your time and dedication and thoughtfulness on this matter. Yeah. I really appreciate it. All right. So I suppose there is a, um, we have the, we have to write the decision and then there is a 21 day appeal period. And then after that, the decision can be filed and then you're, you're off and running. And that's something you can coordinate with the building department. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are you going to be the point person to the building department? Yes. I'll, I'll review, I'll review the decision with, and then we'll make sure that it's time. Yes. Uh, so with that, we can move on to our second continued hearing. This is the application of, sorry, case 25, 26, 7 East Road. This is the application of Charlie Malikapas, owner of the property located at 7 East Road, situated in the R4 zoning district, seeking invariant special permit or other zoning relief to demolish and reconstruct a single-family dwelling on a pre-existing non-conforming lot. So, uh, you have anyone here or are they online? I'm right here. I'm. Oh, you're perfect. I moved to my chief secret answer. I didn't think. Good evening, board. Yeah. We're interesting though. She, uh, she had to leave. She was only able to be on, but we're still covered. Okay. Um, good evening. So, um, I just have a few words to say, um, after our last meeting, um, I was pleasantly surprised by the number of, uh, neighbors in support of this project. And, um, I'd like the board to take this, um, unsolicited, you know, outpouring of support and consideration, um, and just not place undue, uh, weight on the opinion of one, one individual, uh, possible. Um, we've gone to great lengths to address all your concerns. And, um, I believe we've made, uh, significant changes, uh, to change the look and feel of the property. Um, I appreciate your time. So we, um, lowered the height of the building by over six feet. Um, we changed the design of the front cable, added dormers, uh, removed the fair amount of windows, changed the second floor floor plan, removed the walk up staircase that was to the attic. Um, let's see, we lowered the roof line over the garage as well, changed the pitch of that roof. Uh, so yeah, it used to be a 12 pitch. We changed that to, I believe a six, seven. Yeah. So we reduced the height and the massing, I think considerably. I hope that, uh, helps. Yes. Uh, I was going to say, uh, thank you very much for the redesign. And I would agree. I think the updated plans are great looking. I think, uh, change, the change is fantastic. So like I, I command you for, for kind of doing this and, uh, uh, I am, uh, I for one excited about, uh, the updated events. So great. Thank you for that. Absolutely. I, I really appreciate this. And, uh, I know I'm an architect, so I know that it's time for someone to do this. So I, I recognize that. And I think they did a nice job with it. So thank you. Yeah. In the back, I attached the previous drawing. So if you can, yes. Yeah. You can easily do. Um, um, talk about this. Um, is there anyone else here that wants to be heard on this project? And we don't, we're going back. We have anyone online? No, we don't. Okay. Mr. Chair. By the way, um, after some review of my department through the zoning files, the property across the street did receive a special permit for a non, non, um, for zoning relief, for non-compliance, for setbacks, and for a similar addition to that property, uh, which is very similar to what this is being proposed on tonight. So the same standards were, uh, put forth, uh, in 2013 or 2014. Interesting. From this board. From this board. And they were approved. Thank you. Thank you. No one else, uh, public. Um, I think the applicant is complete. So I'd say we can close that portion. So the panel for this case, because we don't, um, have, uh, um, any monetization issues is Mr. Berry, Mr. Hirsch, Mr. White, Mr. Sarian, and Ms. Dennis. No, I don't. Oh, you're only five. So, but we only, I either would only be four. Oh, yes. Okay. Okay. You've worried me for a minute. I was like, wait a minute. Wait a minute. You're not off the hook. Um, all right. Uh, so, uh, I know we run a lot. We had a lot of discussion at our last hearing about, uh, sort of building massing and, you know, some of the actions that this board has taken on other projects where we sort of were confronted with a larger building mass, maybe on a smaller site. Um, I, the applicants spent a lot of time on a redesign that I think is extremely thoughtful. And I, I think like architecturally, I actually like better than the previous version. Um, and, uh, I think it's a comprehensive set of plans. And I think the question has gone above and beyond to answer every question we raised, um, in our discussion the first time. I would, I would agree. I mean, the biggest issue, uh, was the massing and, uh, the neighbors issues across the street with, uh, the size of the lock or the size of the, uh, the, the structure. Um, and this fits completely into the neighborhood that combined with, um, all the additional support from neighbors. I, I think, yeah, we went above and beyond with this. Okay. I want to commend the app again for the redesign. We did a really good job with this and really took what we were recommending and, and suggesting, uh, to heart. So it can be definitely seen and we appreciate that. Thank you. Appreciate it. I have one question. After you did all these changes, did you have had a chance to meet any of the neighbors to show them? I have not, I have not spoken with them since. No. We received a lot of support at the last time for the original project. Uh, there was some, some concerns expressed about the original size, but yeah. Um, Ms. Jenis, any comments? No, I'm agreeing with the comments that were made. I think that, um, I think to me, it's a, it's a, it's very apparent that the scale has been reduced and it's a very appealing design and, um, and it, it's addressed the comments by the board and by the, um, members of the public. I believe. Um, so with that, uh, the, the zoning relief that we need here is, uh, is the same two part components, uh, a finding under 401.1.2. The structure is a lot more detrimental than the existing to the neighborhood. And then a special permit under two and 3.1. Uh, so if we look at the language of, uh, 401. Um, it is that a, uh, substantial change, sorry, at least change is not substantially more detrimental to the existing building structure or use in the neighborhood. Um, I think that finally is easily met by the reason you were student allocation. So, um, I would make a motion under, uh, before you make your motion. I just want to make sure one quick thing with the building department. The, was the application updated for this being a special permit versus a variance? Great. Sorry. Thank you for noticing that. Yes. I actually have that on my cheat sheet notes here that I did see that in the project file that that was corrected. Okay. Okay. So, uh, under, under two or 3.1, um, I would make a motion that, uh, the revised proposed project, um, the revised proposed structure, um, is not against the public interest. It doesn't, does not derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which such use building or structure occurs, which shall not be more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibrations, sort of gas, fumes, or dust, or other objectionable features. And if the proposed structure is not otherwise, um, injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property more dangerous to the public health or safety. So, um, so, uh, I would propose that in addition to that motion, we have the following conditions to this, that the project, uh, needs to be constructed in substantial conformance with the revised plans that are dated. And I don't know that I can zoom in far enough to see what the date is on this. I may want to read that. Okay. Um, so we'll do this by roll call vote again. Um, Mr. Perry. All right. Mr. Hirsch. All right. Mr. Mr. Hirsch. All right. Mr. Hirsch. All right. Mr. White. All right. So this is approved. So, Corey, thank you so much. Yeah. We have 14 days to write the decision, and then there's a 21 day of fuel period. Um, and then after that, you can get this decision filed and you're off and running. Wonderful. Thank you again. I appreciate your time. You're welcome. Thank you for the modifications. It's, uh, it's going to be a very nice project. And I know your neighbors very excited about that. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we are just only three minutes off time. So this is actually pretty good. Don't jinx us. Um, all right. So this is the next case is VBA case 25-28. This is for 297 and 311 Boston Post Road. This is the application of Joshua Fox. Um, there's a 25, 27. Oh, Oh, sorry about that. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so we're not actually ahead. We are not. We're behind. All right. Sorry about that. All right. Sorry. This is case 25-27, 42 Pemberton Road. This is the application of Kara and Ethan Rice for a property located at 42 Pemberton Road in single residence R20 zoning district. The applicants are seeking a special permit variance or other zoning to construct and remodel portions of the existing single pin dwelling. The lot is pre-existing, non-conforming with respect to the lot size setbacks. The proposed work requires relief for the side yard setbacks on both sides of the lot. So we have anyone here for this? They are online. So hang on a sec and we'll make sure to tell us about your project. They need to be. I think Steve is raising his hand. Um, yes. Do you want us to begin or would you like Steve is the one that was going to lead it? Oh, he left. Oh, sorry. There he is. Oh, sorry. There he is. Very good. All right. Yep. Yes. Go ahead. Uh, good evening members of the board. How are you? Um, uh, sorry. I'm actually, uh, away and I'm presenting on zoom tonight for, uh, Cara and Ethan Rice. Uh, Steve Camoli, uh, Camoli construction company. And, uh, what we're proposing is, uh, extending the face of this house, uh, out eight feet, uh, towards the street. Um, if we look at the plans, uh, everything is actually identically the same, same amount of, uh, windows. Uh, the door remains in the same position, uh, just literally pulling the front of the house out, uh, eight feet. Uh, coincidentally, um, uh, the front setback isn't, uh, an issue. It's just as was noted, uh, by the member of the board that it's just the left and right, uh, setbacks that we're here to talk about, uh, this evening. Yeah. So internally, uh, it's a beautiful older home, uh, younger growing family, uh, that just needs some more room. So on the first floor, uh, there's currently a nice living room, uh, but there is no mud room in the house. So, uh, on the first floor, pulling this out eight feet, uh, allows the living room to get, well, eight feet bigger. Uh, and then where the front door is a very small mud room. And that's the extent of the work on the first floor, uh, going up the stairway. A stairway doesn't change, uh, upstairs. Currently, there's a very small bedroom in the front, uh, and a very small bathroom. So, uh, by pulling the front of the house out, uh, the eight feet, uh, both the existing, uh, bedroom, uh, and bathroom are able to get, uh, a little bit bigger. Uh, this also allows for, uh, a regular width, uh, uh, uh, code compliant stairway, uh, to go up to the attic. The attic is not proposed, uh, to be finished, but it allows the family, uh, some, uh, dry storage, uh, as their basement, uh, height is only about, uh, five foot nine inches. So, the basement's virtually, uh, unusable. So, this allows them for some storage up in the attic. Okay. Does the, um, the idea is that it literally is just an extension of the building mats. You're continuing the same e-line, the same ridge, the same siding plane, the same fenestration, correct? Eight. Eight. Just pull, pulling the front of the house out eight feet. Which is. Sure. The eight foot ceiling. Yeah. The building height, I see, is, uh, going up. So, is that, is there going to be a new, like, is the roof going to be taken off and the, the, um. Oh. Is it going to be increased, um, vertically? Yes, sir. You know what? I apologize that I misspoke. So, uh, the front of the house, um, because on the, uh, second floor right now, the ceilings are a bit shorter. So, as we bump out, we're going to go, we propose to go, uh, up just a couple of feet. So, the ridge line does go up vertically, um, a bit, uh, goes back and then drops back down to, uh, meet the existing home. Roger. Okay. Okay. I guess maybe, maybe I'm confused, but I don't see that in the elevations. Um. I don't see that. I don't see the change. Right. Unless it's, unless it's the entire front that is, is being raised. It's a, it's a portion of the front. Not just the eight foot section. I mean, this, this drawing here kind of clearly shows that it's the entire section of the house being raised, and that's the step down you're referencing. So, I, I guess maybe I'm, your drawings then are not, your drawings are not very clear. If that's, if that's the case, um, my, my, my misinterpreting what these drawings are. Uh, no. So, if you look at the, um, I guess it'll be the. You're adding an eight foot section onto the front of the house, but you're removing the roof and raising the eaves for 30 feet of the existing house. Yeah, not, not quite 30 feet. It, it does go back a ways, but not. 29 foot five, which is close to 30 feet. Oh, yeah. Correct? I see. It says 30 feet proposed. No, no, no. What about the length? Oh. The, the, the roof is being removed back for, for 29 foot five inches on the existing house and being bumped up. Uh, no, that's the 29.3 that you're looking at, uh, is the, is the current ridge line of the first section of the existing home. Right? So, so I guess in, in actuality, it would be eight, uh, probably 20 feet of ridge or so, uh, before it drops back down to the original ridge height. Um. Yes, the concern I have, right. Is I, you know, this does, I'm not saying it's not a, it's an unreasonable proposal, but the drawings do not describe, do not match what you're describing. At least that I can tell. Yeah. If, if you look at, uh, the second page, sir, um, it's actually 22 feet back. Does that show, uh, attic plan C on your drawing? Uh, it says floor, for the second page is floor plan C. First floor plan C. The third page is second floor plan C. And the third page is attic floor plan C. Yeah. Yeah. So if you look at the third page, uh, for some reason, they're not in order, right? It's a 37 foot three inch dimension. Right. Correct. But to the right of that, does it show a 22 foot dimension? No. No. Okay. It does not. Right. So, uh, the attic, uh, attic plan C, uh, shows the proposed, uh, final product, uh, including the stairwell to the attic. So that ridge, that ridge goes back from the new front of the house to the point of the, uh, stairwell, which is a total of 22 feet. Okay. Yeah. That's not what the side elevations for the project show, at least that we have here. So, so I'm just looking at the home on Google maps right now. And so is the plan to take the roof off and go up further? Um, I guess I'm kind of unclear on the plans. Cause yeah, a portion, a portion of the roof will have to come off to accomplish that. Just a portion of it, not the entire roof or not, not the entire roof. It would be, uh, 16. It would be 14 feet of the existing house only from the front. You're going to have a stepped roof then. So you're going to have the new, new portion that's going to step back down to the original. Yeah. So you already do. Yeah. All I'm saying is like, we shouldn't, we shouldn't have to have this discussion. Right. We have like nine, eight cases tonight. It's like, we have drawings that don't match what's being described. I don't think it's necessarily an issue. I mean, it's not a violation of the height limit anyways. Um, and it doesn't change the, the zoning relief, but I'm concerned that we, you know, we're looking at drawings that aren't accurate. It would be an issue with the building department. Uh, we would have to write, we would write the case. It's like, well, you've got to approve this. And then the building commissioner is going to get the final plans and they aren't going to be this. Yeah. So they might not be worse, but they don't have this. So we've had situations like this in the past. We might ask for the patient. Correct. So the applicant's best interest. I think it would be in your best interest to, to review the drawings and just make sure that these drawings are represent exactly what you want to do. Um, cause this is what you're going to be held to. Yeah. This is what we'll have to, we'll have to approve it based on these. And if this isn't, this is not, doesn't match what you file for the building permit for it's like, they'll, they'll be a little bit of a problem with the approval process. They're going to have to come back here anyways. And what you want to do is put it straight forward. I don't think there's a, I'm not saying that this board is going to have a problem with the addition on the front of the house, which just simply extends the side yard setback. I just think we want to be sure that graphically what we have with lines match what you actually want to build. Yeah. Understood completely. And, um, can we discuss the side yard setbacks or would you rather do that on the next meeting? We will talk about any of that if we're going to be talking about it at the next one. Cause we wouldn't, we haven't given, uh, previous discussions. We haven't given. Correct. Okay. Prior to. That said, I, I think you can, you could look at the lot and you can see that like the side, the side setback violation isn't necessarily made any worse by this proposed addition because it's actually, it gets wider as you get closer to the front of the property. Correct. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. It doesn't, as long as there's no neighbor really, um, against it. It doesn't. Yeah. We haven't received, we haven't received any, any sort of comments from anybody else. And I suppose I should ask that question. If there's any, is there anyone else here to hear a convert on this case tonight? Yeah, there's, there's nobody here and there's nobody online. So I, I, I can't speak for how we would decide on that, but typically, typically if there's going to be an issue with the setback, you know, you would have a lot of neighbors expressing concern either in a written form or coming to the VA. We don't, we don't have any of that. Yeah. Understood. And the, uh, the owners, uh, have talked to the neighbors and, uh, we can have some comments, uh, favorable comments, uh, for the next meeting. All right. So we do need to, we do need to vote to continue this then to, and, um, the next, the next hearing is on December 9th. Uh, so I would make a motion that we continue, uh, case 25 dash 27 to, uh, 7 PM on, uh, December 9th. Second. All right. Um, all in favor, Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So we are approved to extend, um, you're not here in prison, but do they need to continue and does a continuation form have to be signed? No. Okay. All right. So you are set. You are on, you'll be our, presumably one of our first cases on, uh, the first date in December. Very good. We appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Get that updated. Okay. Well, the difference. Right. Okay. So now we can move on to, uh, the next case. I guess I was just over eager and trying to keep us on tonight. Um, this is case 25, 28 or 297 and 311 Boston. This is the application of Joshua Fox on behalf of urban for the properties located at 297 and 311 Boston. The zoning zoning district. The applicant is seeking a variance for the permit of other zoning relief to allow additional signage exceed exceeding the maximum aggregate sign area of 40 square feet. And obtain a special permit or balance for a low red reverse channel illumination. Number two signs associated with the food and restaurant use. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the board, Josh Fox from Ronald Ronald Fox here on behalf of urban outfitters, uh, with respect to some zoning relief for signage at 297 and 311 Boston post road. That's the terrain project there. I know, you know, where it's located, former whole foods, CVS, et cetera. I know, you know that simply because you live in way. Um, but if not, um, we have been before you before for this project. Um, here with me this evening is, uh, Jen Pagliaga. She's director of, uh, planning and development, uh, for all of North America for urban outfitters, which is, um, the formal ownership of the brand terrain. And Jenna quest, who is one of the project architects. Um, so we're going to be presenting to you. I'll walk you through a little bit of background, and then I think Jen will be able to share her screen and show you some of the science details. Um, as you may recall, um, what we have proposed, um, is a restaurant with separate event space with shared kitchen, uh, retail and, uh, office with sales and, um, bridal and groom suites on the separate outbuilding to the west of the site. And, um, as you may recall, this is a re-utilized re-utilization of existing buildings, um, to sort of minimize disturbance and take advantage of, uh, existing structures. And that was all discussed in your case number 25 dash 13. Um, we've got different uses for different segments. So we have different signage for those segments, which we'll walk through, um, in a moment. Uh, we are asking for special permit relief because the signage does exceed that which is allowed as far as square footage and number. Um, the Whalen Zoning By-law is a bit limited, um, in most of the business districts. If you're not in the overlay, the, um, M-U-O-D, um, the signage provisions are a bit arcane. Um, they would allow on this particular site since there's two lots, probably 80 square foot of signage. Um, that's whether it's a single use, a small building, a big building, a big site, a small site. Um, so, um, therefore the by-law gives you special permit relief to allow for a greater signage in both number and square footage, which is what we're asking for this evening. Um, we did mention in our application that there are two signs which are halo or reverse or back channel lit. Um, and just so you understand exactly what that means, um, since it's, it's, it's becoming a more common design, but it's not your traditional internal illumination where the letters glow, um, and they're illuminated, um, because light is shining on them and then the light flows through the sign panels. Reverse channel lit is, uh, while there is lighting inside the actual fixture of the letters pointing backwards at the wall. So it is indirect illumination. You're not seeing light coming through the sign. It's a glow in the back. Um, and that's why it's called a halo lit. So the halo effect kind of like a silhouette. And, um, your by-law doesn't really speak to that. It hasn't been updated in a couple of years, but there are, are towns in the Commonwealth. That do, for example, Wellesley, um, just two towns over, um, specifically state that halo back channel style is not a direct illumination is not internal illumination. So we don't think relief is required, but if it is required additional relief, we are certainly asking for it respectfully. Um, and we do have a sample which Jen is going to show you of a sign, but I don't know if you've driven by an evening 533, 535 Boston Post Road. That's an automobile dealership with Alfa Romeo, Lamborghini, Bentley. Those are predominantly halo lit signs. So you see if the letters don't glow, it's, it's a halo from the back. Um, but we've got an anthropology sign, uh, from the, um, the urban outfitters branding that, uh, Jen's going to show you as well, just so you can really see and understand what, what I'm talking about, because sometimes the visual is better than me trying to explain. Um, we did go to the design review advisory board and we discussed signage back in July, and they really didn't have, uh, much comment. Um, I think it was one comment that they wanted to clarify the font size of magnetic lettering on our proposed monument sign up near Boston Post Road. Um, they, the, uh, what terrain does is that they have events. They sometimes write a little thing about that event, uh, with these removable letters. And Jen can also speak to that in a moment, but that was really the only detail of comment that they had. And we provided them with the same sign plans, um, that we provided you actually, including a note on the plans that, um, there was the halo that, uh, the two halo lit signs. Um, we, we, we look at the site and we look at the different uses and while they're still under the umbrella terrain, we see them as, as completely different uses, particularly retail versus restaurant versus sales office in the separate building. And so we therefore need separate signage for all of those, which again, we're going to walk you through in a moment. We look at the square footage overall building. It's buildings together collectively. They're 38,000 square feet. It's a decent amount of commercial space. And then we think about how far back set the main building is. It's over 250 feet set back from Boston post road. So in order to see signage set back to 150 feet, you need bigger signs. Um, but we do also look at the scale of the building in these signs. And we feel that the signs are completely in scale with the building, with the site, and with other commercial uses in town. So, uh, what I think I'd like to do, um, in an effort to try to keep time for you guys is just have Jen quickly walk you through, um, the site and all the signs. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. Thank you, Josh. Uh, thank you everyone. Um, good evening. Uh, apologies. I'm not there in person. I, uh, had such a travel nightmare last week that I was afraid I wouldn't actually make it here for the meeting tonight. So, um, presenting remotely, but, um, wish I could be there with you all. Uh, let me go ahead and share here. All right. Um, project that you, um, I believe everybody's familiar with at this point. Um, 297 and 311 Boston post road. Um, 311 is the building in the front, um, formal dental office. Um, the 297 building was, uh, formally comprised actually of like 301, 302, 303, 305, 307, 309, and 317, I believe, um, addresses. I think there was seven businesses in here previously. Um, we are, um, uh, taking possession of the entire strip center, um, and then, um, converting the existing building into, uh, terrain, uh, retail, um, small nursery area, um, full service restaurant and the event space. Um, and then the 311 space is the, um, bridal suites. Um, so there'll be a sales office for the, um, uh, events, um, and then bridal suites, uh, bright and groom suites in here as well. Um, there is a small key up here just to kind of show you where we, um, are proposing signage. Uh, proposing signage. So there is an existing, um, monument sign at the entry at the driveway, uh, which we are proposing to replace with a new one. Um, then we are looking for signage for, uh, the bridal suites, uh, for the cafe, uh, train cafe, which is the restaurant, uh, train gardens, which is the event space. Um, and then for the retail space as well. Um, proposed new, uh, monument sign. Um, so this would be, um, in line with monument signs that we've actually installed. So we've actually installed in, um, our past two, uh, terrain sites. Um, so this is, um, a large sign. Um, we actually have the same kind of, uh, stained, ebonized, uh, finish wood on, uh, behind the galvanized terrain lettering. Um, we do have that sign panel down below that Josh mentioned, uh, that we can change out, uh, seasonal, um, messaging on. Um, this is used to announce menus if there's a special event. Um, sometimes it's to call out, um, like a congratulations to the couple being, uh, you know, if somebody is being married that weekend. Um, these are zinc letters that are magnetic. Um, we typically send two different sizes. They're four and a half and six and a half inches, uh, for that lettering. Um, it's a custom font, but it's very similar to Garamond. Um, this sign, um, also includes a trellis, um, element. And so we will be, um, planting, um, vegetation that will climb up here and actually occupy this as well. And we've got, um, people that will be, um, maintaining that on site. Um, and then we do have external illumination here, just little pin spotlights on this monument sign. Um, this sign is, I believe 45 square feet, um, uh, within that, um, within that monument sign. Um, we have, um, proposed the two halo lit signs, um, on the site. And I might actually jump over to the ARB package to then just to show you where they are in the elevations. We've got the two, um, two halo lit signs here. Um, and so this is that reverse channel, uh, illumination. Um, and so the way that this works, I thought this might be the easiest way is just to actually show you a sharp drawing for it. Um, so it is actually a solid, um, galvanized finished letter on the front. Um, the back of the letter is actually a translucent, uh, panel. Um, and then it's internally illuminated. And so it does, as Josh, uh, was explaining, um, the illumination actually kind of bounces. It actually faces forward. So it bounces off the back of the inside of the letter and then just creates a really soft glow around the outside of the letters there. And so you can see, um, that effect here on the anthropology sign. We use it across, um, our anthropology and free people, free people stores currently. Um, and typically it's, uh, a lot of jurisdictions. Um, a lot of jurisdictions actually have a separate, um, signage. Um, I guess, uh, it's not considered typically, it's not considered an illuminated sign. It is usually, um, its own category of sign. This is the reverse channel at halo illuminated sign. So, um, this is something that we've installed in a lot of places. And I've got a few more, uh, few more photos of that. If you are interested. Um, the sign for the terrain retail space, um, is also galvanized lettering, um, in line with the branding. Um, it's a little over a foot tall. And then we've got, um, smaller lettering below it. Um, these are all, um, mounted to the facade and there is externally illuminated from below, um, with a really, um, small, um, strip fixture. Um, and then we are proposing a small sign on the gates, um, the entry gate to the terrain. Let me jump back to the plan here and I'll show you. Um, so we do have a gate right here at the entry. So there is a small sign there just to kind of denote the entry into that nursery area. Um, and there is a small way finding sign on the post between the cafe and the nursery. Um, we've been hearing from the brands that there's a little bit of confusion about, um, where to find the event space versus the, uh, the retail space. And so, um, this would just be a small blade sign mounted to the front post of the cafe, just to point the direction to the event space to the right and the retail space to the left. Um, again, another wall sign mounted to the exterior of the, um, front building 311, uh, just above the entry. Uh, to the office space. Um, and so this is also externally illuminated with a small pin light. And I will jump over to, um, just so it makes a little bit easier. Cause these, we've got elevations in here. Um, and so here is the train cafe and the train garden signs. These are the two signs that are, we are proposing to be the halo lit reverse channel. Uh, there are two, um, terrain retail signs, um, above the entry doors. And that is the external illumination. Uh, and then the sign here is on the face, um, just above the entry, um, off of the parking lot. So same, uh, same signage drawings there. So just wanted to show you that. And give me one second and I'll kind of show you, just wanted to show you a few more examples of this, um, halo lit sign here. So this is, um, typical, typical sign that we use across our fleet of brands. So anthropology uses it all the time and free peoples also, um, been using it. Maeve is actually our newest concept. So this is one of a brand new, brand new store. Um, and they also, um, are using the halo lit signage there. Um, I know that you've got the packages there. I don't want to belabor this. Um, if there's anything you'd like me to go over in more detail, I know that you do have the signage charts with the square footage and the dimensions on there. Um, any questions? Um, I have a quick question. Uh, so for, for the back channel with sign, is the proposal to have those on through the night or just during normal business hours? Um, the typically, so I, you know what, that's a really good question. We do turn off all of the site lighting, um, overnight. Um, I think that the lighting does stay on overnight. Um, uh, the sign lighting would stay on overnight. Um, but the rest of the, um, landscape lighting on site is all, it would be on a timer. Okay. Thank you. Hmm. Any other questions from the board? I wanted to point out one other thing that I think I may have, um, accidentally omitted, and that is simply that we went back and looked at some old records, um, and looked at the square footage when, when, when the, when the premises was fully occupied, when you had a whole foods, when you had a CVS, when you had a restaurant. Okay. And, um, we were estimating that our square footage as proposed is less than the aggregate, uh, when it was previously at full occupancy. Thank you. Any, I guess, any other comments from you before I open up? Thank you. I have a question. Sure. Go ahead. Um, for the applicant. Do you mind putting up the signage again that has the illustration of it being, um, backlit? Yes. Yes. Just because from my remote area, it was looking to me as though it's almost, you have the lettering and behind it, it's almost highlighted with a yellow or a white sign. Like if you were just writing it, you would almost take a highlighter and outline the lettering. Is that right? Oh, I'm sorry. The photographs. Yes. Okay. Sorry about that. The drawings. Thanks. Yeah. Let me pull this back up. Yeah. And so what you're actually seeing is the reflection of the lighting off of the back of off of the wall behind it. So the light is coming through the back panel, the backside of the, uh, signage. And then it's actually reflecting off of, uh, getting a little bit of a halo on the wall surface behind it. Can you enlarge that image? Are you able to, or one of the images? Let me, let me try. Sure. Give me a second here. Well, let me take off my, uh, You know what? I'm sorry. I'm, I'm in front of an iPad and I just was able to enlarge it here. It dawned on me that maybe I could. Oh, okay. So I am seeing it better. All right. I apologize. I had somebody. No, that's okay. Uh, right beforehand. Let me see if I can get this. Yeah. Um, I'll save it real quick so I can open it back up. I think, I think I'm good because I could, yeah, I could enlarge the image here. I thought it would be static. Um, and so that, that gives me a good idea. That's all. Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's, um, we've been using it for years. It's, it's fairly, fairly elegant. Um, yeah, it is very nice. And I'm asking in particular because I believe that Mr. Attorney Fox was referencing the lighting that is, um, at the car dealership, the, at, that we've, you know, had before us a number of times. But honestly, I don't recall enough that, what that lighting looks like because of the elevation of that site. It sort of drops below the street, not fully below the street, but you drive by it and it's not what's, you know, what's staring you at, uh, eye level. But I wasn't quite sure what, what we were talking about. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. No problem. Anyone here comments on this application? Okay. It does not look like there's anybody online. Um, I guess with that, I mean, we can close the portion of it through a deliberation. Um, I think this is extremely straightforward. I think that, uh, we've got a very comprehensive package. I think you just have to look at the signage that was existing on that building in the past of that very large brown wood monument sign. And then, although there are no businesses there anymore, when that was full, there were signs all over that building. Um, what I like about this application obviously is it's, it's, it's well designed. It's like, I think it's an elegant signage package. I think it goes with the, it matches very much the architecture and sort of, and the brand identity. So I think the, the design of the signs actually has like a, like a high level of, uh, elegance and sophistication to it. So, um, I think it's a straightforward application for us with this because our signage by-law is a little, is a little quirky, but I did some research on this and there are many jurisdictions that do not consider halo signs to be internally eliminated. And I think the intent of this by-law, you know, I was actually speaking with, um, someone on the design review board. When this was originally proposed, they had in mind, um, it was an Exxon gas station that was being proposed. And you probably, those of us who are a certain age, remember the old Exxon signs. There were these giant white illuminated plastic signs with red Exxon and the whole sign was glowing. That was the intent of the by-law. So I would agree that the language in the by-law doesn't contemplate this, but like, I'm satisfied, um, after hearing that conversation from the design review board about what internal illumination means that this would not be considered internally illuminated. And I'm familiar with this jurisdiction, this type of sign in other jurisdictions, and it's also, it's not considered, uh, an internally illuminated sign. It really is a, the by-law doesn't prohibit back-width signage and, you know, this in a way could be considered really a form of back-light. So, you know, this board has routinely, uh, utilized, um, section, uh, 501.1 to sort of grant signage relief in excess of 40 square feet, especially when the underlying project or building, it's, it's clearly appropriate that 40 square feet doesn't provide sort of the rights, um, the right kind of design opportunity to indicate these. Um, so the only prohibition we have really is, is it has to comply with the language of the special permit statute, which is the same language that we read through all the time. Um, so I guess with that in mind, as any other discussion on the board before I make a motion? No. Um, so under two or 3.1, I know, sorry. I would propose a motion under two or 3.1 that the proposed, uh, signage is not against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which the sign occurs and shall not be detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas fumes, odor, dust, or other objectionable features, and that the proposed sign is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town or their property or dangers to the public health or safety. Second. I don't think there's any need for any amendments or conditions to that, if any, unless anyone feels otherwise. No. Um, I, I guess maybe I'd ask the commissioner, do we have to put a condition on this? The signs have to be sort of as proposed in the package. But I don't think they would propose something other than this because this is kind of tied to their corporate brand. No, as, as stated in their application, that would be sufficient. Okay. All right. Um, so, uh, we'll do this by will call, um, all in favor for this, uh, Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. Sarian. All right. Ms. Janice. Aye. Mr. White. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And quick update. We are, uh, we're taking possession of the space at the end of the year and, uh, getting into construction. So we are super excited to, uh, to get, to get moving up here. Thank you. Thank you. And quick update. We are, uh, we're taking possession of the space at the end of the year and, uh, getting into construction. So we are super excited to, uh, to get, to get moving up here. Thank you. We are very excited about that. Thank you. So we're looking forward to this. Yeah. Great. Yes. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you. Have a good night. Bye-bye. Good night. Thank you. All right. So with this, we can move on to the next case. This is case 25-29 for 22 South Street. Um, this is the application of Sarah and Justin Woodside for their property located at 22 South Street in the single residence R-20 zoning districts. The applicants are seeking a special permit variance or other zoning relief to the knowledge of the existing house to construct a rear addition. The lot is pre-existing, not performing to respect the minimum lot area and existing the most. North Street, right? No. Right, right. Yeah, it looks like we have some roads setting up. Great. Great. You're not right there. Yeah. There's here. You're the counterpoint. We're going to talk a little. We're going to talk a little. I'm going to bring, um, here. I'll let myself and team copy. If anybody wants to go over to the first floor. Yes. If you're good to go. Thank you. Uh, good record. My name is Brian Nelson. I'm a civil engineer with Metro West Engineering. you uh for the record my name is brian nelson i'm a civil engineer with metro west engineering um here tonight with the applicants uh justin and sarah woodside the owners of the property 22 south street and um we're here tonight to present plans for in addition to the existing house um we are assessors map 51d lot 54. um we do have a kind of a neighborhood board behind me and i'll try to point to that as i go uh kind of located in the kachishu neighborhood um you were looking at this board north is going straight up the page uh east plain street would be off the top of the page and 27 would be um probably twice the plan to the west or to the left on plan we are located at 22 south street so we're a corner lot founded by south street on the south hill street on the east and center street on the north and um property has an area of 19 999 square feet so we are one square foot shy of the minimum area requirement 20 000 square feet so obviously we're located in our 20 district um also uh the existing house is shown on this plan it's hatched in uh the green diagonal hatching so it fronts basically down uh towards south street there's a 30-foot front setback requirement um survey measured at 29 and a half feet uh so we're half a foot short at the minimum that seems to be the theme the product required piece of property right um there's also a detached drop on the one side of the property as well and that goes in setbacks fine so there are um basically a bunch of similar properties and then basically what i do is just put a board here that showed kind of the butters in all the directions um there's a larger lot to the north but there's a pretty large wetland area um which basically makes you know suddenly portion that lot under the border but there are two butting properties on hill street um which are basically very similar in area uh flirting with 20 000 square feet but under uh there are some smaller lots on the other side of south street ranging um between 10 000 and 15 000 square feet and we've got a couple similar size lots to the left and that again are just under that 20 000 square footprint so um again we've got existing house on subtly part of the lot and the existing detached garage uh to the north and um the house is a kind of footprint of about 1140 square feet it's um kind of a box and it was an addition and a deck put on the northeasterly corner uh several years ago uh the detached garage has a footprint of 273 square feet and um septic system is not shown on this board but it's basically located between uh the house and the garage and uh with that i'm going to switch to kind of a blow up of the lot and um so we were originally returning to develop a septic system uh basically septic system replacement kind of in conjunction with the addition and so this plan is that and i've added a little color to it just to show some of the features and again the existing house is shown with the green hatching kind of in the bottom portion of the lot the existing detached garage up here um and what we're here to talk about basically is the proposed addition on the northeast side of it which is shown in the action purple area right here we're proposing a new subject system between the house and the garage and again that's uh to bring in informants with present um state and local produce for septic systems we're providing a stormwater management system a recharge system for the new roof surfaces um over on the easterly side of the property there's presently no stormwater management on site so we feel that that's an improvement the septic system also is an improvement it's fully titled by the compliant build off for secondary treatment as well um so we um feel that that's a benefit as well and the addition has a footprint of about 945 square feet some of that addition basically overlaps the existing house and deck a portion of the existing driveway so we've got a net increase in impervious area of about 490 square feet um i did review these plans with uh linda conservation prior to filing and also yesterday when i was at town hall um and she was of the opinion that we did not need to file with um under the stormwater and land disturbance file or chapter 193 and we have a permitting file with the health department uh those plans were filed on october 16th and um there was some correspondence from naren with the woodsides um basically that uh they were in support of the project and they're actually underway right now with a pretty thorough review of the plans um and just for some numbers um total existing lot coverage so that's the building footprint uh it's about 2632 square feet proposed is 3481 so we're going from 13.2 percent lot coverage to 17.2 percent lot coverage again the delta in impervious is just under 500 square feet um the existing garage is um that will stay in place and that will remain there is a walkway and some driveway that will be basically removed as part of the um conflict with the footprint of the addition and um so there again were a few different things that we had um filled out on our application um one part was pursuant to um front setback and um we did a look at the gis uh mapping on the abiding houses on the same lot under this section 702-3 um basically establishing existing alignment and we found that according to gis the subject property 22 south is the furthest most back property of um of all the houses on the block um in gis and again i realize that's not from a survey but we calculated the average setback to be about 29.1 feet versus the 29 and a half shown by survey so we feel that the house is you know certainly furthest back amongst all the houses on the block and the average alignment and there are no modifications proposed to the front of the house either so uh all the the work is going on out back area requirement it's it's one square foot short um and i did talk to the surveyor about this um if the log were to be calculated and basically the dimensions shown um and you lengthened the width and the length of this lock by three thousandths of a foot on each side so that's a 16th of an inch um which is almost a measurable quantity for a lot which contains slightly over 200 000 square feet so i think it's just was a a bearer that was committed probably when the original plan was drawn line thickness error 16 years ago probably yeah um and the last one that and this was uh from a conversation with the global inspector yesterday was in terms of floor area um that i calculated existing floor area about 2 119 square feet um total proposed floor area is about 90 percent is 4 021 so there's a about a 90 increase in floor area um and uh again if we looked at i think it was the 20 rule in section 401.1.3.2 that would certainly be prohibitive for um instructing any type of uh reasonably sized addition uh with that i'm happy to um to turn it over to the applicants to see if they would like to add anything or we can any questions from the board of the public um the only question i have is that is this really a lot that kind of front yard setback on three sides it kind of appears like it is right between south street hill street and central street so there's kind of three front yards right um so i guess the question i have is the front yard setback on hill street which is 27 feet i see that it aligns it doesn't really quite align with the we have 29.5 front yard setback from the existing garage to hill street that's like a structure although a garage is technically or accessory so i don't really have to provide the same setbacks but um you'd be looking for front yard setback release on hill street not on south street that's correct okay then i think it's more of a housekeeping thing but this in the application the side yard setback it says existing 19.9 feet proposed 49 feet uh i think that may have been an error okay but i think you could probably resolve that yeah and then what's the overall percentage gross uh gross increase in floor area yes you put the uh oh so you want the percentage yeah yeah the percentage just as a housekeeping thing yeah i think it's 89.7 because if i um i don't know if you haven't checked out i did not have any additional questions i have a couple questions okay so the there definitely looks like there's like an attic space but there was i don't see anything in the plans to be able to show what that attic space is going to look like
it'll be a pull down with um hbac no i saw the pull down um but there's nothing to show heights expectations because i see a window here i don't know what that that was more cosmetic for me that i wanted to have somebody makes it look nicer yeah totally understanding i did am i missing something by the way the rest of the board sees it and i don't no i i i see that i see the window um yeah there is no um there's kind of there's no mention of the stairs to the um there's no stairs it's an attic access which was fine i just didn't know what the height and shape of the attic was going to look like that's all um we can get it i don't think we don't have that that would be good so towards the back of the house it's not actually going to be an attic it's just going to be a full ceiling for the map to go down yeah it's okay so it's going to be vaulted so yeah yeah so the pathway is there's no attic it's only i don't know the first so it would be what the existing attic is right now where that is that we have like a closed door to get into the end it's a pull down in the first half
right but there's no plan
no and that makes sense to me i just i just don't see anything here being able to show what's vaulted what's not vaulted right yeah there isn't an attic plan um in there that which is it's fine um and then i had one more question potentially for the building commissioner here for the office on the second uh floor the square footage for it to be considered to be an office does it doesn't that have to be under 70 square feet 70 square feet is a is the minimum for uh to be considered so just from a septic perspective and so the plans show 12 3 by 12 5 is that considered another bedroom technically it could be an office it could be a room it can be counted as an office but that doesn't as far as uh septic that would be the board of health to determine what people that's facing but that we we did talk with the health agent about that um and basically the designation of an office it would have to have some kind of a divider um put up okay so but we did review the total i was going to say dad probably yeah daggone it because that was my understanding too and i just wanted to make sure that you guys before you made it over there that you didn't have the problem yeah we're going to make it yeah okay yeah darren did get back to us with a preliminary review basically he wanted to get some comments before the meeting because i think he was away on vacation last week and out some of the week before he wanted to get some kind of feedback i think to the board before he did that and i think he's still undergoing his review thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you
on the 29th we got some correspondence so october i guess one additional point with respect to the application is the front yard setback is listed at 29.5 but i think it should be 20 i think it should be the 27.5 through that which is the um the hill street side hill street side so we consider a unique lot where you have front yard setback on room sides um which is i haven't seen that before um yeah i counted the front side back off of hill street because it was basically that's really the mailing address was so i can revise the application yes and then i had one more quick question sorry to do this still so i see that there are stairs of course i am that's so there's stairs that are going down you have a large area here and what is the usage is this just a really big hallway what is the expectations so those are the stairs i think that go down on the first floor but i think the space up in front is just storage that would be yeah yeah that's just the eaves in the just the eaves in turn uh this wasn't sure because it didn't didn't have any designation or anything like that before we go on were there any other points that you wanted to raise about that project yeah just having to answer questions do you need plans for the honor to get part of this i don't think so okay all right no okay just yeah
given the shallowness of the roof slope yeah that's one of the things that i was like it could be be it's it could be not needed yeah so that's that was my only thing so all right um any any members of the public here for this case no it's not what i have a support battery i was just gonna say i also want to sort of let you read that in that the board actually received four letters of support from your neighbors for this project um which is great i commend you for reaching out to people a lot of times people don't and then they come to these meetings i'm surprised that neighbors had no idea what was being composed down the door so thank you for that um all right i think we can close the the public move on to the political process um the panel for this is going to be mr perry mr hirsch mr white mr sarian and miss genus um so for me introducing this i i think this is extremely straightforward i think if you look at the the neighborhood that this is located in all of those houses in that area you've had sort of various additions like over the period of time here um there's some uniqueness to this particular lot with front yard setback on three streets we've seen front yard setbacks on two with corner lots and in several cases um but again the underlying that underlying missing square foot actually helps you because you sort of have a pre-existing non-conforming situation and you're actually asking to create like another non-conformity on the other side front yard setback if you actually had that square footage and this was a conforming lot there there could be legal challenges with actually creating a new non-conformity if you have conforming setbacks which would you know would be bad for the applicant but in this case you kind of have that that let error there um i think this is relatively straightforward i think again that it's a two-part component with a finding under 401.142 that the proposed isn't any more detrimental than you know the existing conditions in the neighborhood um and then two uh special permit under two to three point one so comments for the board yeah i guess at first glance it seems seemed like um you know the addition is quite large i mean basically doubling the the footprint of the house but you know the support from the neighbors and you know the the thoroughness of the application definitely helped with um you know getting my support for the project i mean looking at the project it it looks like it's kind of aesthetically it's not going to seem like it's over sizing right uh no it seems to be it seems to actually match the proportions of the existing neighborhood yeah which which really is is nice to see so thank you for the design work um and thank you very much for making sure they're reaching out for to your neighbors and getting that support because that does go a long way um i think that if we were uh just from a building department aside for documentation wise if we could get those updated for the uh documentation part i just want to make sure everything's clean for you guys but besides that i i don't really see any problems at all i think this would be a value add for the family uh miss janice any comments no i agree no i agree with what's been set right there and it looks nice i'm assuming mr chair if i may uh also a 706.1 uh lots and more than one street is also referenced in here if you do not meet setbacks on one you can obtain that from um you know the other ones yeah with a special with special okay um thank you for that um i would say uh that under 401.1.2 i think we make a finding that the codes change or alteration is not substantially more detrimental than the existing conditions in the neighborhood given that um i think the applicant demonstrated that there is a uh what's the right word for this i don't want to say propensity but there is a series there are a series of other adjacent structures that also sort of intrude a little further into the front yard setback which is another provision of the viola that we can review where if there are a series of structures that are further into the setback alongside a street like you know an applicant can come forward with a proposal to sort of meet that setback that the other houses have so um in my mind i think this is a straightforward we can leave the board i think can be satisfied under pro 1.2 that this is not substantially more detrimental than the existing condition okay um uh so with that i would make a motion under two or three point one that this board uh grants a special permit for the proposed application of 22 south streets um and further that this proposed structure uh is not against the public interest it does not derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which such use building or structure occurs and it's not more detrimental or offensive because of nervous vibrations smoke gas flames odor dust or other objectionable features and that the proposed structure is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town their property or dangerous to the public health or safety second um i would further propose that we add uh conditions that the applicants have to uh proceed with the design in substantial conformance with the plan for specifications submitted and that they've got to obtain an approval from any of the boards as may be required i need a second again no i think we need a second again um all right any further discussion okay all right uh so um we'll do this by roll call vote for those in favor uh mr perry all right mr prush all right mr sarion yeah miss dennis hi mr white i so thank you appreciate your time thank you very much thank you very much yeah i haven't done anything um yeah i've been signing everything lately yeah i know that's all i wanted to set up great i hate this technically suppose this job is over for anyone else to want it at any time yeah yeah i'm good you're doing great you're doing great don't let me get me but do you actually have to sign all yes i sign all okay it's all it's all iconic i think so i'm not sure what are you speaking am i allowed i'm charged i'm going to ask instead of it all falling under tom it's not i know because now they're running through yes yes do you have some uh any guidance on this miss jens no i think it's working very well actually as it is yes i mean you're drafting and then you're being able to check it it streamlines the process for the applicants it does oh sure all right well if you need the support thank you there's something else i need you know which is um all right so let's move on to our next case this is case uh 25-30 uh 43 plain road this is the application of the ipa development company owner of the property located at 43 plain road in the single residence r30 zoning district the applicant is seeking a special permit variance or other zoning relief to extend the span the existing house including the including the addition of a three car garage and deck the lot is pre-existing non-conforming with respect to lot size and the proposed work would result in lot coverage exceeding the 20 maximum last so do we have anyone here to present this project good evening good evening why don't you come up and uh tell us about the proposal
thank you mr chair members of the board uh my name is attorney andrew deluri my office is at 365 in everett uh it's a pleasure to be before you again i would have the opportunity to be before you earlier in the year um i am joined by uh my clients uh ivy barion and rick capucci are both here uh they are uh two members of the development team and uh members of the llc who is the applicant so they are uh available for any questions uh that the board may have uh as you read uh in the application we're before you tonight uh seeking a special permit to increase uh the existing single-family house which is located on a presently non-conforming lot that's located in the r30 zoning district and the lot is 23 000 522 square feet uh so a little under the percentage that is required um the house is presently also uh non-conforming for the existing house is non-conforming for the side yard setback and what you will see is that the proposed structure actually reduces uh the non-conformity uh from uh nine feet on one side to uh 18 um so uh the special permit is is simply for the uh lot coverage increase above the uh 20 percent uh which is uh governed by the code so uh the present structure is is 2 000 square feet uh the proposed home uh looking at the application right my client completed it is she has a gross square footage of 5 511 square feet um but doing some bad math as i'm sitting here in the audience tonight uh i come up with a calculation of 5042 um so it's about a 10 percent difference there i'm i'm i think i read the code properly about what the definition of gross square footage is i come up with just a little bit different calculation that is on the application um so the uh the proposed structure is a uh two-story home uh with a three-car garage it has a finished basement and it has an unfinished attic uh it is three bedrooms the home is subject to uh septic system which uh just recently passed title five certification for a three-bedroom so the house even though the square footage is increased uh it's it's remaining as a three-bedroom uh pursuant to the septic system requirement uh the lot is unique uh you know similar to the one that was just before you fronted on three streets uh this lot is fronted on two streets it's fronted on plain road uh and then also on on glen road which is to the uh southwest um the direction of both of those streets creates a uh uniquely shaped lot uh and unfortunately causes the lot to lose a large percentage of its square footage if you had considered it if it had uh just straight right 90 degree angles uh it may be much closer to the forming 30 000 square feet or even uh above that amount but we we take the lot as it is so i just wanted to uh point that out to the board um in terms of the layout of the house uh the like i said the addition of the garage goes from uh two cars to three cars the majority of the square footage in the increase is predominantly the second floor um there is a finished basement on the existing house the proposed finished basement although it is larger there is a large unfinished portion of the basement and a large finished portion the finished portion is is roughly 40 square feet larger than than what presently exists uh the first floor is is largely the same size as the present house so most of the square footage that is sought for the increase for the special permit is largely the second floor uh which is which triggering the need uh for the increased storage um so the the applicant uh requests a finding from the board that uh the increase in that square footage is not substantially more detrimental than what presently exists uh in in my site visit and in viewing the neighborhood uh it appears similar to the last project that there have been several projects over the years uh which have had similar additions made you know some i know did notice some of the lot sizes are different some of them may be a little bigger even if they're still non-conforming but um in in several aspects it appears that uh you see you know these types of increases uh have happened in the neighborhood previously and the end result of the product will be a home which is complementary and consistent uh with the the other homes that are located uh in the neighborhood um so with that uh you know i i'm happy to uh answer any questions that the board may have again my my clients are available um if the board does have any questions thank you um um i guess before we go into uh any questions uh just so you're aware um the board's received sort of uh multiple letters of raising concerns about this project um and i'm guessing uh by the attendance there's probably multiple people that want to be heard on this so uh what i think i'll do is uh actually ask if there are before we have questions as a board for the applicant i think i'd like to sort of allow some of the uh the people that are here tonight to sort of speak so um assuming that there's nothing else for your presentation um are there members of the public here that that will be urged on this case so okay so yeah so given that there's a large number of you if we can i would say please keep your comments as concise as possible and if there are many of you that have the exact same comment i would rather hear sort of 10 different aspects of of concern about the project as opposed to kennedy saying an identical comment so and again that's just because we are we are running late tonight and we still have several cases to to get through so um i guess with that if people want to speak if they could just come up just give us your name and address and again try to be as as concise as possible in your comments do you mind about decision yeah absolutely thank you for chairmen members of the board my name is bill dowick i'm one of the abutters of the subject property my wife benefit here um 44 milbrook road we've lived there since 1999 um very familiar with the process that's going to be resolved um we have everyone's going to have some of the same profits yeah as long as we're not we we we have we have a unique situation in that we are we have always been impacted by storm water from this property um our property is an elevation it's a bowl it's a and there's a map that i sent a couple days ago you'll see the topographic map in the way of the gis system clearly shows storm water from that property directed toward um toward our house um and it's something we need to be vigilant about there are times of the year particularly in the winter we are freeze-thaw freeze-thaw in permeable ground where water from 43 plain is that what it is um will run off in the direction of our house and pond in our yard that's okay except that over the course of the winter the pond gets bigger and bigger and eventually you know becomes a threat to the house um we've been able to mitigate that for 25 years um but our concern with respect to storm water is that an increase in coverage lot coverage of 163 percent which is what this is going from 9 percent 10 percent to 23 percent is going to dramatically increase or change the character of the water being discharged from that property unless there are mitigation measures put in place on that property um i'm not prepared today to talk about mitigation measures i'm a but i'm a i'm a i'm a groundwater geologist environmental consultant so i i'm speaking to some knowledge of this issue um i'll point out that you know just looking through the plans themselves i haven't seen you know any kind of um uh map showing uh proposed contours of the property you know afterwards um so i don't know if this is even a consideration of the developer uh the impacts of runoff onto the buddy properties um i don't know what the grades are going to be um um and so stormwater is our unique issue i don't i don't believe that this is an issue for the others in the back of the room um but while i'm sitting here i'll bring up a few things i noticed looking um through the plans and you have my comments you know matter of the record but um this doesn't appear to be what was described as a an expansion of of of the um of the property this is what i understand a complete demolition of the structure um and i get confused there's a description of a has been an expansion here the letter sent to us and i think in the application calls for it describes this as a demolition um and you'll have to be the judge but i understand if it's a demolition then you know you've got to sort of consider the original setbacks for a non-conforming plot um it's it's true that the lot on the left side is going from 9 feet to 18 feet but it's still going to be you know something that's not conforming with uh you know in our thirty seven nation um the the height of the building that's proposed i've seen numbers 37 feet uh which seems to have been retracted and replaced by 35 and amended um plan but then i got a letter from the uh developer after all that it was going to set 37 again so i'm not even sure how high this is going to be um and even with that even granted and then i saw 34 30 amended to 34 37 inches um but i have to note that that appears to be a measurement from the the highest grade of the property not the mean grade of the property the mean grade this is that this proposal is is this project is on a sloping a sloped um backlog and i saw no measurements spot elevations or anything to uh to use to indicate what the mean elevation is for the purpose of calculating the root pipe um so we get the side here so that's that we got the roof fight we got the lock cover we got the 165 percent increase in lock coverage which is connected to the storm water issue that i've talked about um you know i i'd like to see where a driveway is going to go i don't know if it's going to go on the plain road or blend road um that is significant to us because we need to understand more about the storm water issue um and then there's you know the character of the of and maybe i'll let other folks talk about the character of the of the neighborhood this is an immense an immense house there are only four homes out of 40 or three homes out of 40 on plain road that have a gross living uh space floor space that's that's higher that's greater than this house and those are all on acre and a half properties this is a half acre property um if you look at the abutting there are 10 comparable half acre properties in it on on plain right there right within a quarter mile on this property um none of them will have the characteristics of what's being proposed here so um with that i will you have what i've what i've what i've submitted and i will i will just for the sake of moving on giving it back thank you thank you maybe please sign in yeah just oh yeah thank you thank you yeah is there anybody else that would like to focus um first of all thank you for allowing us to speak tonight um i'm here to oppose this application um i'm sorry susan berkowitz i live in the abutting property of 39 plain road for the past 25 years been a whaling resident for over 35. um first this property located in our 30 zoning district which requires a 20-foot side setback and a 30-foot front setback the applicants plan for the 5500 square foot structure does not meet these requirements in fact it increases both the front yard and the side yard non-conformities because this is a new construction these r30 zoning setbacks requirements must be fully met and the plans do not move them as stated second the applicant plans to voluntarily demolish the existing non-conforming home under the controlling cases case studies willard rockwood bransford and goldman voluntary demolition eliminates grandfathering protections once the structure is intentionally removed the replacement must comply with all current uh r30 dimensional requirements the applicant has no legal basis to rely on the footprint of placement of the old structure third the proposal is clearly new construction not reconstruction the plan shows a new and large foundation a substantially increased footprint a taller building and over 5500 or 54 60 square feet of area this is a major intensification of a non-conformity and must really be reviewed and denied under section six of new construction or and i'm getting i'm trying to speed it up i apologize or if the board cannot make the mandatory binding that this project is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood the applicant submitted no massing study no height or shadow analysis which i'm very concerned about no privacy evaluation no neighborhood impact review no sight line assessment no demonstration of compliance with r30 after demolition without evidence of finding cannot be made this if the applicant submitting no safety evaluation which i'm extremely concerned about because i've almost been hit numerous actually i was hit numerous times on plain road across from my house and down by the stop sign it is a dangerous intersection uh there's been accidents um it's already a blind corner and adding the three car garage will only make it worse um no safety of evaluation despite proposition proposing a much larger structure at or near the intersection of two actively traveled streets the increased massing raises serious concerns about blind corners restricted visibility and risk to project pedestrians cyclists and vehicles that could not be held six and last the applicant submitted no storm as bill my neighbor said stormwater even with significant enlarged roof foundation driveway increasing impervious surface on this sloped r30 lot creates a real concern about runoff erosion pulling in the roadway and pressure on the town's drainage system without a storm water analysis the court cannot evaluate these impacts finally i want to add a personal note I've lived in this community for over 35 years. Forgive me, I have laryngitis. And what has always defined plain road, and especially the no-pond area, is its sense of balance, character, and mutual respect among neighbors. Our zoning laws protect not just technical dimensions, but the harmony and livability of this neighborhood. Upholding them is essential to preserving the community we have built and cared about for decades. For all these reasons, I respectfully request that you deny the application and hold them. I appreciate you. Of course. Thank you.
Oh, you signed in, right? Oh, sorry. Yes, please do that. Anyone else?
Thank you.
Thank you for hearing me, members of the zoning board. My name is Michael Hedderi. I live at 48 Plain Road in Wayland, diagonally across from the property. Everybody, the other two participants said most of what I was going to say. The only thing I would add is, and the gentleman on the end here, I'm sorry I don't see your name. On the previous applicant, you talked about how nicely their addition was going to fit in to the fabric of the neighborhood. Our whole area is nothing but capes and colonials. And if you look at the design of this house, it looks like an office building that should be on Route 9. It doesn't fit the fabric of the neighborhood at all. Their attorney mentioned that there were similar additions put on other houses. I've been in the neighborhood for 26 years. I haven't seen any additions of this magnitude on any house. And I'm not going to be a hypocrite. We knocked down the house at 48 Plain Road and built another house. So I don't have an issue with that. It's just the magnitude of the size of the project. It doesn't fit the neighborhood, nor the look fit the neighborhood.
And all I got to say, thank you for the time. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, I don't think you want to speak here. Okay. Yeah, let's take one on one. Sure.
It's in the chat.
Hey there. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. Could you give us your name and address, please? Certainly, yeah. My name is Keith Hopper. I live at 21 Glen Road, which is kitty corner to the lot by the stop sign.
And, you know, for the record, I just want to say that I also opposed the proposed build. I've lived there for four years. I agree with everything that's been said. So the only thing I want to sort of highlight, in addition to the sort of oversizing for the lot and the previous comments about the character in the neighborhood, is the blind corner. I really do want to emphasize that I live right at that intersection that my neighbor referenced earlier. And I've been here for four years, and I've personally seen three accidents at this intersection. And she's correct, it is a blind corner when you're coming in from the west on Plain Road. There's sort of a blind corner coming east on Plain, coming around that corner, and that's right where the lot is. And so I have significant concerns that it's already a dangerous intersection and that it would be worse. But I just wanted to emphasize that in case it was missed. But I think that, you know, the things like the sizing of the lot and the character of the neighborhood are my primary concerns. Thanks for hearing me, especially online. Thank you. I believe you wanted to speak to me.
Brian Donovan, 41, Bilbo Broad. I agree with what everybody has said. My family is, I've lived on the property and spent in my family over 100 years. My grandfather purchased actually that lot and the two lots next to him back in 1922. So I've been here pretty much my whole life. This house is even close to being the character. And actually, I tore down the home that my grandfather built from Sears and Roblox plans. And when I had it designed and built, I made sure it matched every single thing, every single zoning restriction that was there. So I took a non-conforming structure and made it conforming. So things can be done and still make a forever beautiful home that fits into the neighborhood.
And I would also challenge the math. Maths, I actually got a bigger footprint than a smaller footprint.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Anybody else?
Can I just make one? Sure. Just come up and give us your name and address, please. In speaking... Would you mind just giving name and address, please? My name is Ann McGuire, and I've lived at 46 Plain Road for 50 years. And this structure would not fit well. And especially their Clayton School is right down the street. And the children come down Plain Road to go to the Mill Pond. They skate in the winter. They fish in the summer. They, you know, they play at the pond. So there are small children on bicycles that are going along that road every day. So to decrease that visibility is not good. The other thing is, in the last month, I was in my front yard when a truck came barreling along Glen Road and turned into Plain Road in the direction of the Mill Pond and almost took me out. And I was standing in my driveway. I wasn't even on the road. So, you know, clearly children need to be considered in this as well. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Any other questions for the committee? If there's others that are in the neighborhood that basically... Would you mind just stating... Yeah, I think it was... If there's others that are here, but basically echo the sentiments, it's already made. Is it worth noting that we're present tonight? I'm not opposed to progress by any stretch, but it would be great to work with the development group. I think that the underlying theme here is, like, we want to just see more and be involved with it more, so it doesn't break the character. I did not receive on three doors down, did not receive a letter about the intended project. I only knew about this about, you know, two and a half hours ago, so I apologize for the sweatpants, but I think everyone here is in support of progress. That's been echoed. But is there... Is it worth noting others that are here, you know, if there's others beside myself, that we just want to see more and learn more about the project before it improves? Absolutely. Just get an idea. You're going to have them raise their hands if they don't have anything. Sure, I think, yeah. So, yeah, I guess to that end, is everybody here in this room here for this case, if you could raise your hand? All right, so we only have three or four people that are likely here for one of the two cases after this, okay? You'll be happy after. Yes. Excuse me, sir, and I also have a petition signed by all the people that couldn't come that are opposed. Would you mind submitting that? Yeah, if you could submit that to the building department, that'd be great. And, sir, I apologize. Would you mind just coming out and just signing in, please?
Yes. Excuse me.
We can have questions for the opportunity. Okay. Thank you. So do I. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you again. You know, obviously, I just want to preface this with I have great respect for everybody that's got an adversarial proceeding. You know, I appreciate that everyone, you know, is fond of the neighborhood. We want to do something that's complimentary to it. So I did just want to address a couple of the things that came up. First and foremost, the application was submitted in requirements of what the town wants. You know, if there is additional items like stormwater management or a massing study or something along those lines, you know, certainly it's something we're happy to discuss with the board. See if those will help, you know, move the needle with anybody on those items. But I just don't want there to be left with an impression that anything nefarious was done because, you know, reports that are not required by the base application are not submitted. You know, obviously, we can develop on things and on questions as they get brought up by the neighbors, as they get brought up by the board, and we can address them accordingly. But I did just want to just touch on that. You know, I'm aware of the stormwater. I think that it's a good question. You know, it's certainly something we can address related to the contours and present a plan on that basis. I did notice as to the height, you know, I'm looking at a plan that says 37. I have an application that says 35. In discussing with my client, I think I just have an early rendition. The appropriate height is 35. Which would be compliant in that zoning district. Additionally, you know, the front and the side yard setback, I understand that it's in front on two streets. And there's a visibility question there. But the setbacks themselves are compliant on both the front and the side. That is a question there. The only nonconformity is on the side that is furthest away from the street. And again, doubling the conformity there of what presently exists. There was a question on whether it's new construction. I've appeared before this board previously with a similar application, which was treated as a special permit throughout. Our expectation was that this was a special permit also where the basement was remaining and being used on that basis. And to the gentleman who said I did the math wrong, I probably did. But I'm using I'm doing it on the fly here. I will just caveat that that gross floor area calculation does take out unfinished basements. It takes out mechanical rooms. It takes out garages. So I'm not sure what math he did. He very well could be correct. But the math that I did, I came up with 5,042 as once proposed based on a plan set that I have. You know, it's also not lost on me that the increase is 23 percent and the standard is 20. And if the applicant were to lose 3 percent of the house, it wouldn't be in the purview of the board anymore. So I do think that there are situations where sometimes it's in the best interest to be in front of the board because it allows the board to have discretion and have input and hear from the neighbors. So, you know, just the fact that you hear on your own, it, you know, is not damning in and of itself. Sometimes it it ends up being the best result because it allows for the most the most input. I was advised that that notices percent, you know, I if that was not the case, if not everybody got the notice, you know, you know, we can address that and have some sort of neighborhood meeting. We can figure that out. But I mean, it it just feels to me at this point that the neighborhood, you know, obviously I want to discuss my client. But I think the neighborhood has some questions, I guess, to leave with to leave with actionable. I guess I just want to know what questions the board has so that we can come back with a with a legitimate answer to whatever it is. And if if if you find it substantially more detrimental, that's what you find. But, you know, I'm certainly always going to work for the solutions. And I'd like to just avoid a situation where we come back in 30 days. It's hey, we forgot to we forgot to ask you about this last time. And it's further delay. So I would inquire if the board, based on the presentation of the comments, if the board had any specific questions that we could address as well. Sure. I'll sort of take the lead on that. And I would say that the application is flawed because the application that was submitted is very clearly for an addition. And that's what's in the public notice. And you're proposing to demolish the structure. So I would say that your characterization that this is like the other cases we heard tonight is as far off as it could possibly be. I'm sorry. I meant on the application I had had previously. I would also say that your application materials are incomplete because while it is true that we don't ask for stormwater calculations, we do ask for high calculations counted on the average grade. And you've submitted a project that is 37 feet tall above the high grade, not even the average grade. So we could just reject this application outright for being correct and for giving it something that's very clearly a violation. So, again, you know, I live very close to here and I drive by this house every day. And I was, quite frankly, shocked at the examples you submitted in the application of adjacent structures because they're not. This neighborhood is a neighborhood of largely one-story homes. And you kind of selectively cropped to houses that are, well, close by are also on much larger lots. So, like, I'm not going to say that there's necessarily a problem with demolishing a house on a non-conforming lot and expanding it because this board approves that routinely. But when we do, we have much more comprehensive materials than what we have here. And, again, you're not obligated to provide stormwater calculations and all that for zoning approval. But typically we see site plans with topography and with the setbacks indicated. Now, I do agree that you are improving a side yard setback, but I think it would be very hard for us with this application to say that we can even make a finding under 401.1.2 because I think this is very different from other cases where we've used this same approach. So... I share your opinion on this as well. So, I think in terms of actions for this, there's a couple of options here. Like, again, I think the application's flawed, so you could withdraw the application. Or we could continue this hearing and you could come back with, like, an alternate design that I think probably could go a long way towards finding something that is not detrimental. I think we saw three cases tonight of projects that we looked at that all had much more sympathetic renovations to existing conditions. So, I kind of see it as, I think you have two options. I think you withdraw this application or you continue the case. I think for logistics, it probably makes the most sense to just, not to withdraw, but to just keep the existing application, work off of that, clean up with what the board wants addressed. And, you know, I'm going to propose to my clients that we conduct a neighborhood meeting and have a seat with everybody and find out what's going on. And, again, I didn't submit the application, so if there's flaws in it, I apologize. But we want to get those addressed and work through it. I just think that can we get it done by December? I don't know. But if we have to resubmit and hit the publication and deadlines, it's probably unlikely to get back in for that if it was to be withdrawn. So, I would probably think just continue it as the most appropriate. If it doesn't get in for December, try to get in for January, if the board is comfortable with that. I'm comfortable with continuing it, but I think a couple of things to sort of keep in mind. I'd like to see some data on the square footage calculations. And I'm really confused by your statement if it makes sense you are tearing a house down. And there is a section of the bylaw that talks about what happens when you tear a house down. It happens to be that this is a non-conforming lot. So, I think we did hear from some member of the public that if you tear down a structure or the non-conforming lot, the non-conforming it goes away. That's not actually legally correct. The statute does allow for existing non-conformities to be torn down and new non-conformities created. That's covered under the special permit language that we use here that is staying statewide. That said, there are specific things that are different with an application when you're proposing to demolish an existing house and rebuild something. And as I said, this was listed and sort of described as an addition and remodel. And it's really not what it is.
So, I think if you – I think so process-wise, I think there are probably some updates to the application. And then I would encourage you to sort of take a look at some of the other houses in the neighborhood and see if it's possible to come up with a kind of design that accomplishes what your clients want, but also starts to take some architectural cues from the adjoining structures. I also want to be sure that you can demonstrate that an application will comply with the 35-foot height limit, and that's 35 feet measured from the mean grade or the average natural grade. And the by-law tells you exactly how to calculate that. There's a series of points measured, some dimension off the foundation of the proposed structure. Sure. I think you also have to be very careful because this – the elevation drawings create the impression that this is a three-story house, which is only permitted on the mainland on lots in excess of three acres or something like that, I believe, or six acres. So, I think you're going to want to make sure you can address all of those concerns. So, I realize I said a lot. I know some other members of the board had some questions. You hit a lot of things that I was going to say already, and I really like to push the fact to talk with the neighbors and really gain their feedback on what they would like to kind of see as far as for design and potentially, you know, when you're considering, you know, potential impact to other properties, what you're going to be able to do to be able to help support them as a community. Any other comments from the board? Are we going to have the site plan revised so that you would see some topography, see a driveway, see if there are any other structures on the property? We need a complete application. We need to see the topography. We need to see the driveway. We need to see – I would say we probably also need to see the, like, sort of trees that are going to be removed to sort of make this project happen. It's a relatively wooded site right now. I know it's a compact site, but there is a fair amount of tree coverage on it, which is typically for the neighborhood. I'd also like to get a better understanding of what the attic would end up looking like just because of the sheer sizing of what was being seen for me. Can I just ask you, above and beyond, what is in that plan? Like, what do you want? I want to see elevations inside of the attic space and how are you going to be able to – I think you want to see a cross-section. I want to see a cross-section, yeah. Cross-section through the structure. And the size, shrinking the size, don't do it here. Yep. I think we're curious about the height in the attic. That's part of the concern. Nine feet inside. Well, as I said, I think the application right now, as submitted, is entirely non-conforming. Entirely violates the height of it. So, yeah, that's clear. All right. So, we do need to vote on a continuance. So, do we have a form or no? Well, yes, you are. I'm assuming you are agreeing to continue this, not to provide the application. Yeah. Okay. Yes, preferably, I guess, to December, and we'll see where we stand. Yeah. So, in order to do this, we actually have to take a vote to continue this to the December 9th hearing. Correct. So, we could propose it at 7.30. I know we'll never get there. So, I'd make a motion to continue case 25-30 for 43 Plain Road to December 9th at 7.30. Second. All right. That was a close one there. You got it. All right. So, all in favor of that, I will call Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. Sarian. Yes. Ms. Janice. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So, yes, you are continue to December 9th at 7.30. Excellent. And if the affair is unlikely, we're going to be prepared. At that point, I'll give the board as much notice as we can. Yeah. And then you can just coordinate another extension. Sure. That's pretty easy. Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a nice day, everybody. Thank you. All right. So, we're going to move on to our next case. This is... Hang on here. We have two additional cases. It's 9.35. We're going to have a stop at 10. So, I don't know that we're going to be able to get to both of these next cases. Unless... I... That was the start. I know. We're still in the meeting. Yeah. If you could please just take your conversation out. Thank you.
All right. So, we're going to move on to our next case. This is case 25-31. This is 149 Woodbridge Road. This is the application of Nicholas Tadan and Amy Seilbergogan for the property located at 149 Woodbridge Road in the single residence car for the zoning district. The applicants for seeking a special permit variance or other zoning relief to construct the deck at the rear of the existing single-family dwelling. The building is pre-existing and non-conforming with respect to side yard setback farmers. Good evening. Hi. I'm Peter Levinson with New England Sunrooms. Nick Haddad is also with us on Zoom. He is the homeowner of the property. I am the contractor and a Wayland resident for 30 years. And this is a pre-existing non-conforming lot, and there's a deck in the rear of it that we are proposing to cover, and with a larger sun porch, which is the dimensions are on there 16 foot wide by 12 foot 10 deep. And I believe that the side setback is what's non-conforming with our proposal, but not as much as what is existing. We don't think this is deleterious to the neighborhood. It's in the back. The homeowners who would like to be able to enjoy their conservation land and wooded area, and one of them is highly allergic to insect bites, so this would be a place that they could enjoy it. They're environmentalists. They have gardens out back. We do have approval from conservation, and we have approval from the health department.
Okay.
Quick question. It looks to me like the side yard setback is actually six inches, but the application, I think I read two feet. Did I read that correctly? It's 19 feet. Is our, is what? No, the existing, the existing side yard setback, it says two feet dash 14. Are you talking about the garage? I'm looking at the site, I'm looking at the site, well, I'm looking at the application. The application says the existing side yard setback. Like, something is crossed out, then it says two foot dash 14 foot, between, you're saying between two and 14 feet, and then the proposed is 19 feet. But when I look at the site plan, I think the side yard setback is actually 0.5 feet. It's an extremely odd situation. I agree. I don't think this is a problem. I just think we want to make sure the application is correct. Like, I'm not looking at what you're looking at other than the, I'm looking at the plan. I'm looking at the plot plan, the corner of the garage. Yeah, the garage looks like it's right up against, I don't know whether that's. 0.5 feet, so wouldn't that be the side yard setback? Yes. The existing one. Yes, the existing one. Yeah, your proposed, the proposed porch is fine. The proposed porch is, I'm just talking about the application. Yes. Yeah. So the side yard setback should say 0.5 feet. Okay. Thank you.
I guess before we go on, any other, anything else you want to tell us about the project? Um, well, then it's, it's not invasive, but I'm not sure that that's relevant to this, to this department, uh, in terms of being up on peers off the ground. It's not disturbing the ground, uh, but I don't know that that's, uh, relevant to tonight's meeting. Yeah. So I'm looking at the, I guess I'm really struggling with on the application. Um, so I see, I see snake brook here, and then I see a line that is a 100 foot offset to wetland that's clearly not a hundred feet from the brook. Um, I don't necessarily think this is a problem because like large portions of the existing structure are closer to the brook than this house. Um, but is this project been, um, looked at by the conservation commission yet? Yeah. It went through the whole process. It's been approved as well as the health department. There's a septic system in the front yard that was replaced, uh, within the last year and a half. What is the existing size of the current porch? Because that's what you're putting it on. Yeah. Um, well, you can see where it says deck that wraps around the back of the house. Um, there's a corner in there that says deck. So that deck is all one piece that goes from where it says deck back around the house to the left of where the proposed sun porches. Um, and there's a really faint dotted line underneath it. It might be hard to say that it shows the existing deck in the same location. There's a door there now that goes out from the house, uh, to the deck.
Yeah, I can, I can see it. It looks like the side of the, the sun, the side of the proposed porch, Adam, that's listed at 12.8 feet when it returns to the house. Just beyond that, there's a, and you can see a light gray angled line that goes from the existing deck was. So this, this looks like it sticks out maybe another, I don't know, four, six feet beyond the existing deck. Okay. Now I see it. Yeah, yeah, I can see it. It's an angled line. It's not, yeah, it's very hard to see, but it's not. So that's how it goes, right? Um, I think this is the new part. Yeah. I'm assuming that you two are not here for this project. Yeah. You are here for this project. Okay. Um, if you've got nothing else you want, do you have, can you say a few words about this? Is there? Sure. Yeah. Sure. Just come up and just give it, just quickly sign in on the sheet.
So I'm Terry Schultz, I know it's in Ross. It's nice to meet you. We moved in over the summer. Um, and so we basically got a letter in the mail saying this, your construction is happening. And we didn't even know what was going on. So that's sort of why we're here to figure out what the plan was and what it's going to look like. Um, when we bought the house, we were informed that the current, uh, corner was within 30 inches of our property line. There was a variance, I think, back in the 1970s. Um, but then when we looked at the office of the assessor's map, it looks like actually the stack is on our property line a little bit. Um, we just wanted to know more of like, will this need to be encroaching and more on our property? Will the construction was happening? Is it going to them? Is it going on our property? Just want to understand more about the project and its impact on it. Um, and you are, uh, 153, 153, so I've tactically, we're saying the dog should probably have a house in that part. Yeah, so, um, so we have a drawing that explains it. I, I think the, the, the proposed porch is, is, is not near that part of the property. Um, so, yeah, this is, it's a very confusing, it's a very confusing site, but it does appear like there are some steps and some pavers that make, uh, that connect between the driveway and the back of the garage that are not on the applicant's property.
Yeah. Um, so, um, I mean, that they're not, they're existing, but they're not here.
So, uh, I don't know necessarily what to do about that, but they, yeah, that is, that is true. I mean, that, that space is, hi, by the way, I'm, I'm the, uh, homeowner and it's, I haven't had a chance to meet you all yet. The, in the room, uh, the, our new neighbors, um, but I'm Nick, nice to meet you. I'm, I'll come by and introduce myself. Um, yeah, that, um, since we've moved that, that space has been a little, a little funny because it's, it's, it's, it's your property, but, um, it's on the other side of the river. Right. And so, um, it's kind of a funny, a funny zone. And so there are some steps there that are technically on, uh, our pavers that are part of your property. Um, or they, uh, when we were buying, um, the only concern was like, when we, when we received the notice in the mail, it was very unclear what it was, what the project was going to look like, but if it was going to come up to that, basically where the, the side setback would only 30 inches, if it was going to approach more of what it looked like, just cause I, I think we haven't met, it, it's why we came to just understand. Yeah. Yeah, it's actually, it looks like the proposed, the proposed porch is definitely not near that portion of it. Yeah, it's, it's, it's really, it's really on the, yeah, yeah, we just didn't know anything about it other than construction was happening on this type of, and it would be a porch, so. Understand. Okay. Sweet. Good for that. Thank you. Yeah.
Any other comments, I guess, before we close the public portion of the hearing? I don't have any additional comments. Okay. All right. Um, so I, I think this is actually a relatively straightforward project, but on a highly unusual property that actually took me quite a while to understand what was happening, where the property line was. So beyond the fact that I think we want to make sure we correct the application to know that the existing side yard setback is 0.5 feet, and then the proposed side yard setback is the 19.3. I think that's, I think that's important. Um, I think it's really easy to make a finding under a 401.1.2 that, unlike the previous project, this project actually does not propose a, any derogation to the existing neighborhood, um, and is clearly not a hazard to, um, to health or safety or anything like that. Um, it seems like, as I said, it's a very straightforward, um, special permit application on an extremely non-straightforward law. Um, so, um, what, any other, what does the, what does the board think about this, maybe before the application? From a, sorry, from a, from a documentation standpoint, um, I just want to make sure that it's not a variant, it's, it's a special permit, so that we remove the variance part of it. Um, just from your side, that everything would be good to go, as far as for documentation-wise. Just, as far as for the, um, the side air setback, do we keep that as a zero, like, do we say that it's 0.5 and then it stays at 0.5 because it's still a setback of 0.5? Correct. Yeah. I, I, I suppose. But the, I guess we would maybe say the deck location change would be 19.3? Yeah, I think it's a way to, yes, I'd agree. I think it's, it's probably fine to phrase it like that. Okay. I just want to make sure we have accountability of that for, because I don't, I don't want to, you know, for Nick's sake to be able to, you know, have that documentation change and then it's actually not that, not the case. So, um, and then besides the, that, I mean, the, we request is fairly straightforward, kind of like what you were saying. And, um, seems fairly reasonable to make it.
I agree. All right. Nick, you're that sentiment. All right. Sorry. Good thoughts. I'm basically it. Um, Ms. Janice, any comments? No, I don't think so. Um, all right. It's, it's to the rear of the house. It's not, you know, it's not affecting anything else around it. Um, it is close to the neighbors, but it is decidedly on the, um, homeowners property. I guess with that, I think I'm, I'm satisfied that under 401.1.2, this, this, this proposed structure, uh, or it's a structure is, um, is not, uh, substantially more detrimental, uh, to the existing condition, sorry, to the neighborhood than the, uh, current existing conditions are. Um, so I guess with that, I would make a motion, uh, under 203.1 that, um, the board grant a, uh, a special permit for the proposed enclosed porch, um, at 149 Woodward Road, uh, because I think the applicant has shown, um, that the proposed porch is not against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which such use, this building or structure occurs, and is not more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibrations, smoke, gas, wind, odor, dust, or other educational procedures, and that the proposed porch is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangers to the public health or safety. Seconded. Um, I would also propose that we condition this special permit, uh, with three things. One, that the application, some of the, the points on the application are corrected as discussed in the meeting. Two, the applicant has got to, um, submit, so it has to comply, uh, still be product in substantial conformance with the plans that have been submitted, and they've got to, um, obtain and maintain any other approvals with other town boards as may be required. Um, so, um, again, by all call and vote, um, if we're approving this special permit, um, Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Parrish. Aye. Mr. Sarian. Aye. Ms. Janice. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So, special permit is approved. Um, if you can get that application just revised and submitted back to the building department, that would be great. Okay, can I just ask a quick question, the difference between special, or this is a special permit, not a variant. It's not a special permit, not a variant. Um, did that have, uh, what should I know about that as the applicant? A lot easier. It's easier. A variant is an extremely tricky legal standard to me. Yeah. I don't think this project would be applicable for a variant. There's no real hardship, um, involved. You're better off as a special permit. Yeah. No, that's what I always thought. Yeah. A variant requires, like, the articulation of a particular hardship that's unique to this property that's different from every other property. Okay. It doesn't really mean that. We've already applied for the permit. We're in that process right now, so I'll just continue with, uh, the building permit process. And revise, just revise your... Revise this week. Yeah, you're going to revise your application. Okay. Thanks. Okay. 14-day. We're in order to do a project. Yeah, thank you very much. 15-day process is on a 20-day appeal period. That's just required by the state. But after that, um, that would be what you need to have to finalize before you get the billing permit. Right. Good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. And, uh, look forward to meeting you guys, my neighbors. Yeah. Nice to meet you. Yeah. Great. I'm your neighbor, too, actually. Oh, yeah. Oh, really? Oh.
Oh, hi. Nice to see you. We should all get together. I'll come down here and go. Nice to see you guys. Yeah. All right. So, um, thank you. I don't know if we're going to be a little... So, what does the board want to do? We've got seven minutes left, and we've got one more case. There's no one here. I'm assuming they're online.
That's good. They're not going to be online. There are types of panelists. I'm online. I'm here. Oh, okay. So, the applicant is here. So, is the board able to stick out? Except for you guys. So, we want to push this off.
Are we able to get... Are we able to get actually our paid members, our paid employees that are here? Is it reasonable to sort of stay later or not? I think we'll be okay. Okay. I'm good. All right. I think we can do this. Let's do this. This is our last case of the night. This is case 25-32 for 13 Harrison Street. This is the application of a not sewer Romanian and Christopher Mangold for the property located at 13 Harrison Street, and the single residents are 20 Gunning District. The applicants are seeking a special permit, variance, or other zoning relief to construct additions to their house. The proposed addition is approximately 219 square feet, including an entrance mudroom, a kitchen, expansion on the first floor, and an extension on the second floor. The existing structure is non-conforming with respect to lot size, frontage, lot coverage, side, and 20-yard setbacks. So, good evening. Why don't you give us an introduction to who you are and what your project is about? Okay. Excuse me. My name is Alan Julius, and I'm actually the architect on the project. I'm here by Zoom because I thought it wasn't going to – I had a 6 o'clock. It looks like I could have made it now, but I chose to come by Zoom because I didn't think it made it. The owner was supposed to be there, but they have a small – they have a newborn small child. We're here. We're online. Oh, they're here. Okay. I didn't see the name of that. The small child was dead, I guess. Yes. All right. So, good. We do have an owner's there. But – so, I guess you have the application, but they're – you know, the – they're not conforming for lot size, frontage, which, you know, is what it is. You can't do anything about that. We've got side yards, front, and we're not changing that. We have – I mean, excuse me. We have a front yard. We're not changing that. We're – we are putting addition on the side, but it's beyond the closest point, so, of the existing non-conforming spot, I guess you'd say. So, I don't see that it's – makes it less conforming or increases the non-conformance. There's a small addition on the opposite side, which is much greater than the setback, and it's – you're just enclosing an existing covered porch for a – for a mudroom and entrance. But the addition on the – that's nearest the – the property line is a kitchen addition and a second-floor addition that'll stretch the bedroom and bathroom area. It'll actually stretch the bedroom so you can fit a bathroom, I guess is the – is the idea, because there's no bathroom on the second-floor, a common bathroom.
It doesn't increase the height. It, you know, I don't – it does increase – it does increase. It's just the – let's see. What is it? There's the lot coverage by about 1%. It's 20%. I think currently it's 22-something, and then it adds an extra 1%, but it's already slightly over.
And that's pretty straightforward, I think. I have – if I need – if you need me to share, or I don't know if you have a screen or – or do you have the drawings, I think? We've got all of – we've got all the drawings here, and I've actually got a – I've got a ball up on my – a ball up on my laptop here, so I'm – does the rest of the board feel like they understand? Oh, yeah, I understand. Okay. I – there's obviously no one else here in the room, and there's no one else online, so I know there's no other – there's no other people that we have to listen to tonight for a presentation.
I think this is extremely straightforward. Thank you for submitting, I would say, very comprehensive architectural plans and a very comprehensive site plan where everything is labeled, it's dimensioned, it's clear, and I also think we can see clearly between the existing and the proposed floor plans exactly what the scope of the project is. And I would agree, it's extremely minor, and I think this is the – this is the kind of addition that, you know, one of our previous applicants probably would have benefited from, some sort of thoughtful designs and more than this.
So thank you for putting together, I would say, a comprehensive project plan. I didn't have any additional questions, but I'm hearing there might be a question. I have one question, and I just want to make sure – this is more for the applicant's safety and stuff. So the – on the existing – on the singular page, it's showing 16155 for the addition on one side, 88, and 47. But if you go to the actual plans, it shows it as 9148, 5, 6 1⁄4, and 15, 11 1⁄2. I think that's the difference between metric – oh, not metric, but decimal and inches. I don't know if – there may be a slight – I know that was done by the surveyor. I'd have to do the math, but – Oh, I see. So I just want to make sure that everything's covered appropriately, that's all. Fair. Yeah, the plot point is listed all in feet, like 4.7 feet and 5.5 feet. So if that would really be 5 foot 6 inches, if it were not in – not expressed as a decimal feet. But what about the 8.8 going up to 9 foot 1 inch, though? Well, that I don't understand. That's a discrepancy. I – it was probably scaled off of our field dimensions and the surveyor – you know, off of his survey. I would say the survey is more accurate. They're done by instruments. We took it – we do ours by tape, but – So just to be on the safe side here, I want to make sure we're going to go off of these plans and not the – No, I think he's saying we should go off the survey. Going off the survey? Okay. Yeah. We're filling in that corner, whatever it ends up being. No, no. It's not a lot or anything. I mean, it's more along the lines of more just minor housekeeping stuff that I just want to make sure that it's just accounted for appropriately. That's all. And we can – we actually – we can actually change ours to match, you know. We'll probably put the inches equivalent, but we can make it match. Okay. Yeah, we can make that. Yeah, yeah. We can make that. We can make that. This is not a large change. No. Any other comments or questions from the board? No, it's totally reasonable. Totally reasonable.
Listen, I want to close that and sort of, I guess, move on to the deliberation perspective here. Again, I think this project is an example of how we can sensitively modify a pre-existing non-performing structure. I think this is something that, like, maybe members of the public are not sort of understanding about the work that we do on the board in approving things. But I would hold this out as a good example. And maybe this could be published on the building department website or held up as an example of how one can modify a pre-existing non-performing lot. It's extremely challenging. It's narrow. It's got side yard sit-back problems. And there's a lot of other accessory structures on the site plan as well. And someone has figured out a way in which they can execute a project like this. So thank you for that. I think this one is extremely easy to make a finding under 401.1.2. I think that what the applicant is proposing is not, this alteration is not potentially more detrimental than the existing non-performing structure. We see that in two reasons. One, I think that the application is, it's very clearly part of the existing architecture. It's part of the fabric of the existing neighborhood. I think we can also see that there's no one here is interested in opposing this project. That also says something about the character of the neighborhood and how we can apply the language in 401.1.2. So unless there's any other discussion for the board, I would move right to make a motion on this. I'll go with that. Okay. So I make a motion under 2 or 3.1 that the board grants a special permit for application 25-32 at 32 Harrison Street. Because I would argue that the applicant has shown to the board that the proposed structure is not against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which such use building or structure occurs. And it's not more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas fumes, or dust, or other objectionable features. And that the proposed additions are not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangers to the public health or safety. Second it. Thank you for that. I think the only two conditions we would apply to this is that the project has to be constructed and constructed in substantial conformance with the plans that are submitted. And the applicant have to obtain any other approvals, any other approvals, as may be required. So without any additional modifications, I do a quick roll call vote to approve this. Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. Sarian. Ms. Jenis. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So this is approved. So we have to write the decision up. And that takes about two weeks. And then after that, there was a statutory required period, and from there, you can then take that document, file it, and then proceed with your building permit application. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Good luck. They'll make a nice difference. Thank you. Thanks. I make a lot of attention. Well, didn't we have, we had an update, we had an update from the building commissioner on two issues. Oh, so when I go through my breakneck speed, uh, yes.
So the updated hearing schedule for 2026, um, in our bylaws, it does say that we have to have a 30, it's a 35 days minimum, 35 day minimum. And we have been doing less than that. 35 day minimum for, for, um. So it has to be, um, submitted, basically five weeks before the deadline, uh, before the hearing. So that is supposed to be the deadline. But we have it more closer to 30, to 30 days. For applications to be conceived and then next month? Yes. Okay. So the deadline, but because under Massachusetts general law, the only, uh, rule that is, you have to open the hearing within 65 days. And we do that, but it's not always a minimum of 35 days. Okay. So it sounds like you guys are going to increase your requirement as far as for being able to get that application in prior, 35 days prior to being able to be seen at the next year. Okay. Makes sense. Yep. And that's what this is. This is the. Yes. The proposed schedule. The proposed schedule for next year. Okay. And do you want to touch on 228 Gleeson? So, yeah, we had someone come by from the select board from 25, uh, 20. 228 Gleeson. 228 Gleeson. Which is the, uh, tennis. Tennis and swim club. Wales tennis is one. And they like to amend their permit. They want to increase their membership by 25 additional members. And so they want to ask when would it be a good time to schedule that for a hearing. Obviously you have a lot of, um, material and a lot of, since this is, I believe. So we wouldn't need to go through all these, uh, previous, um, decisions to see if there was a condition, but basically it's just asking you when it would be a good time for them to schedule, to combine it. So I have a unique perspective on this because I'm a past president of the Wales Women Tennis Club. And I actually had to oversee the application of the renewal of the special permit. And I would just say that there is, um, the club has always had a desire to get more members and it would be important because it's, uh, membership restricted and the waiting list is at this point up to nine years. Um, the only thing I would add is that there is an extremely vocal group of neighbors that have bought the club that are extremely opposed to any increase in the membership. So without a hearing for this, we can expect something that will take a fair amount of time. So the, and the board, the club usually is aware of this. So we might, if we're going to come up with a time, it's like, we're going to want to probably set this up as, uh, we want, just want to have the expectation that there might be a fair number of people that are going to show up and are going to want to be heard to review this, to, to do anything with the club. Um, depending on the board schedule, could we start a meeting earlier and have them go first? I don't see, I don't see why not. I mean, I don't know what, it just might be a custom that we start at seven o'clock, but I'm happy to move it earlier. I don't think it's fair to the two of you to have to be here at 1030 at night. Um, you know, are on the job sometimes. So what about, what, do we know that there's a light docket coming up on a particular month and maybe January? Well, it definitely said, uh, in the new year, it would be January or February. So is, is there a potential lighter month that may not require as much time in which we can say? I have no idea. Yeah. I mean, you guys would know better than us. It's just more, it really isn't an ideal time. I think it's just for you and the board to be aware that in the past, this has attracted a lot of attention. So how about, how about if we have a lot of hearings that we can come to communicate and make it at six 30 maybe, but if there's no hearings, then why would we change the time? Yeah, that's a good point. If we get no applications, like we'll know, we'll know very, you'll know very soon. Yeah. You'll know.
I think the community is well notified ahead of time that there'll be a time change. Well, people that live there, they, they, they, I know. They, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they're finding out about, uh, well, let me know because when they submit the application, they'll get part of me know that, you know, how many applications we're going to have. But I just want to be cognizant of that. That's all. So the application wouldn't be influenced by the deadline. It's always two weeks before the hearing and then one week before the hearing. And then the hearing goes out. The notice goes out, I believe, uh, at least two weeks.
Okay.
So are you talking, so are you considering a change from seven o'clock start times to earlier or for a particular case? We're just asking if we, if we see, if we see a case where we anticipate a large, a large amount of turnout, or we have a large number of cases, could we, could we pull the members at some point before the meeting and see if we could move it to 630, a 630 start time? If we were in that situation, just being aware that we have this 35 or right? 35 day notice to pick that, make sure that time gets posted. Just confirming something, February, the date for the ZBA meeting is the 9th.
Just double checking, because I'm going to be on vacation the week afterwards. Here it gets the 10th. Or sorry, the 10th, excuse me. Yes. Okay. Second Tuesday. Okay. Just double checking, because you're not around. The week after, I won't be around.
Any, uh, anyone want to make a motion? I do. You got to do it again. I didn't make my motion. Second it. All right. Uh, roll call. Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Herney. Aye. Mr. Sari. Aye. Ms. Gettis. Aye. Mr. White and I were adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.
How many parking lots, restaurants have in Boston or Cambridge? Maybe none. But what, you know, what do they have? Valets. So what happens if one of your employees, if I, I think you have, you said that you have two different types of visitors, one take off. And then if they go and sit and have whatever they want to have there, one of your employees would violate it and park the car somewhere up the street, probably that resolves your parking situation, which is like, in my opinion, it is a really serious, serious issue. I know the town wants it, everybody wants it, but you know what, I don't want to create risk in creating accidents. But if this works, it resolves your property. So what are the four things about it? It's a, it's certainly an interesting idea. I don't know enough about the regulations on, or if there are any on valet parking, but it certainly seems, it's one of many options that I think on a business decision, the applicant could probably, probably take. But I think the risk to the town on the parking is extremely minimal. I think the risk is kind of 98% in this case on the success of, it's really on the business succeeding here. You know, I think if there's a parking shortage there, I mean, there are, there are parking shortages in areas, in the areas of Wayland now, and there are parking surpluses. There's massive parking surpluses in Wayland, at the town center, at the CVS. So there are, like, I mean, this town has got an inordinate amount of parking for the number of people that we have here. So it was not distributed in the right spot, I guess. Imagine if they create a convenience here for someone parking the car for them. Again, the risk factor, the danger, is a very, very serious issue. I don't want anybody getting hurt because somebody just inconsiderately backed up a car or a forward or so. It's an issue. Parking is an issue when there's a heavy traffic, you know, coming from there. I don't know what, how would they resolve that? I think that's for the applicant to figure out. That doesn't really, yeah. I think that's a great suggestion. Yeah, I mean, I'm just trying to say, if you go to Cambridge or you go to Boston. It's a great, it's a great point. Nobody has parking. I guess, you know, something for the applicant to think about. One of the issues with that is, yeah, one of the issues with that is, they're catering. The cafe is more like a quicker coffee type situation. So maybe for dinner, I could see that. That's what I'm saying. If it's a quick pickup, then it's not a problem. But if it's sitting, they have to, I mean, if one of the employees, if they have, they don't have to hire a valet company or so. One of the employees can take responsibility to park the car. That would resolve your problem, in my opinion. It is one of the solutions we are exploring when the time comes, especially because those peak hours would be the complimentary closing hours for several of the businesses nearby. Rent those slots. Already in discussion. I guess, so, Ms. Paul, do you have any other thoughts here? I probably don't have anything to say that hasn't been said already. But it seems like the applicant has been very diligent in looking into every possible opportunity there is to create spaces and figure out a way to resolve this. So, I mean, aside from the obvious parking issues, I mean, I think that this is a great addition to the town and everybody seems very excited about it. So, I'm happy to support it moving forward. So, I'm sure the applicant will do everything that she can to maximize the amount of space and people who can visit the bistro. So, I guess with that, looking at Section 401.1.2, the key issue is making a final that the proposed use here, which is going to be provided with no parking, is not really any different than the current use, which also has no parking. And, you know, I know that the building has been through multiple uses, and I know that the applicant has submitted a lot of material that sort of went through the parking analysis the applicant had done to sort of show that the amount of spaces proposed here is not any different, really, from the amount of spaces that were available, in which case they're both zero, from the previous use. But I also think she demonstrated that her use doesn't have any more potential users than the existing use inside the building right now has for that. So, I think, you know, by that standard under 401.1.2, I think it's pretty easy to find that replacing one use, that one commercial use, one permitted commercial use in a district, right, on a building that has no parking, with another permitted commercial use in the same district that also has no parking, for which the applicants demonstrated there's not a substantial difference in the amount of vehicles needed. So, I think that's a pretty clear finding that I think we can, as a board, easily support. I don't think we need to, we also don't need to vote on a finding. This is really just a unanimous discussion. Right. So, does everyone agree that I think it's a simple straight forward finding, that there is no, there is no detrimental effect to the change of use? Well, I don't, I don't, I don't, respectfully, I don't necessarily agree, because the existing building, the existing businesses in that building, they don't have any parking, and they don't, there is no parking. There is no parking provided. There was no parking before. There is, there's no parking before. There is no parking now. And they're both uses that demonstrate the same vehicle traffic. So, it's, it's, it's a, it's a, it's kind of like arguing a negative. It's like, there's zero parking providers. I'd be happy to, to discuss further. I see the point. I, I totally understand where you come from on it. And I, I would agree. If there was, with the business that was already there, no parking, no parking now, nothing's technically changing from a parking perspective. Do we hope that there's better options? Absolutely. But technically, it's not really changing that aspect. So, I would, I would agree with you. Yeah, and our ability to control the parking, not on our site, is, is, it doesn't exist. Our ability to sort of, to condition some other form of parking relief isn't, it's like legally, we don't have the ability to do that. Well, what if they find a solution for that, like finding everybody? They, they, they can, they, they can find that. But I, I mean, my review with, uh, town council was very straightforward. That, like, we, we can't, we can't, we can't, we can't, we can't legislate sort of particular vehicles. I'm just suggesting. No, it's a, it's a very, it's a very good suggestion. Yeah. But the, the other thing is, it becomes, it becomes, this argument becomes, it's, it's highly technical, but it's simple at the same time. Like, if this use is not, it's not permitted, the building ultimately has no viability as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a, as a structure. Because, right. I listened to the video. I read the thing for three times. It's all about parking. Correct. So, I mean. Yeah, to me, it's, it's, it, it comes from the fact that it's either, you know, if we think it's not, if we think this use is more detrimental, you know, than the current lack of parking, then, then that would, that would be a very different position. But, yeah. I wouldn't say it that way. I'm just suggesting that, you know, if we can improve it, if they can make this work, it can be improving, improving the situation. Yeah, and we could, we could talk about that as we, if we make the finding under 401.1.2, which I think we did, if we go on to the step two, which is we have to grant the special permits for a change of use on a pre-existing non-conforming, right? The fact that, that there is a, a, a, a use change or something, and that's separate from the restaurant permit. But I, I guess with that, I, I would make a motion under, uh, 203.1 that, let me find that, find that language here, um, that, uh, this board grants a special permit for a change of use on the existing, the pre-existing non-conforming. property, because I think it's clear that as part of this motion, the application is not against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which the use, business, or structure occurs, and is not more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, fumes, odor, dust, or other rejectable features, and that the use does not otherwise, is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangerous. The, um, we'll, um, second on that motion. Second. Um, any amendments to that motion, not? So, just to make sure, as far as, for based on the application, that we are not providing any dedicated off-street parking, as part of this approval. That is correct. Okay, I just wanna make sure that that's a part of that, which would be a separate expectation from what was originally requested. I talk about the original application. Yeah, I just want to make sure that with the card. I believe so. I think wasn't it relief from that? I think it was relief. Relief. Relief from the requirement. In which that's not going to go. Any conditions to this motion? On top of our standard conditions? Well, yeah, but we don't actually need, I think those conditions would apply to the second special permit, which is the rest one. This is literally a special permit allowing them to change the use, not indicating what that use is, but swapping one permitted use that provides with another permitted use. There's no request for relief for an additional use here. It's another permitted use. I don't see it. Okay. All in favor, we'll do this as a roll call. Mr. Perrick. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. Sarian. Aye. Ms. Ball. Okay, how are you? Aye. Sorry. Mr. White. Aye. Okay. So we have granted a special permit to change, a change of use on a pre-existing non-conformer property. So this brings us to the second component, which is the applicant also needs to be needed for a restaurant special permit under section 1102.1.1. So I was going to find that language. So the language here is straightforward. A special permit, in this case from the ZBA, we have to satisfy ourselves if there's a clearly established need for this business in town, it's going to be served. The premise is, it's not going to be against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood. And it is not detrimental because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, or dust, or other detrimental features. It's the same language as before. However, there is the added component that we have to identify, we have to be satisfied that there's an identified need for this. So any discussion on the restaurant special permit? I think that, I mean, there was, as the applicant pointed out, there was a survey done in town saying what businesses would be most wanted. And the coffee shop, the cafe was number one. So I think it's pretty clear that it is what the people of the town want. And then the overwhelming expectations on Facebook, also with the community outreach, um, that can be seen is, is pretty substantial as well. So I can definitely see a value for the community. Any, uh, comments on that or? I agree with that. All right. Um, so the other, other components of the, um, uh, restaurant special permit all tied to the site plan review, which is not part of what we're considering because the whole site plan review is typically concerned with parking lots and parking lot, uh, components, lighting, et cetera. Um, but the site plan does also, there's another section of bylaw that the applicant and their council is aware of, and that has to do with the outdoor patio. That needs a special, that needs another permit, I believe from the, uh, planning board, just for the outdoor seating only. And then, and that is where the issues of screening and lighting can be addressed. If we have, if that comes up, um, we didn't hear anything about signage for this, which is also a separate permit, but at this point, I mean, that, that typically a lot of applicants, if you do that as a separate filing later. That's our intention as well. All right. Um, I, so with that, I would make a motion under 1102.1.1 that the ZBA is satisfied that there's a, a need for this. And that the proposed use, um, of the premises is not against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which such use occurs. And it's not more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, humorous odor, dust, or other objection of our features. And that such use is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants or their property or dangerous to the public health or safety. Second. Um, any amendments or discussion on the motion? Thanks. So I think to this one, we would probably want to add, um, some conditions that, uh, the, uh, project has to sort of be, uh, in substantial conformity with all the documents that have been submitted. Um, there is no off street parking provided for, um, and this is something that the applicant is fully aware of. Um, the applicant also needs to secure approvals approvals from any other town boards as may be required for the ancillary components of this proposed use. So, uh, we'll do a roll call for this. Um, Mr. Perry. All right. Mr. Harsh. All right. Ms. Paul. Hi. Mr. White. Hi. So that is approved. So this is a long process. So you are off to your next step. Um, so again, uh, thank you for your patience as we worked through this and, uh, thank you again for, um, uh, thorough application and, you know, we're excited to hear, uh, how this unfolds. Well, thank you for your, uh, your time and dedication and thoughtfulness on this matter. Yeah. I really appreciate it. All right. So I suppose there is a, um, we have the, we have to write the decision and then there is a 21 day appeal period. And then after that, the decision can be filed and then you're, you're off and running. And that's something you can coordinate with the building department. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are you going to be the point person to the building department? Yes. I'll, I'll review, I'll review the decision with, and then we'll make sure that it's time. Yes. Uh, so with that, we can move on to our second continued hearing. This is the application of, sorry, case 25, 26, 7 East Road. This is the application of Charlie Malikapas, owner of the property located at 7 East Road, situated in the R4 zoning district, seeking invariant special permit or other zoning relief to demolish and reconstruct a single-family dwelling on a pre-existing non-conforming lot. So, uh, you have anyone here or are they online? I'm right here. I'm. Oh, you're perfect. I moved to my chief secret answer. I didn't think. Good evening, board. Yeah. We're interesting though. She, uh, she had to leave. She was only able to be on, but we're still covered. Okay. Um, good evening. So, um, I just have a few words to say, um, after our last meeting, um, I was pleasantly surprised by the number of, uh, neighbors in support of this project. And, um, I'd like the board to take this, um, unsolicited, you know, outpouring of support and consideration, um, and just not place undue, uh, weight on the opinion of one, one individual, uh, possible. Um, we've gone to great lengths to address all your concerns. And, um, I believe we've made, uh, significant changes, uh, to change the look and feel of the property. Um, I appreciate your time. So we, um, lowered the height of the building by over six feet. Um, we changed the design of the front cable, added dormers, uh, removed the fair amount of windows, changed the second floor floor plan, removed the walk up staircase that was to the attic. Um, let's see, we lowered the roof line over the garage as well, changed the pitch of that roof. Uh, so yeah, it used to be a 12 pitch. We changed that to, I believe a six, seven. Yeah. So we reduced the height and the massing, I think considerably. I hope that, uh, helps. Yes. Uh, I was going to say, uh, thank you very much for the redesign. And I would agree. I think the updated plans are great looking. I think, uh, change, the change is fantastic. So like I, I command you for, for kind of doing this and, uh, uh, I am, uh, I for one excited about, uh, the updated events. So great. Thank you for that. Absolutely. I, I really appreciate this. And, uh, I know I'm an architect, so I know that it's time for someone to do this. So I, I recognize that. And I think they did a nice job with it. So thank you. Yeah. In the back, I attached the previous drawing. So if you can, yes. Yeah. You can easily do. Um, um, talk about this. Um, is there anyone else here that wants to be heard on this project? And we don't, we're going back. We have anyone online? No, we don't. Okay. Mr. Chair. By the way, um, after some review of my department through the zoning files, the property across the street did receive a special permit for a non, non, um, for zoning relief, for non-compliance, for setbacks, and for a similar addition to that property, uh, which is very similar to what this is being proposed on tonight. So the same standards were, uh, put forth, uh, in 2013 or 2014. Interesting. From this board. From this board. And they were approved. Thank you. Thank you. No one else, uh, public. Um, I think the applicant is complete. So I'd say we can close that portion. So the panel for this case, because we don't, um, have, uh, um, any monetization issues is Mr. Berry, Mr. Hirsch, Mr. White, Mr. Sarian, and Ms. Dennis. No, I don't. Oh, you're only five. So, but we only, I either would only be four. Oh, yes. Okay. Okay. You've worried me for a minute. I was like, wait a minute. Wait a minute. You're not off the hook. Um, all right. Uh, so, uh, I know we run a lot. We had a lot of discussion at our last hearing about, uh, sort of building massing and, you know, some of the actions that this board has taken on other projects where we sort of were confronted with a larger building mass, maybe on a smaller site. Um, I, the applicants spent a lot of time on a redesign that I think is extremely thoughtful. And I, I think like architecturally, I actually like better than the previous version. Um, and, uh, I think it's a comprehensive set of plans. And I think the question has gone above and beyond to answer every question we raised, um, in our discussion the first time. I would, I would agree. I mean, the biggest issue, uh, was the massing and, uh, the neighbors issues across the street with, uh, the size of the lock or the size of the, uh, the, the structure. Um, and this fits completely into the neighborhood that combined with, um, all the additional support from neighbors. I, I think, yeah, we went above and beyond with this. Okay. I want to commend the app again for the redesign. We did a really good job with this and really took what we were recommending and, and suggesting, uh, to heart. So it can be definitely seen and we appreciate that. Thank you. Appreciate it. I have one question. After you did all these changes, did you have had a chance to meet any of the neighbors to show them? I have not, I have not spoken with them since. No. We received a lot of support at the last time for the original project. Uh, there was some, some concerns expressed about the original size, but yeah. Um, Ms. Jenis, any comments? No, I'm agreeing with the comments that were made. I think that, um, I think to me, it's a, it's a, it's very apparent that the scale has been reduced and it's a very appealing design and, um, and it, it's addressed the comments by the board and by the, um, members of the public. I believe. Um, so with that, uh, the, the zoning relief that we need here is, uh, is the same two part components, uh, a finding under 401.1.2. The structure is a lot more detrimental than the existing to the neighborhood. And then a special permit under two and 3.1. Uh, so if we look at the language of, uh, 401. Um, it is that a, uh, substantial change, sorry, at least change is not substantially more detrimental to the existing building structure or use in the neighborhood. Um, I think that finally is easily met by the reason you were student allocation. So, um, I would make a motion under, uh, before you make your motion. I just want to make sure one quick thing with the building department. The, was the application updated for this being a special permit versus a variance? Great. Sorry. Thank you for noticing that. Yes. I actually have that on my cheat sheet notes here that I did see that in the project file that that was corrected. Okay. Okay. So, uh, under, under two or 3.1, um, I would make a motion that, uh, the revised proposed project, um, the revised proposed structure, um, is not against the public interest. It doesn't, does not derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which such use building or structure occurs, which shall not be more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibrations, sort of gas, fumes, or dust, or other objectionable features. And if the proposed structure is not otherwise, um, injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property more dangerous to the public health or safety. So, um, so, uh, I would propose that in addition to that motion, we have the following conditions to this, that the project, uh, needs to be constructed in substantial conformance with the revised plans that are dated. And I don't know that I can zoom in far enough to see what the date is on this. I may want to read that. Okay. Um, so we'll do this by roll call vote again. Um, Mr. Perry. All right. Mr. Hirsch. All right. Mr. Mr. Hirsch. All right. Mr. Hirsch. All right. Mr. White. All right. So this is approved. So, Corey, thank you so much. Yeah. We have 14 days to write the decision, and then there's a 21 day of fuel period. Um, and then after that, you can get this decision filed and you're off and running. Wonderful. Thank you again. I appreciate your time. You're welcome. Thank you for the modifications. It's, uh, it's going to be a very nice project. And I know your neighbors very excited about that. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we are just only three minutes off time. So this is actually pretty good. Don't jinx us. Um, all right. So this is the next case is VBA case 25-28. This is for 297 and 311 Boston Post Road. This is the application of Joshua Fox. Um, there's a 25, 27. Oh, Oh, sorry about that. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so we're not actually ahead. We are not. We're behind. All right. Sorry about that. All right. Sorry. This is case 25-27, 42 Pemberton Road. This is the application of Kara and Ethan Rice for a property located at 42 Pemberton Road in single residence R20 zoning district. The applicants are seeking a special permit variance or other zoning to construct and remodel portions of the existing single pin dwelling. The lot is pre-existing, non-conforming with respect to the lot size setbacks. The proposed work requires relief for the side yard setbacks on both sides of the lot. So we have anyone here for this? They are online. So hang on a sec and we'll make sure to tell us about your project. They need to be. I think Steve is raising his hand. Um, yes. Do you want us to begin or would you like Steve is the one that was going to lead it? Oh, he left. Oh, sorry. There he is. Oh, sorry. There he is. Very good. All right. Yep. Yes. Go ahead. Uh, good evening members of the board. How are you? Um, uh, sorry. I'm actually, uh, away and I'm presenting on zoom tonight for, uh, Cara and Ethan Rice. Uh, Steve Camoli, uh, Camoli construction company. And, uh, what we're proposing is, uh, extending the face of this house, uh, out eight feet, uh, towards the street. Um, if we look at the plans, uh, everything is actually identically the same, same amount of, uh, windows. Uh, the door remains in the same position, uh, just literally pulling the front of the house out, uh, eight feet. Uh, coincidentally, um, uh, the front setback isn't, uh, an issue. It's just as was noted, uh, by the member of the board that it's just the left and right, uh, setbacks that we're here to talk about, uh, this evening. Yeah. So internally, uh, it's a beautiful older home, uh, younger growing family, uh, that just needs some more room. So on the first floor, uh, there's currently a nice living room, uh, but there is no mud room in the house. So, uh, on the first floor, pulling this out eight feet, uh, allows the living room to get, well, eight feet bigger. Uh, and then where the front door is a very small mud room. And that's the extent of the work on the first floor, uh, going up the stairway. A stairway doesn't change, uh, upstairs. Currently, there's a very small bedroom in the front, uh, and a very small bathroom. So, uh, by pulling the front of the house out, uh, the eight feet, uh, both the existing, uh, bedroom, uh, and bathroom are able to get, uh, a little bit bigger. Uh, this also allows for, uh, a regular width, uh, uh, uh, code compliant stairway, uh, to go up to the attic. The attic is not proposed, uh, to be finished, but it allows the family, uh, some, uh, dry storage, uh, as their basement, uh, height is only about, uh, five foot nine inches. So, the basement's virtually, uh, unusable. So, this allows them for some storage up in the attic. Okay. Does the, um, the idea is that it literally is just an extension of the building mats. You're continuing the same e-line, the same ridge, the same siding plane, the same fenestration, correct? Eight. Eight. Just pull, pulling the front of the house out eight feet. Which is. Sure. The eight foot ceiling. Yeah. The building height, I see, is, uh, going up. So, is that, is there going to be a new, like, is the roof going to be taken off and the, the, um. Oh. Is it going to be increased, um, vertically? Yes, sir. You know what? I apologize that I misspoke. So, uh, the front of the house, um, because on the, uh, second floor right now, the ceilings are a bit shorter. So, as we bump out, we're going to go, we propose to go, uh, up just a couple of feet. So, the ridge line does go up vertically, um, a bit, uh, goes back and then drops back down to, uh, meet the existing home. Roger. Okay. Okay. I guess maybe, maybe I'm confused, but I don't see that in the elevations. Um. I don't see that. I don't see the change. Right. Unless it's, unless it's the entire front that is, is being raised. It's a, it's a portion of the front. Not just the eight foot section. I mean, this, this drawing here kind of clearly shows that it's the entire section of the house being raised, and that's the step down you're referencing. So, I, I guess maybe I'm, your drawings then are not, your drawings are not very clear. If that's, if that's the case, um, my, my, my misinterpreting what these drawings are. Uh, no. So, if you look at the, um, I guess it'll be the. You're adding an eight foot section onto the front of the house, but you're removing the roof and raising the eaves for 30 feet of the existing house. Yeah, not, not quite 30 feet. It, it does go back a ways, but not. 29 foot five, which is close to 30 feet. Oh, yeah. Correct? I see. It says 30 feet proposed. No, no, no. What about the length? Oh. The, the, the roof is being removed back for, for 29 foot five inches on the existing house and being bumped up. Uh, no, that's the 29.3 that you're looking at, uh, is the, is the current ridge line of the first section of the existing home. Right? So, so I guess in, in actuality, it would be eight, uh, probably 20 feet of ridge or so, uh, before it drops back down to the original ridge height. Um. Yes, the concern I have, right. Is I, you know, this does, I'm not saying it's not a, it's an unreasonable proposal, but the drawings do not describe, do not match what you're describing. At least that I can tell. Yeah. If, if you look at, uh, the second page, sir, um, it's actually 22 feet back. Does that show, uh, attic plan C on your drawing? Uh, it says floor, for the second page is floor plan C. First floor plan C. The third page is second floor plan C. And the third page is attic floor plan C. Yeah. Yeah. So if you look at the third page, uh, for some reason, they're not in order, right? It's a 37 foot three inch dimension. Right. Correct. But to the right of that, does it show a 22 foot dimension? No. No. Okay. It does not. Right. So, uh, the attic, uh, attic plan C, uh, shows the proposed, uh, final product, uh, including the stairwell to the attic. So that ridge, that ridge goes back from the new front of the house to the point of the, uh, stairwell, which is a total of 22 feet. Okay. Yeah. That's not what the side elevations for the project show, at least that we have here. So, so I'm just looking at the home on Google maps right now. And so is the plan to take the roof off and go up further? Um, I guess I'm kind of unclear on the plans. Cause yeah, a portion, a portion of the roof will have to come off to accomplish that. Just a portion of it, not the entire roof or not, not the entire roof. It would be, uh, 16. It would be 14 feet of the existing house only from the front. You're going to have a stepped roof then. So you're going to have the new, new portion that's going to step back down to the original. Yeah. So you already do. Yeah. All I'm saying is like, we shouldn't, we shouldn't have to have this discussion. Right. We have like nine, eight cases tonight. It's like, we have drawings that don't match what's being described. I don't think it's necessarily an issue. I mean, it's not a violation of the height limit anyways. Um, and it doesn't change the, the zoning relief, but I'm concerned that we, you know, we're looking at drawings that aren't accurate. It would be an issue with the building department. Uh, we would have to write, we would write the case. It's like, well, you've got to approve this. And then the building commissioner is going to get the final plans and they aren't going to be this. Yeah. So they might not be worse, but they don't have this. So we've had situations like this in the past. We might ask for the patient. Correct. So the applicant's best interest. I think it would be in your best interest to, to review the drawings and just make sure that these drawings are represent exactly what you want to do. Um, cause this is what you're going to be held to. Yeah. This is what we'll have to, we'll have to approve it based on these. And if this isn't, this is not, doesn't match what you file for the building permit for it's like, they'll, they'll be a little bit of a problem with the approval process. They're going to have to come back here anyways. And what you want to do is put it straight forward. I don't think there's a, I'm not saying that this board is going to have a problem with the addition on the front of the house, which just simply extends the side yard setback. I just think we want to be sure that graphically what we have with lines match what you actually want to build. Yeah. Understood completely. And, um, can we discuss the side yard setbacks or would you rather do that on the next meeting? We will talk about any of that if we're going to be talking about it at the next one. Cause we wouldn't, we haven't given, uh, previous discussions. We haven't given. Correct. Okay. Prior to. That said, I, I think you can, you could look at the lot and you can see that like the side, the side setback violation isn't necessarily made any worse by this proposed addition because it's actually, it gets wider as you get closer to the front of the property. Correct. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. It doesn't, as long as there's no neighbor really, um, against it. It doesn't. Yeah. We haven't received, we haven't received any, any sort of comments from anybody else. And I suppose I should ask that question. If there's any, is there anyone else here to hear a convert on this case tonight? Yeah, there's, there's nobody here and there's nobody online. So I, I, I can't speak for how we would decide on that, but typically, typically if there's going to be an issue with the setback, you know, you would have a lot of neighbors expressing concern either in a written form or coming to the VA. We don't, we don't have any of that. Yeah. Understood. And the, uh, the owners, uh, have talked to the neighbors and, uh, we can have some comments, uh, favorable comments, uh, for the next meeting. All right. So we do need to, we do need to vote to continue this then to, and, um, the next, the next hearing is on December 9th. Uh, so I would make a motion that we continue, uh, case 25 dash 27 to, uh, 7 PM on, uh, December 9th. Second. All right. Um, all in favor, Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So we are approved to extend, um, you're not here in prison, but do they need to continue and does a continuation form have to be signed? No. Okay. All right. So you are set. You are on, you'll be our, presumably one of our first cases on, uh, the first date in December. Very good. We appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Get that updated. Okay. Well, the difference. Right. Okay. So now we can move on to, uh, the next case. I guess I was just over eager and trying to keep us on tonight. Um, this is case 25, 28 or 297 and 311 Boston. This is the application of Joshua Fox on behalf of urban for the properties located at 297 and 311 Boston. The zoning zoning district. The applicant is seeking a variance for the permit of other zoning relief to allow additional signage exceed exceeding the maximum aggregate sign area of 40 square feet. And obtain a special permit or balance for a low red reverse channel illumination. Number two signs associated with the food and restaurant use. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the board, Josh Fox from Ronald Ronald Fox here on behalf of urban outfitters, uh, with respect to some zoning relief for signage at 297 and 311 Boston post road. That's the terrain project there. I know, you know, where it's located, former whole foods, CVS, et cetera. I know, you know that simply because you live in way. Um, but if not, um, we have been before you before for this project. Um, here with me this evening is, uh, Jen Pagliaga. She's director of, uh, planning and development, uh, for all of North America for urban outfitters, which is, um, the formal ownership of the brand terrain. And Jenna quest, who is one of the project architects. Um, so we're going to be presenting to you. I'll walk you through a little bit of background, and then I think Jen will be able to share her screen and show you some of the science details. Um, as you may recall, um, what we have proposed, um, is a restaurant with separate event space with shared kitchen, uh, retail and, uh, office with sales and, um, bridal and groom suites on the separate outbuilding to the west of the site. And, um, as you may recall, this is a re-utilized re-utilization of existing buildings, um, to sort of minimize disturbance and take advantage of, uh, existing structures. And that was all discussed in your case number 25 dash 13. Um, we've got different uses for different segments. So we have different signage for those segments, which we'll walk through, um, in a moment. Uh, we are asking for special permit relief because the signage does exceed that which is allowed as far as square footage and number. Um, the Whalen Zoning By-law is a bit limited, um, in most of the business districts. If you're not in the overlay, the, um, M-U-O-D, um, the signage provisions are a bit arcane. Um, they would allow on this particular site since there's two lots, probably 80 square foot of signage. Um, that's whether it's a single use, a small building, a big building, a big site, a small site. Um, so, um, therefore the by-law gives you special permit relief to allow for a greater signage in both number and square footage, which is what we're asking for this evening. Um, we did mention in our application that there are two signs which are halo or reverse or back channel lit. Um, and just so you understand exactly what that means, um, since it's, it's, it's becoming a more common design, but it's not your traditional internal illumination where the letters glow, um, and they're illuminated, um, because light is shining on them and then the light flows through the sign panels. Reverse channel lit is, uh, while there is lighting inside the actual fixture of the letters pointing backwards at the wall. So it is indirect illumination. You're not seeing light coming through the sign. It's a glow in the back. Um, and that's why it's called a halo lit. So the halo effect kind of like a silhouette. And, um, your by-law doesn't really speak to that. It hasn't been updated in a couple of years, but there are, are towns in the Commonwealth. That do, for example, Wellesley, um, just two towns over, um, specifically state that halo back channel style is not a direct illumination is not internal illumination. So we don't think relief is required, but if it is required additional relief, we are certainly asking for it respectfully. Um, and we do have a sample which Jen is going to show you of a sign, but I don't know if you've driven by an evening 533, 535 Boston Post Road. That's an automobile dealership with Alfa Romeo, Lamborghini, Bentley. Those are predominantly halo lit signs. So you see if the letters don't glow, it's, it's a halo from the back. Um, but we've got an anthropology sign, uh, from the, um, the urban outfitters branding that, uh, Jen's going to show you as well, just so you can really see and understand what, what I'm talking about, because sometimes the visual is better than me trying to explain. Um, we did go to the design review advisory board and we discussed signage back in July, and they really didn't have, uh, much comment. Um, I think it was one comment that they wanted to clarify the font size of magnetic lettering on our proposed monument sign up near Boston Post Road. Um, they, the, uh, what terrain does is that they have events. They sometimes write a little thing about that event, uh, with these removable letters. And Jen can also speak to that in a moment, but that was really the only detail of comment that they had. And we provided them with the same sign plans, um, that we provided you actually, including a note on the plans that, um, there was the halo that, uh, the two halo lit signs. Um, we, we, we look at the site and we look at the different uses and while they're still under the umbrella terrain, we see them as, as completely different uses, particularly retail versus restaurant versus sales office in the separate building. And so we therefore need separate signage for all of those, which again, we're going to walk you through in a moment. We look at the square footage overall building. It's buildings together collectively. They're 38,000 square feet. It's a decent amount of commercial space. And then we think about how far back set the main building is. It's over 250 feet set back from Boston post road. So in order to see signage set back to 150 feet, you need bigger signs. Um, but we do also look at the scale of the building in these signs. And we feel that the signs are completely in scale with the building, with the site, and with other commercial uses in town. So, uh, what I think I'd like to do, um, in an effort to try to keep time for you guys is just have Jen quickly walk you through, um, the site and all the signs. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. Thank you, Josh. Uh, thank you everyone. Um, good evening. Uh, apologies. I'm not there in person. I, uh, had such a travel nightmare last week that I was afraid I wouldn't actually make it here for the meeting tonight. So, um, presenting remotely, but, um, wish I could be there with you all. Uh, let me go ahead and share here. All right. Um, project that you, um, I believe everybody's familiar with at this point. Um, 297 and 311 Boston post road. Um, 311 is the building in the front, um, formal dental office. Um, the 297 building was, uh, formally comprised actually of like 301, 302, 303, 305, 307, 309, and 317, I believe, um, addresses. I think there was seven businesses in here previously. Um, we are, um, uh, taking possession of the entire strip center, um, and then, um, converting the existing building into, uh, terrain, uh, retail, um, small nursery area, um, full service restaurant and the event space. Um, and then the 311 space is the, um, bridal suites. Um, so there'll be a sales office for the, um, uh, events, um, and then bridal suites, uh, bright and groom suites in here as well. Um, there is a small key up here just to kind of show you where we, um, are proposing signage. Uh, proposing signage. So there is an existing, um, monument sign at the entry at the driveway, uh, which we are proposing to replace with a new one. Um, then we are looking for signage for, uh, the bridal suites, uh, for the cafe, uh, train cafe, which is the restaurant, uh, train gardens, which is the event space. Um, and then for the retail space as well. Um, proposed new, uh, monument sign. Um, so this would be, um, in line with monument signs that we've actually installed. So we've actually installed in, um, our past two, uh, terrain sites. Um, so this is, um, a large sign. Um, we actually have the same kind of, uh, stained, ebonized, uh, finish wood on, uh, behind the galvanized terrain lettering. Um, we do have that sign panel down below that Josh mentioned, uh, that we can change out, uh, seasonal, um, messaging on. Um, this is used to announce menus if there's a special event. Um, sometimes it's to call out, um, like a congratulations to the couple being, uh, you know, if somebody is being married that weekend. Um, these are zinc letters that are magnetic. Um, we typically send two different sizes. They're four and a half and six and a half inches, uh, for that lettering. Um, it's a custom font, but it's very similar to Garamond. Um, this sign, um, also includes a trellis, um, element. And so we will be, um, planting, um, vegetation that will climb up here and actually occupy this as well. And we've got, um, people that will be, um, maintaining that on site. Um, and then we do have external illumination here, just little pin spotlights on this monument sign. Um, this sign is, I believe 45 square feet, um, uh, within that, um, within that monument sign. Um, we have, um, proposed the two halo lit signs, um, on the site. And I might actually jump over to the ARB package to then just to show you where they are in the elevations. We've got the two, um, two halo lit signs here. Um, and so this is that reverse channel, uh, illumination. Um, and so the way that this works, I thought this might be the easiest way is just to actually show you a sharp drawing for it. Um, so it is actually a solid, um, galvanized finished letter on the front. Um, the back of the letter is actually a translucent, uh, panel. Um, and then it's internally illuminated. And so it does, as Josh, uh, was explaining, um, the illumination actually kind of bounces. It actually faces forward. So it bounces off the back of the inside of the letter and then just creates a really soft glow around the outside of the letters there. And so you can see, um, that effect here on the anthropology sign. We use it across, um, our anthropology and free people, free people stores currently. Um, and typically it's, uh, a lot of jurisdictions. Um, a lot of jurisdictions actually have a separate, um, signage. Um, I guess, uh, it's not considered typically, it's not considered an illuminated sign. It is usually, um, its own category of sign. This is the reverse channel at halo illuminated sign. So, um, this is something that we've installed in a lot of places. And I've got a few more, uh, few more photos of that. If you are interested. Um, the sign for the terrain retail space, um, is also galvanized lettering, um, in line with the branding. Um, it's a little over a foot tall. And then we've got, um, smaller lettering below it. Um, these are all, um, mounted to the facade and there is externally illuminated from below, um, with a really, um, small, um, strip fixture. Um, and then we are proposing a small sign on the gates, um, the entry gate to the terrain. Let me jump back to the plan here and I'll show you. Um, so we do have a gate right here at the entry. So there is a small sign there just to kind of denote the entry into that nursery area. Um, and there is a small way finding sign on the post between the cafe and the nursery. Um, we've been hearing from the brands that there's a little bit of confusion about, um, where to find the event space versus the, uh, the retail space. And so, um, this would just be a small blade sign mounted to the front post of the cafe, just to point the direction to the event space to the right and the retail space to the left. Um, again, another wall sign mounted to the exterior of the, um, front building 311, uh, just above the entry. Uh, to the office space. Um, and so this is also externally illuminated with a small pin light. And I will jump over to, um, just so it makes a little bit easier. Cause these, we've got elevations in here. Um, and so here is the train cafe and the train garden signs. These are the two signs that are, we are proposing to be the halo lit reverse channel. Uh, there are two, um, terrain retail signs, um, above the entry doors. And that is the external illumination. Uh, and then the sign here is on the face, um, just above the entry, um, off of the parking lot. So same, uh, same signage drawings there. So just wanted to show you that. And give me one second and I'll kind of show you, just wanted to show you a few more examples of this, um, halo lit sign here. So this is, um, typical, typical sign that we use across our fleet of brands. So anthropology uses it all the time and free peoples also, um, been using it. Maeve is actually our newest concept. So this is one of a brand new, brand new store. Um, and they also, um, are using the halo lit signage there. Um, I know that you've got the packages there. I don't want to belabor this. Um, if there's anything you'd like me to go over in more detail, I know that you do have the signage charts with the square footage and the dimensions on there. Um, any questions? Um, I have a quick question. Uh, so for, for the back channel with sign, is the proposal to have those on through the night or just during normal business hours? Um, the typically, so I, you know what, that's a really good question. We do turn off all of the site lighting, um, overnight. Um, I think that the lighting does stay on overnight. Um, uh, the sign lighting would stay on overnight. Um, but the rest of the, um, landscape lighting on site is all, it would be on a timer. Okay. Thank you. Hmm. Any other questions from the board? I wanted to point out one other thing that I think I may have, um, accidentally omitted, and that is simply that we went back and looked at some old records, um, and looked at the square footage when, when, when the, when the premises was fully occupied, when you had a whole foods, when you had a CVS, when you had a restaurant. Okay. And, um, we were estimating that our square footage as proposed is less than the aggregate, uh, when it was previously at full occupancy. Thank you. Any, I guess, any other comments from you before I open up? Thank you. I have a question. Sure. Go ahead. Um, for the applicant. Do you mind putting up the signage again that has the illustration of it being, um, backlit? Yes. Yes. Just because from my remote area, it was looking to me as though it's almost, you have the lettering and behind it, it's almost highlighted with a yellow or a white sign. Like if you were just writing it, you would almost take a highlighter and outline the lettering. Is that right? Oh, I'm sorry. The photographs. Yes. Okay. Sorry about that. The drawings. Thanks. Yeah. Let me pull this back up. Yeah. And so what you're actually seeing is the reflection of the lighting off of the back of off of the wall behind it. So the light is coming through the back panel, the backside of the, uh, signage. And then it's actually reflecting off of, uh, getting a little bit of a halo on the wall surface behind it. Can you enlarge that image? Are you able to, or one of the images? Let me, let me try. Sure. Give me a second here. Well, let me take off my, uh, You know what? I'm sorry. I'm, I'm in front of an iPad and I just was able to enlarge it here. It dawned on me that maybe I could. Oh, okay. So I am seeing it better. All right. I apologize. I had somebody. No, that's okay. Uh, right beforehand. Let me see if I can get this. Yeah. Um, I'll save it real quick so I can open it back up. I think, I think I'm good because I could, yeah, I could enlarge the image here. I thought it would be static. Um, and so that, that gives me a good idea. That's all. Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's, um, we've been using it for years. It's, it's fairly, fairly elegant. Um, yeah, it is very nice. And I'm asking in particular because I believe that Mr. Attorney Fox was referencing the lighting that is, um, at the car dealership, the, at, that we've, you know, had before us a number of times. But honestly, I don't recall enough that, what that lighting looks like because of the elevation of that site. It sort of drops below the street, not fully below the street, but you drive by it and it's not what's, you know, what's staring you at, uh, eye level. But I wasn't quite sure what, what we were talking about. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. No problem. Anyone here comments on this application? Okay. It does not look like there's anybody online. Um, I guess with that, I mean, we can close the portion of it through a deliberation. Um, I think this is extremely straightforward. I think that, uh, we've got a very comprehensive package. I think you just have to look at the signage that was existing on that building in the past of that very large brown wood monument sign. And then, although there are no businesses there anymore, when that was full, there were signs all over that building. Um, what I like about this application obviously is it's, it's, it's well designed. It's like, I think it's an elegant signage package. I think it goes with the, it matches very much the architecture and sort of, and the brand identity. So I think the, the design of the signs actually has like a, like a high level of, uh, elegance and sophistication to it. So, um, I think it's a straightforward application for us with this because our signage by-law is a little, is a little quirky, but I did some research on this and there are many jurisdictions that do not consider halo signs to be internally eliminated. And I think the intent of this by-law, you know, I was actually speaking with, um, someone on the design review board. When this was originally proposed, they had in mind, um, it was an Exxon gas station that was being proposed. And you probably, those of us who are a certain age, remember the old Exxon signs. There were these giant white illuminated plastic signs with red Exxon and the whole sign was glowing. That was the intent of the by-law. So I would agree that the language in the by-law doesn't contemplate this, but like, I'm satisfied, um, after hearing that conversation from the design review board about what internal illumination means that this would not be considered internally illuminated. And I'm familiar with this jurisdiction, this type of sign in other jurisdictions, and it's also, it's not considered, uh, an internally illuminated sign. It really is a, the by-law doesn't prohibit back-width signage and, you know, this in a way could be considered really a form of back-light. So, you know, this board has routinely, uh, utilized, um, section, uh, 501.1 to sort of grant signage relief in excess of 40 square feet, especially when the underlying project or building, it's, it's clearly appropriate that 40 square feet doesn't provide sort of the rights, um, the right kind of design opportunity to indicate these. Um, so the only prohibition we have really is, is it has to comply with the language of the special permit statute, which is the same language that we read through all the time. Um, so I guess with that in mind, as any other discussion on the board before I make a motion? No. Um, so under two or 3.1, I know, sorry. I would propose a motion under two or 3.1 that the proposed, uh, signage is not against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which the sign occurs and shall not be detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas fumes, odor, dust, or other objectionable features, and that the proposed sign is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town or their property or dangers to the public health or safety. Second. I don't think there's any need for any amendments or conditions to that, if any, unless anyone feels otherwise. No. Um, I, I guess maybe I'd ask the commissioner, do we have to put a condition on this? The signs have to be sort of as proposed in the package. But I don't think they would propose something other than this because this is kind of tied to their corporate brand. No, as, as stated in their application, that would be sufficient. Okay. All right. Um, so, uh, we'll do this by will call, um, all in favor for this, uh, Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. Sarian. All right. Ms. Janice. Aye. Mr. White. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And quick update. We are, uh, we're taking possession of the space at the end of the year and, uh, getting into construction. So we are super excited to, uh, to get, to get moving up here. Thank you. Thank you. And quick update. We are, uh, we're taking possession of the space at the end of the year and, uh, getting into construction. So we are super excited to, uh, to get, to get moving up here. Thank you. We are very excited about that. Thank you. So we're looking forward to this. Yeah. Great. Yes. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you. Have a good night. Bye-bye. Good night. Thank you. All right. So with this, we can move on to the next case. This is case 25-29 for 22 South Street. Um, this is the application of Sarah and Justin Woodside for their property located at 22 South Street in the single residence R-20 zoning districts. The applicants are seeking a special permit variance or other zoning relief to the knowledge of the existing house to construct a rear addition. The lot is pre-existing, not performing to respect the minimum lot area and existing the most. North Street, right? No. Right, right. Yeah, it looks like we have some roads setting up. Great. Great. You're not right there. Yeah. There's here. You're the counterpoint. We're going to talk a little. We're going to talk a little. I'm going to bring, um, here. I'll let myself and team copy. If anybody wants to go over to the first floor. Yes. If you're good to go. Thank you. Uh, good record. My name is Brian Nelson. I'm a civil engineer with Metro West Engineering. you uh for the record my name is brian nelson i'm a civil engineer with metro west engineering um here tonight with the applicants uh justin and sarah woodside the owners of the property 22 south street and um we're here tonight to present plans for in addition to the existing house um we are assessors map 51d lot 54. um we do have a kind of a neighborhood board behind me and i'll try to point to that as i go uh kind of located in the kachishu neighborhood um you were looking at this board north is going straight up the page uh east plain street would be off the top of the page and 27 would be um probably twice the plan to the west or to the left on plan we are located at 22 south street so we're a corner lot founded by south street on the south hill street on the east and center street on the north and um property has an area of 19 999 square feet so we are one square foot shy of the minimum area requirement 20 000 square feet so obviously we're located in our 20 district um also uh the existing house is shown on this plan it's hatched in uh the green diagonal hatching so it fronts basically down uh towards south street there's a 30-foot front setback requirement um survey measured at 29 and a half feet uh so we're half a foot short at the minimum that seems to be the theme the product required piece of property right um there's also a detached drop on the one side of the property as well and that goes in setbacks fine so there are um basically a bunch of similar properties and then basically what i do is just put a board here that showed kind of the butters in all the directions um there's a larger lot to the north but there's a pretty large wetland area um which basically makes you know suddenly portion that lot under the border but there are two butting properties on hill street um which are basically very similar in area uh flirting with 20 000 square feet but under uh there are some smaller lots on the other side of south street ranging um between 10 000 and 15 000 square feet and we've got a couple similar size lots to the left and that again are just under that 20 000 square footprint so um again we've got existing house on subtly part of the lot and the existing detached garage uh to the north and um the house is a kind of footprint of about 1140 square feet it's um kind of a box and it was an addition and a deck put on the northeasterly corner uh several years ago uh the detached garage has a footprint of 273 square feet and um septic system is not shown on this board but it's basically located between uh the house and the garage and uh with that i'm going to switch to kind of a blow up of the lot and um so we were originally returning to develop a septic system uh basically septic system replacement kind of in conjunction with the addition and so this plan is that and i've added a little color to it just to show some of the features and again the existing house is shown with the green hatching kind of in the bottom portion of the lot the existing detached garage up here um and what we're here to talk about basically is the proposed addition on the northeast side of it which is shown in the action purple area right here we're proposing a new subject system between the house and the garage and again that's uh to bring in informants with present um state and local produce for septic systems we're providing a stormwater management system a recharge system for the new roof surfaces um over on the easterly side of the property there's presently no stormwater management on site so we feel that that's an improvement the septic system also is an improvement it's fully titled by the compliant build off for secondary treatment as well um so we um feel that that's a benefit as well and the addition has a footprint of about 945 square feet some of that addition basically overlaps the existing house and deck a portion of the existing driveway so we've got a net increase in impervious area of about 490 square feet um i did review these plans with uh linda conservation prior to filing and also yesterday when i was at town hall um and she was of the opinion that we did not need to file with um under the stormwater and land disturbance file or chapter 193 and we have a permitting file with the health department uh those plans were filed on october 16th and um there was some correspondence from naren with the woodsides um basically that uh they were in support of the project and they're actually underway right now with a pretty thorough review of the plans um and just for some numbers um total existing lot coverage so that's the building footprint uh it's about 2632 square feet proposed is 3481 so we're going from 13.2 percent lot coverage to 17.2 percent lot coverage again the delta in impervious is just under 500 square feet um the existing garage is um that will stay in place and that will remain there is a walkway and some driveway that will be basically removed as part of the um conflict with the footprint of the addition and um so there again were a few different things that we had um filled out on our application um one part was pursuant to um front setback and um we did a look at the gis uh mapping on the abiding houses on the same lot under this section 702-3 um basically establishing existing alignment and we found that according to gis the subject property 22 south is the furthest most back property of um of all the houses on the block um in gis and again i realize that's not from a survey but we calculated the average setback to be about 29.1 feet versus the 29 and a half shown by survey so we feel that the house is you know certainly furthest back amongst all the houses on the block and the average alignment and there are no modifications proposed to the front of the house either so uh all the the work is going on out back area requirement it's it's one square foot short um and i did talk to the surveyor about this um if the log were to be calculated and basically the dimensions shown um and you lengthened the width and the length of this lock by three thousandths of a foot on each side so that's a 16th of an inch um which is almost a measurable quantity for a lot which contains slightly over 200 000 square feet so i think it's just was a a bearer that was committed probably when the original plan was drawn line thickness error 16 years ago probably yeah um and the last one that and this was uh from a conversation with the global inspector yesterday was in terms of floor area um that i calculated existing floor area about 2 119 square feet um total proposed floor area is about 90 percent is 4 021 so there's a about a 90 increase in floor area um and uh again if we looked at i think it was the 20 rule in section 401.1.3.2 that would certainly be prohibitive for um instructing any type of uh reasonably sized addition uh with that i'm happy to um to turn it over to the applicants to see if they would like to add anything or we can any questions from the board of the public um the only question i have is that is this really a lot that kind of front yard setback on three sides it kind of appears like it is right between south street hill street and central street so there's kind of three front yards right um so i guess the question i have is the front yard setback on hill street which is 27 feet i see that it aligns it doesn't really quite align with the we have 29.5 front yard setback from the existing garage to hill street that's like a structure although a garage is technically or accessory so i don't really have to provide the same setbacks but um you'd be looking for front yard setback release on hill street not on south street that's correct okay then i think it's more of a housekeeping thing but this in the application the side yard setback it says existing 19.9 feet proposed 49 feet uh i think that may have been an error okay but i think you could probably resolve that yeah and then what's the overall percentage gross uh gross increase in floor area yes you put the uh oh so you want the percentage yeah yeah the percentage just as a housekeeping thing yeah i think it's 89.7 because if i um i don't know if you haven't checked out i did not have any additional questions i have a couple questions okay so the there definitely looks like there's like an attic space but there was i don't see anything in the plans to be able to show what that attic space is going to look like
it'll be a pull down with um hbac no i saw the pull down um but there's nothing to show heights expectations because i see a window here i don't know what that that was more cosmetic for me that i wanted to have somebody makes it look nicer yeah totally understanding i did am i missing something by the way the rest of the board sees it and i don't no i i i see that i see the window um yeah there is no um there's kind of there's no mention of the stairs to the um there's no stairs it's an attic access which was fine i just didn't know what the height and shape of the attic was going to look like that's all um we can get it i don't think we don't have that that would be good so towards the back of the house it's not actually going to be an attic it's just going to be a full ceiling for the map to go down yeah it's okay so it's going to be vaulted so yeah yeah so the pathway is there's no attic it's only i don't know the first so it would be what the existing attic is right now where that is that we have like a closed door to get into the end it's a pull down in the first half
right but there's no plan
no and that makes sense to me i just i just don't see anything here being able to show what's vaulted what's not vaulted right yeah there isn't an attic plan um in there that which is it's fine um and then i had one more question potentially for the building commissioner here for the office on the second uh floor the square footage for it to be considered to be an office does it doesn't that have to be under 70 square feet 70 square feet is a is the minimum for uh to be considered so just from a septic perspective and so the plans show 12 3 by 12 5 is that considered another bedroom technically it could be an office it could be a room it can be counted as an office but that doesn't as far as uh septic that would be the board of health to determine what people that's facing but that we we did talk with the health agent about that um and basically the designation of an office it would have to have some kind of a divider um put up okay so but we did review the total i was going to say dad probably yeah daggone it because that was my understanding too and i just wanted to make sure that you guys before you made it over there that you didn't have the problem yeah we're going to make it yeah okay yeah darren did get back to us with a preliminary review basically he wanted to get some comments before the meeting because i think he was away on vacation last week and out some of the week before he wanted to get some kind of feedback i think to the board before he did that and i think he's still undergoing his review thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you
on the 29th we got some correspondence so october i guess one additional point with respect to the application is the front yard setback is listed at 29.5 but i think it should be 20 i think it should be the 27.5 through that which is the um the hill street side hill street side so we consider a unique lot where you have front yard setback on room sides um which is i haven't seen that before um yeah i counted the front side back off of hill street because it was basically that's really the mailing address was so i can revise the application yes and then i had one more quick question sorry to do this still so i see that there are stairs of course i am that's so there's stairs that are going down you have a large area here and what is the usage is this just a really big hallway what is the expectations so those are the stairs i think that go down on the first floor but i think the space up in front is just storage that would be yeah yeah that's just the eaves in the just the eaves in turn uh this wasn't sure because it didn't didn't have any designation or anything like that before we go on were there any other points that you wanted to raise about that project yeah just having to answer questions do you need plans for the honor to get part of this i don't think so okay all right no okay just yeah
given the shallowness of the roof slope yeah that's one of the things that i was like it could be be it's it could be not needed yeah so that's that was my only thing so all right um any any members of the public here for this case no it's not what i have a support battery i was just gonna say i also want to sort of let you read that in that the board actually received four letters of support from your neighbors for this project um which is great i commend you for reaching out to people a lot of times people don't and then they come to these meetings i'm surprised that neighbors had no idea what was being composed down the door so thank you for that um all right i think we can close the the public move on to the political process um the panel for this is going to be mr perry mr hirsch mr white mr sarian and miss genus um so for me introducing this i i think this is extremely straightforward i think if you look at the the neighborhood that this is located in all of those houses in that area you've had sort of various additions like over the period of time here um there's some uniqueness to this particular lot with front yard setback on three streets we've seen front yard setbacks on two with corner lots and in several cases um but again the underlying that underlying missing square foot actually helps you because you sort of have a pre-existing non-conforming situation and you're actually asking to create like another non-conformity on the other side front yard setback if you actually had that square footage and this was a conforming lot there there could be legal challenges with actually creating a new non-conformity if you have conforming setbacks which would you know would be bad for the applicant but in this case you kind of have that that let error there um i think this is relatively straightforward i think again that it's a two-part component with a finding under 401.142 that the proposed isn't any more detrimental than you know the existing conditions in the neighborhood um and then two uh special permit under two to three point one so comments for the board yeah i guess at first glance it seems seemed like um you know the addition is quite large i mean basically doubling the the footprint of the house but you know the support from the neighbors and you know the the thoroughness of the application definitely helped with um you know getting my support for the project i mean looking at the project it it looks like it's kind of aesthetically it's not going to seem like it's over sizing right uh no it seems to be it seems to actually match the proportions of the existing neighborhood yeah which which really is is nice to see so thank you for the design work um and thank you very much for making sure they're reaching out for to your neighbors and getting that support because that does go a long way um i think that if we were uh just from a building department aside for documentation wise if we could get those updated for the uh documentation part i just want to make sure everything's clean for you guys but besides that i i don't really see any problems at all i think this would be a value add for the family uh miss janice any comments no i agree no i agree with what's been set right there and it looks nice i'm assuming mr chair if i may uh also a 706.1 uh lots and more than one street is also referenced in here if you do not meet setbacks on one you can obtain that from um you know the other ones yeah with a special with special okay um thank you for that um i would say uh that under 401.1.2 i think we make a finding that the codes change or alteration is not substantially more detrimental than the existing conditions in the neighborhood given that um i think the applicant demonstrated that there is a uh what's the right word for this i don't want to say propensity but there is a series there are a series of other adjacent structures that also sort of intrude a little further into the front yard setback which is another provision of the viola that we can review where if there are a series of structures that are further into the setback alongside a street like you know an applicant can come forward with a proposal to sort of meet that setback that the other houses have so um in my mind i think this is a straightforward we can leave the board i think can be satisfied under pro 1.2 that this is not substantially more detrimental than the existing condition okay um uh so with that i would make a motion under two or three point one that this board uh grants a special permit for the proposed application of 22 south streets um and further that this proposed structure uh is not against the public interest it does not derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which such use building or structure occurs and it's not more detrimental or offensive because of nervous vibrations smoke gas flames odor dust or other objectionable features and that the proposed structure is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town their property or dangerous to the public health or safety second um i would further propose that we add uh conditions that the applicants have to uh proceed with the design in substantial conformance with the plan for specifications submitted and that they've got to obtain an approval from any of the boards as may be required i need a second again no i think we need a second again um all right any further discussion okay all right uh so um we'll do this by roll call vote for those in favor uh mr perry all right mr prush all right mr sarion yeah miss dennis hi mr white i so thank you appreciate your time thank you very much thank you very much yeah i haven't done anything um yeah i've been signing everything lately yeah i know that's all i wanted to set up great i hate this technically suppose this job is over for anyone else to want it at any time yeah yeah i'm good you're doing great you're doing great don't let me get me but do you actually have to sign all yes i sign all okay it's all it's all iconic i think so i'm not sure what are you speaking am i allowed i'm charged i'm going to ask instead of it all falling under tom it's not i know because now they're running through yes yes do you have some uh any guidance on this miss jens no i think it's working very well actually as it is yes i mean you're drafting and then you're being able to check it it streamlines the process for the applicants it does oh sure all right well if you need the support thank you there's something else i need you know which is um all right so let's move on to our next case this is case uh 25-30 uh 43 plain road this is the application of the ipa development company owner of the property located at 43 plain road in the single residence r30 zoning district the applicant is seeking a special permit variance or other zoning relief to extend the span the existing house including the including the addition of a three car garage and deck the lot is pre-existing non-conforming with respect to lot size and the proposed work would result in lot coverage exceeding the 20 maximum last so do we have anyone here to present this project good evening good evening why don't you come up and uh tell us about the proposal
thank you mr chair members of the board uh my name is attorney andrew deluri my office is at 365 in everett uh it's a pleasure to be before you again i would have the opportunity to be before you earlier in the year um i am joined by uh my clients uh ivy barion and rick capucci are both here uh they are uh two members of the development team and uh members of the llc who is the applicant so they are uh available for any questions uh that the board may have uh as you read uh in the application we're before you tonight uh seeking a special permit to increase uh the existing single-family house which is located on a presently non-conforming lot that's located in the r30 zoning district and the lot is 23 000 522 square feet uh so a little under the percentage that is required um the house is presently also uh non-conforming for the existing house is non-conforming for the side yard setback and what you will see is that the proposed structure actually reduces uh the non-conformity uh from uh nine feet on one side to uh 18 um so uh the special permit is is simply for the uh lot coverage increase above the uh 20 percent uh which is uh governed by the code so uh the present structure is is 2 000 square feet uh the proposed home uh looking at the application right my client completed it is she has a gross square footage of 5 511 square feet um but doing some bad math as i'm sitting here in the audience tonight uh i come up with a calculation of 5042 um so it's about a 10 percent difference there i'm i'm i think i read the code properly about what the definition of gross square footage is i come up with just a little bit different calculation that is on the application um so the uh the proposed structure is a uh two-story home uh with a three-car garage it has a finished basement and it has an unfinished attic uh it is three bedrooms the home is subject to uh septic system which uh just recently passed title five certification for a three-bedroom so the house even though the square footage is increased uh it's it's remaining as a three-bedroom uh pursuant to the septic system requirement uh the lot is unique uh you know similar to the one that was just before you fronted on three streets uh this lot is fronted on two streets it's fronted on plain road uh and then also on on glen road which is to the uh southwest um the direction of both of those streets creates a uh uniquely shaped lot uh and unfortunately causes the lot to lose a large percentage of its square footage if you had considered it if it had uh just straight right 90 degree angles uh it may be much closer to the forming 30 000 square feet or even uh above that amount but we we take the lot as it is so i just wanted to uh point that out to the board um in terms of the layout of the house uh the like i said the addition of the garage goes from uh two cars to three cars the majority of the square footage in the increase is predominantly the second floor um there is a finished basement on the existing house the proposed finished basement although it is larger there is a large unfinished portion of the basement and a large finished portion the finished portion is is roughly 40 square feet larger than than what presently exists uh the first floor is is largely the same size as the present house so most of the square footage that is sought for the increase for the special permit is largely the second floor uh which is which triggering the need uh for the increased storage um so the the applicant uh requests a finding from the board that uh the increase in that square footage is not substantially more detrimental than what presently exists uh in in my site visit and in viewing the neighborhood uh it appears similar to the last project that there have been several projects over the years uh which have had similar additions made you know some i know did notice some of the lot sizes are different some of them may be a little bigger even if they're still non-conforming but um in in several aspects it appears that uh you see you know these types of increases uh have happened in the neighborhood previously and the end result of the product will be a home which is complementary and consistent uh with the the other homes that are located uh in the neighborhood um so with that uh you know i i'm happy to uh answer any questions that the board may have again my my clients are available um if the board does have any questions thank you um um i guess before we go into uh any questions uh just so you're aware um the board's received sort of uh multiple letters of raising concerns about this project um and i'm guessing uh by the attendance there's probably multiple people that want to be heard on this so uh what i think i'll do is uh actually ask if there are before we have questions as a board for the applicant i think i'd like to sort of allow some of the uh the people that are here tonight to sort of speak so um assuming that there's nothing else for your presentation um are there members of the public here that that will be urged on this case so okay so yeah so given that there's a large number of you if we can i would say please keep your comments as concise as possible and if there are many of you that have the exact same comment i would rather hear sort of 10 different aspects of of concern about the project as opposed to kennedy saying an identical comment so and again that's just because we are we are running late tonight and we still have several cases to to get through so um i guess with that if people want to speak if they could just come up just give us your name and address and again try to be as as concise as possible in your comments do you mind about decision yeah absolutely thank you for chairmen members of the board my name is bill dowick i'm one of the abutters of the subject property my wife benefit here um 44 milbrook road we've lived there since 1999 um very familiar with the process that's going to be resolved um we have everyone's going to have some of the same profits yeah as long as we're not we we we have we have a unique situation in that we are we have always been impacted by storm water from this property um our property is an elevation it's a bowl it's a and there's a map that i sent a couple days ago you'll see the topographic map in the way of the gis system clearly shows storm water from that property directed toward um toward our house um and it's something we need to be vigilant about there are times of the year particularly in the winter we are freeze-thaw freeze-thaw in permeable ground where water from 43 plain is that what it is um will run off in the direction of our house and pond in our yard that's okay except that over the course of the winter the pond gets bigger and bigger and eventually you know becomes a threat to the house um we've been able to mitigate that for 25 years um but our concern with respect to storm water is that an increase in coverage lot coverage of 163 percent which is what this is going from 9 percent 10 percent to 23 percent is going to dramatically increase or change the character of the water being discharged from that property unless there are mitigation measures put in place on that property um i'm not prepared today to talk about mitigation measures i'm a but i'm a i'm a i'm a groundwater geologist environmental consultant so i i'm speaking to some knowledge of this issue um i'll point out that you know just looking through the plans themselves i haven't seen you know any kind of um uh map showing uh proposed contours of the property you know afterwards um so i don't know if this is even a consideration of the developer uh the impacts of runoff onto the buddy properties um i don't know what the grades are going to be um um and so stormwater is our unique issue i don't i don't believe that this is an issue for the others in the back of the room um but while i'm sitting here i'll bring up a few things i noticed looking um through the plans and you have my comments you know matter of the record but um this doesn't appear to be what was described as a an expansion of of of the um of the property this is what i understand a complete demolition of the structure um and i get confused there's a description of a has been an expansion here the letter sent to us and i think in the application calls for it describes this as a demolition um and you'll have to be the judge but i understand if it's a demolition then you know you've got to sort of consider the original setbacks for a non-conforming plot um it's it's true that the lot on the left side is going from 9 feet to 18 feet but it's still going to be you know something that's not conforming with uh you know in our thirty seven nation um the the height of the building that's proposed i've seen numbers 37 feet uh which seems to have been retracted and replaced by 35 and amended um plan but then i got a letter from the uh developer after all that it was going to set 37 again so i'm not even sure how high this is going to be um and even with that even granted and then i saw 34 30 amended to 34 37 inches um but i have to note that that appears to be a measurement from the the highest grade of the property not the mean grade of the property the mean grade this is that this proposal is is this project is on a sloping a sloped um backlog and i saw no measurements spot elevations or anything to uh to use to indicate what the mean elevation is for the purpose of calculating the root pipe um so we get the side here so that's that we got the roof fight we got the lock cover we got the 165 percent increase in lock coverage which is connected to the storm water issue that i've talked about um you know i i'd like to see where a driveway is going to go i don't know if it's going to go on the plain road or blend road um that is significant to us because we need to understand more about the storm water issue um and then there's you know the character of the of and maybe i'll let other folks talk about the character of the of the neighborhood this is an immense an immense house there are only four homes out of 40 or three homes out of 40 on plain road that have a gross living uh space floor space that's that's higher that's greater than this house and those are all on acre and a half properties this is a half acre property um if you look at the abutting there are 10 comparable half acre properties in it on on plain right there right within a quarter mile on this property um none of them will have the characteristics of what's being proposed here so um with that i will you have what i've what i've what i've submitted and i will i will just for the sake of moving on giving it back thank you thank you maybe please sign in yeah just oh yeah thank you thank you yeah is there anybody else that would like to focus um first of all thank you for allowing us to speak tonight um i'm here to oppose this application um i'm sorry susan berkowitz i live in the abutting property of 39 plain road for the past 25 years been a whaling resident for over 35. um first this property located in our 30 zoning district which requires a 20-foot side setback and a 30-foot front setback the applicants plan for the 5500 square foot structure does not meet these requirements in fact it increases both the front yard and the side yard non-conformities because this is a new construction these r30 zoning setbacks requirements must be fully met and the plans do not move them as stated second the applicant plans to voluntarily demolish the existing non-conforming home under the controlling cases case studies willard rockwood bransford and goldman voluntary demolition eliminates grandfathering protections once the structure is intentionally removed the replacement must comply with all current uh r30 dimensional requirements the applicant has no legal basis to rely on the footprint of placement of the old structure third the proposal is clearly new construction not reconstruction the plan shows a new and large foundation a substantially increased footprint a taller building and over 5500 or 54 60 square feet of area this is a major intensification of a non-conformity and must really be reviewed and denied under section six of new construction or and i'm getting i'm trying to speed it up i apologize or if the board cannot make the mandatory binding that this project is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood the applicant submitted no massing study no height or shadow analysis which i'm very concerned about no privacy evaluation no neighborhood impact review no sight line assessment no demonstration of compliance with r30 after demolition without evidence of finding cannot be made this if the applicant submitting no safety evaluation which i'm extremely concerned about because i've almost been hit numerous actually i was hit numerous times on plain road across from my house and down by the stop sign it is a dangerous intersection uh there's been accidents um it's already a blind corner and adding the three car garage will only make it worse um no safety of evaluation despite proposition proposing a much larger structure at or near the intersection of two actively traveled streets the increased massing raises serious concerns about blind corners restricted visibility and risk to project pedestrians cyclists and vehicles that could not be held six and last the applicant submitted no storm as bill my neighbor said stormwater even with significant enlarged roof foundation driveway increasing impervious surface on this sloped r30 lot creates a real concern about runoff erosion pulling in the roadway and pressure on the town's drainage system without a storm water analysis the court cannot evaluate these impacts finally i want to add a personal note I've lived in this community for over 35 years. Forgive me, I have laryngitis. And what has always defined plain road, and especially the no-pond area, is its sense of balance, character, and mutual respect among neighbors. Our zoning laws protect not just technical dimensions, but the harmony and livability of this neighborhood. Upholding them is essential to preserving the community we have built and cared about for decades. For all these reasons, I respectfully request that you deny the application and hold them. I appreciate you. Of course. Thank you.
Oh, you signed in, right? Oh, sorry. Yes, please do that. Anyone else?
Thank you.
Thank you for hearing me, members of the zoning board. My name is Michael Hedderi. I live at 48 Plain Road in Wayland, diagonally across from the property. Everybody, the other two participants said most of what I was going to say. The only thing I would add is, and the gentleman on the end here, I'm sorry I don't see your name. On the previous applicant, you talked about how nicely their addition was going to fit in to the fabric of the neighborhood. Our whole area is nothing but capes and colonials. And if you look at the design of this house, it looks like an office building that should be on Route 9. It doesn't fit the fabric of the neighborhood at all. Their attorney mentioned that there were similar additions put on other houses. I've been in the neighborhood for 26 years. I haven't seen any additions of this magnitude on any house. And I'm not going to be a hypocrite. We knocked down the house at 48 Plain Road and built another house. So I don't have an issue with that. It's just the magnitude of the size of the project. It doesn't fit the neighborhood, nor the look fit the neighborhood.
And all I got to say, thank you for the time. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, I don't think you want to speak here. Okay. Yeah, let's take one on one. Sure.
It's in the chat.
Hey there. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. Could you give us your name and address, please? Certainly, yeah. My name is Keith Hopper. I live at 21 Glen Road, which is kitty corner to the lot by the stop sign.
And, you know, for the record, I just want to say that I also opposed the proposed build. I've lived there for four years. I agree with everything that's been said. So the only thing I want to sort of highlight, in addition to the sort of oversizing for the lot and the previous comments about the character in the neighborhood, is the blind corner. I really do want to emphasize that I live right at that intersection that my neighbor referenced earlier. And I've been here for four years, and I've personally seen three accidents at this intersection. And she's correct, it is a blind corner when you're coming in from the west on Plain Road. There's sort of a blind corner coming east on Plain, coming around that corner, and that's right where the lot is. And so I have significant concerns that it's already a dangerous intersection and that it would be worse. But I just wanted to emphasize that in case it was missed. But I think that, you know, the things like the sizing of the lot and the character of the neighborhood are my primary concerns. Thanks for hearing me, especially online. Thank you. I believe you wanted to speak to me.
Brian Donovan, 41, Bilbo Broad. I agree with what everybody has said. My family is, I've lived on the property and spent in my family over 100 years. My grandfather purchased actually that lot and the two lots next to him back in 1922. So I've been here pretty much my whole life. This house is even close to being the character. And actually, I tore down the home that my grandfather built from Sears and Roblox plans. And when I had it designed and built, I made sure it matched every single thing, every single zoning restriction that was there. So I took a non-conforming structure and made it conforming. So things can be done and still make a forever beautiful home that fits into the neighborhood.
And I would also challenge the math. Maths, I actually got a bigger footprint than a smaller footprint.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Anybody else?
Can I just make one? Sure. Just come up and give us your name and address, please. In speaking... Would you mind just giving name and address, please? My name is Ann McGuire, and I've lived at 46 Plain Road for 50 years. And this structure would not fit well. And especially their Clayton School is right down the street. And the children come down Plain Road to go to the Mill Pond. They skate in the winter. They fish in the summer. They, you know, they play at the pond. So there are small children on bicycles that are going along that road every day. So to decrease that visibility is not good. The other thing is, in the last month, I was in my front yard when a truck came barreling along Glen Road and turned into Plain Road in the direction of the Mill Pond and almost took me out. And I was standing in my driveway. I wasn't even on the road. So, you know, clearly children need to be considered in this as well. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Any other questions for the committee? If there's others that are in the neighborhood that basically... Would you mind just stating... Yeah, I think it was... If there's others that are here, but basically echo the sentiments, it's already made. Is it worth noting that we're present tonight? I'm not opposed to progress by any stretch, but it would be great to work with the development group. I think that the underlying theme here is, like, we want to just see more and be involved with it more, so it doesn't break the character. I did not receive on three doors down, did not receive a letter about the intended project. I only knew about this about, you know, two and a half hours ago, so I apologize for the sweatpants, but I think everyone here is in support of progress. That's been echoed. But is there... Is it worth noting others that are here, you know, if there's others beside myself, that we just want to see more and learn more about the project before it improves? Absolutely. Just get an idea. You're going to have them raise their hands if they don't have anything. Sure, I think, yeah. So, yeah, I guess to that end, is everybody here in this room here for this case, if you could raise your hand? All right, so we only have three or four people that are likely here for one of the two cases after this, okay? You'll be happy after. Yes. Excuse me, sir, and I also have a petition signed by all the people that couldn't come that are opposed. Would you mind submitting that? Yeah, if you could submit that to the building department, that'd be great. And, sir, I apologize. Would you mind just coming out and just signing in, please?
Yes. Excuse me.
We can have questions for the opportunity. Okay. Thank you. So do I. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you again. You know, obviously, I just want to preface this with I have great respect for everybody that's got an adversarial proceeding. You know, I appreciate that everyone, you know, is fond of the neighborhood. We want to do something that's complimentary to it. So I did just want to address a couple of the things that came up. First and foremost, the application was submitted in requirements of what the town wants. You know, if there is additional items like stormwater management or a massing study or something along those lines, you know, certainly it's something we're happy to discuss with the board. See if those will help, you know, move the needle with anybody on those items. But I just don't want there to be left with an impression that anything nefarious was done because, you know, reports that are not required by the base application are not submitted. You know, obviously, we can develop on things and on questions as they get brought up by the neighbors, as they get brought up by the board, and we can address them accordingly. But I did just want to just touch on that. You know, I'm aware of the stormwater. I think that it's a good question. You know, it's certainly something we can address related to the contours and present a plan on that basis. I did notice as to the height, you know, I'm looking at a plan that says 37. I have an application that says 35. In discussing with my client, I think I just have an early rendition. The appropriate height is 35. Which would be compliant in that zoning district. Additionally, you know, the front and the side yard setback, I understand that it's in front on two streets. And there's a visibility question there. But the setbacks themselves are compliant on both the front and the side. That is a question there. The only nonconformity is on the side that is furthest away from the street. And again, doubling the conformity there of what presently exists. There was a question on whether it's new construction. I've appeared before this board previously with a similar application, which was treated as a special permit throughout. Our expectation was that this was a special permit also where the basement was remaining and being used on that basis. And to the gentleman who said I did the math wrong, I probably did. But I'm using I'm doing it on the fly here. I will just caveat that that gross floor area calculation does take out unfinished basements. It takes out mechanical rooms. It takes out garages. So I'm not sure what math he did. He very well could be correct. But the math that I did, I came up with 5,042 as once proposed based on a plan set that I have. You know, it's also not lost on me that the increase is 23 percent and the standard is 20. And if the applicant were to lose 3 percent of the house, it wouldn't be in the purview of the board anymore. So I do think that there are situations where sometimes it's in the best interest to be in front of the board because it allows the board to have discretion and have input and hear from the neighbors. So, you know, just the fact that you hear on your own, it, you know, is not damning in and of itself. Sometimes it it ends up being the best result because it allows for the most the most input. I was advised that that notices percent, you know, I if that was not the case, if not everybody got the notice, you know, you know, we can address that and have some sort of neighborhood meeting. We can figure that out. But I mean, it it just feels to me at this point that the neighborhood, you know, obviously I want to discuss my client. But I think the neighborhood has some questions, I guess, to leave with to leave with actionable. I guess I just want to know what questions the board has so that we can come back with a with a legitimate answer to whatever it is. And if if if you find it substantially more detrimental, that's what you find. But, you know, I'm certainly always going to work for the solutions. And I'd like to just avoid a situation where we come back in 30 days. It's hey, we forgot to we forgot to ask you about this last time. And it's further delay. So I would inquire if the board, based on the presentation of the comments, if the board had any specific questions that we could address as well. Sure. I'll sort of take the lead on that. And I would say that the application is flawed because the application that was submitted is very clearly for an addition. And that's what's in the public notice. And you're proposing to demolish the structure. So I would say that your characterization that this is like the other cases we heard tonight is as far off as it could possibly be. I'm sorry. I meant on the application I had had previously. I would also say that your application materials are incomplete because while it is true that we don't ask for stormwater calculations, we do ask for high calculations counted on the average grade. And you've submitted a project that is 37 feet tall above the high grade, not even the average grade. So we could just reject this application outright for being correct and for giving it something that's very clearly a violation. So, again, you know, I live very close to here and I drive by this house every day. And I was, quite frankly, shocked at the examples you submitted in the application of adjacent structures because they're not. This neighborhood is a neighborhood of largely one-story homes. And you kind of selectively cropped to houses that are, well, close by are also on much larger lots. So, like, I'm not going to say that there's necessarily a problem with demolishing a house on a non-conforming lot and expanding it because this board approves that routinely. But when we do, we have much more comprehensive materials than what we have here. And, again, you're not obligated to provide stormwater calculations and all that for zoning approval. But typically we see site plans with topography and with the setbacks indicated. Now, I do agree that you are improving a side yard setback, but I think it would be very hard for us with this application to say that we can even make a finding under 401.1.2 because I think this is very different from other cases where we've used this same approach. So... I share your opinion on this as well. So, I think in terms of actions for this, there's a couple of options here. Like, again, I think the application's flawed, so you could withdraw the application. Or we could continue this hearing and you could come back with, like, an alternate design that I think probably could go a long way towards finding something that is not detrimental. I think we saw three cases tonight of projects that we looked at that all had much more sympathetic renovations to existing conditions. So, I kind of see it as, I think you have two options. I think you withdraw this application or you continue the case. I think for logistics, it probably makes the most sense to just, not to withdraw, but to just keep the existing application, work off of that, clean up with what the board wants addressed. And, you know, I'm going to propose to my clients that we conduct a neighborhood meeting and have a seat with everybody and find out what's going on. And, again, I didn't submit the application, so if there's flaws in it, I apologize. But we want to get those addressed and work through it. I just think that can we get it done by December? I don't know. But if we have to resubmit and hit the publication and deadlines, it's probably unlikely to get back in for that if it was to be withdrawn. So, I would probably think just continue it as the most appropriate. If it doesn't get in for December, try to get in for January, if the board is comfortable with that. I'm comfortable with continuing it, but I think a couple of things to sort of keep in mind. I'd like to see some data on the square footage calculations. And I'm really confused by your statement if it makes sense you are tearing a house down. And there is a section of the bylaw that talks about what happens when you tear a house down. It happens to be that this is a non-conforming lot. So, I think we did hear from some member of the public that if you tear down a structure or the non-conforming lot, the non-conforming it goes away. That's not actually legally correct. The statute does allow for existing non-conformities to be torn down and new non-conformities created. That's covered under the special permit language that we use here that is staying statewide. That said, there are specific things that are different with an application when you're proposing to demolish an existing house and rebuild something. And as I said, this was listed and sort of described as an addition and remodel. And it's really not what it is.
So, I think if you – I think so process-wise, I think there are probably some updates to the application. And then I would encourage you to sort of take a look at some of the other houses in the neighborhood and see if it's possible to come up with a kind of design that accomplishes what your clients want, but also starts to take some architectural cues from the adjoining structures. I also want to be sure that you can demonstrate that an application will comply with the 35-foot height limit, and that's 35 feet measured from the mean grade or the average natural grade. And the by-law tells you exactly how to calculate that. There's a series of points measured, some dimension off the foundation of the proposed structure. Sure. I think you also have to be very careful because this – the elevation drawings create the impression that this is a three-story house, which is only permitted on the mainland on lots in excess of three acres or something like that, I believe, or six acres. So, I think you're going to want to make sure you can address all of those concerns. So, I realize I said a lot. I know some other members of the board had some questions. You hit a lot of things that I was going to say already, and I really like to push the fact to talk with the neighbors and really gain their feedback on what they would like to kind of see as far as for design and potentially, you know, when you're considering, you know, potential impact to other properties, what you're going to be able to do to be able to help support them as a community. Any other comments from the board? Are we going to have the site plan revised so that you would see some topography, see a driveway, see if there are any other structures on the property? We need a complete application. We need to see the topography. We need to see the driveway. We need to see – I would say we probably also need to see the, like, sort of trees that are going to be removed to sort of make this project happen. It's a relatively wooded site right now. I know it's a compact site, but there is a fair amount of tree coverage on it, which is typically for the neighborhood. I'd also like to get a better understanding of what the attic would end up looking like just because of the sheer sizing of what was being seen for me. Can I just ask you, above and beyond, what is in that plan? Like, what do you want? I want to see elevations inside of the attic space and how are you going to be able to – I think you want to see a cross-section. I want to see a cross-section, yeah. Cross-section through the structure. And the size, shrinking the size, don't do it here. Yep. I think we're curious about the height in the attic. That's part of the concern. Nine feet inside. Well, as I said, I think the application right now, as submitted, is entirely non-conforming. Entirely violates the height of it. So, yeah, that's clear. All right. So, we do need to vote on a continuance. So, do we have a form or no? Well, yes, you are. I'm assuming you are agreeing to continue this, not to provide the application. Yeah. Okay. Yes, preferably, I guess, to December, and we'll see where we stand. Yeah. So, in order to do this, we actually have to take a vote to continue this to the December 9th hearing. Correct. So, we could propose it at 7.30. I know we'll never get there. So, I'd make a motion to continue case 25-30 for 43 Plain Road to December 9th at 7.30. Second. All right. That was a close one there. You got it. All right. So, all in favor of that, I will call Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. Sarian. Yes. Ms. Janice. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So, yes, you are continue to December 9th at 7.30. Excellent. And if the affair is unlikely, we're going to be prepared. At that point, I'll give the board as much notice as we can. Yeah. And then you can just coordinate another extension. Sure. That's pretty easy. Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a nice day, everybody. Thank you. All right. So, we're going to move on to our next case. This is... Hang on here. We have two additional cases. It's 9.35. We're going to have a stop at 10. So, I don't know that we're going to be able to get to both of these next cases. Unless... I... That was the start. I know. We're still in the meeting. Yeah. If you could please just take your conversation out. Thank you.
All right. So, we're going to move on to our next case. This is case 25-31. This is 149 Woodbridge Road. This is the application of Nicholas Tadan and Amy Seilbergogan for the property located at 149 Woodbridge Road in the single residence car for the zoning district. The applicants for seeking a special permit variance or other zoning relief to construct the deck at the rear of the existing single-family dwelling. The building is pre-existing and non-conforming with respect to side yard setback farmers. Good evening. Hi. I'm Peter Levinson with New England Sunrooms. Nick Haddad is also with us on Zoom. He is the homeowner of the property. I am the contractor and a Wayland resident for 30 years. And this is a pre-existing non-conforming lot, and there's a deck in the rear of it that we are proposing to cover, and with a larger sun porch, which is the dimensions are on there 16 foot wide by 12 foot 10 deep. And I believe that the side setback is what's non-conforming with our proposal, but not as much as what is existing. We don't think this is deleterious to the neighborhood. It's in the back. The homeowners who would like to be able to enjoy their conservation land and wooded area, and one of them is highly allergic to insect bites, so this would be a place that they could enjoy it. They're environmentalists. They have gardens out back. We do have approval from conservation, and we have approval from the health department.
Okay.
Quick question. It looks to me like the side yard setback is actually six inches, but the application, I think I read two feet. Did I read that correctly? It's 19 feet. Is our, is what? No, the existing, the existing side yard setback, it says two feet dash 14. Are you talking about the garage? I'm looking at the site, I'm looking at the site, well, I'm looking at the application. The application says the existing side yard setback. Like, something is crossed out, then it says two foot dash 14 foot, between, you're saying between two and 14 feet, and then the proposed is 19 feet. But when I look at the site plan, I think the side yard setback is actually 0.5 feet. It's an extremely odd situation. I agree. I don't think this is a problem. I just think we want to make sure the application is correct. Like, I'm not looking at what you're looking at other than the, I'm looking at the plan. I'm looking at the plot plan, the corner of the garage. Yeah, the garage looks like it's right up against, I don't know whether that's. 0.5 feet, so wouldn't that be the side yard setback? Yes. The existing one. Yes, the existing one. Yeah, your proposed, the proposed porch is fine. The proposed porch is, I'm just talking about the application. Yes. Yeah. So the side yard setback should say 0.5 feet. Okay. Thank you.
I guess before we go on, any other, anything else you want to tell us about the project? Um, well, then it's, it's not invasive, but I'm not sure that that's relevant to this, to this department, uh, in terms of being up on peers off the ground. It's not disturbing the ground, uh, but I don't know that that's, uh, relevant to tonight's meeting. Yeah. So I'm looking at the, I guess I'm really struggling with on the application. Um, so I see, I see snake brook here, and then I see a line that is a 100 foot offset to wetland that's clearly not a hundred feet from the brook. Um, I don't necessarily think this is a problem because like large portions of the existing structure are closer to the brook than this house. Um, but is this project been, um, looked at by the conservation commission yet? Yeah. It went through the whole process. It's been approved as well as the health department. There's a septic system in the front yard that was replaced, uh, within the last year and a half. What is the existing size of the current porch? Because that's what you're putting it on. Yeah. Um, well, you can see where it says deck that wraps around the back of the house. Um, there's a corner in there that says deck. So that deck is all one piece that goes from where it says deck back around the house to the left of where the proposed sun porches. Um, and there's a really faint dotted line underneath it. It might be hard to say that it shows the existing deck in the same location. There's a door there now that goes out from the house, uh, to the deck.
Yeah, I can, I can see it. It looks like the side of the, the sun, the side of the proposed porch, Adam, that's listed at 12.8 feet when it returns to the house. Just beyond that, there's a, and you can see a light gray angled line that goes from the existing deck was. So this, this looks like it sticks out maybe another, I don't know, four, six feet beyond the existing deck. Okay. Now I see it. Yeah, yeah, I can see it. It's an angled line. It's not, yeah, it's very hard to see, but it's not. So that's how it goes, right? Um, I think this is the new part. Yeah. I'm assuming that you two are not here for this project. Yeah. You are here for this project. Okay. Um, if you've got nothing else you want, do you have, can you say a few words about this? Is there? Sure. Yeah. Sure. Just come up and just give it, just quickly sign in on the sheet.
So I'm Terry Schultz, I know it's in Ross. It's nice to meet you. We moved in over the summer. Um, and so we basically got a letter in the mail saying this, your construction is happening. And we didn't even know what was going on. So that's sort of why we're here to figure out what the plan was and what it's going to look like. Um, when we bought the house, we were informed that the current, uh, corner was within 30 inches of our property line. There was a variance, I think, back in the 1970s. Um, but then when we looked at the office of the assessor's map, it looks like actually the stack is on our property line a little bit. Um, we just wanted to know more of like, will this need to be encroaching and more on our property? Will the construction was happening? Is it going to them? Is it going on our property? Just want to understand more about the project and its impact on it. Um, and you are, uh, 153, 153, so I've tactically, we're saying the dog should probably have a house in that part. Yeah, so, um, so we have a drawing that explains it. I, I think the, the, the proposed porch is, is, is not near that part of the property. Um, so, yeah, this is, it's a very confusing, it's a very confusing site, but it does appear like there are some steps and some pavers that make, uh, that connect between the driveway and the back of the garage that are not on the applicant's property.
Yeah. Um, so, um, I mean, that they're not, they're existing, but they're not here.
So, uh, I don't know necessarily what to do about that, but they, yeah, that is, that is true. I mean, that, that space is, hi, by the way, I'm, I'm the, uh, homeowner and it's, I haven't had a chance to meet you all yet. The, in the room, uh, the, our new neighbors, um, but I'm Nick, nice to meet you. I'm, I'll come by and introduce myself. Um, yeah, that, um, since we've moved that, that space has been a little, a little funny because it's, it's, it's, it's your property, but, um, it's on the other side of the river. Right. And so, um, it's kind of a funny, a funny zone. And so there are some steps there that are technically on, uh, our pavers that are part of your property. Um, or they, uh, when we were buying, um, the only concern was like, when we, when we received the notice in the mail, it was very unclear what it was, what the project was going to look like, but if it was going to come up to that, basically where the, the side setback would only 30 inches, if it was going to approach more of what it looked like, just cause I, I think we haven't met, it, it's why we came to just understand. Yeah. Yeah, it's actually, it looks like the proposed, the proposed porch is definitely not near that portion of it. Yeah, it's, it's, it's really, it's really on the, yeah, yeah, we just didn't know anything about it other than construction was happening on this type of, and it would be a porch, so. Understand. Okay. Sweet. Good for that. Thank you. Yeah.
Any other comments, I guess, before we close the public portion of the hearing? I don't have any additional comments. Okay. All right. Um, so I, I think this is actually a relatively straightforward project, but on a highly unusual property that actually took me quite a while to understand what was happening, where the property line was. So beyond the fact that I think we want to make sure we correct the application to know that the existing side yard setback is 0.5 feet, and then the proposed side yard setback is the 19.3. I think that's, I think that's important. Um, I think it's really easy to make a finding under a 401.1.2 that, unlike the previous project, this project actually does not propose a, any derogation to the existing neighborhood, um, and is clearly not a hazard to, um, to health or safety or anything like that. Um, it seems like, as I said, it's a very straightforward, um, special permit application on an extremely non-straightforward law. Um, so, um, what, any other, what does the, what does the board think about this, maybe before the application? From a, sorry, from a, from a documentation standpoint, um, I just want to make sure that it's not a variant, it's, it's a special permit, so that we remove the variance part of it. Um, just from your side, that everything would be good to go, as far as for documentation-wise. Just, as far as for the, um, the side air setback, do we keep that as a zero, like, do we say that it's 0.5 and then it stays at 0.5 because it's still a setback of 0.5? Correct. Yeah. I, I, I suppose. But the, I guess we would maybe say the deck location change would be 19.3? Yeah, I think it's a way to, yes, I'd agree. I think it's, it's probably fine to phrase it like that. Okay. I just want to make sure we have accountability of that for, because I don't, I don't want to, you know, for Nick's sake to be able to, you know, have that documentation change and then it's actually not that, not the case. So, um, and then besides the, that, I mean, the, we request is fairly straightforward, kind of like what you were saying. And, um, seems fairly reasonable to make it.
I agree. All right. Nick, you're that sentiment. All right. Sorry. Good thoughts. I'm basically it. Um, Ms. Janice, any comments? No, I don't think so. Um, all right. It's, it's to the rear of the house. It's not, you know, it's not affecting anything else around it. Um, it is close to the neighbors, but it is decidedly on the, um, homeowners property. I guess with that, I think I'm, I'm satisfied that under 401.1.2, this, this, this proposed structure, uh, or it's a structure is, um, is not, uh, substantially more detrimental, uh, to the existing condition, sorry, to the neighborhood than the, uh, current existing conditions are. Um, so I guess with that, I would make a motion, uh, under 203.1 that, um, the board grant a, uh, a special permit for the proposed enclosed porch, um, at 149 Woodward Road, uh, because I think the applicant has shown, um, that the proposed porch is not against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which such use, this building or structure occurs, and is not more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibrations, smoke, gas, wind, odor, dust, or other educational procedures, and that the proposed porch is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangers to the public health or safety. Seconded. Um, I would also propose that we condition this special permit, uh, with three things. One, that the application, some of the, the points on the application are corrected as discussed in the meeting. Two, the applicant has got to, um, submit, so it has to comply, uh, still be product in substantial conformance with the plans that have been submitted, and they've got to, um, obtain and maintain any other approvals with other town boards as may be required. Um, so, um, again, by all call and vote, um, if we're approving this special permit, um, Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Parrish. Aye. Mr. Sarian. Aye. Ms. Janice. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So, special permit is approved. Um, if you can get that application just revised and submitted back to the building department, that would be great. Okay, can I just ask a quick question, the difference between special, or this is a special permit, not a variant. It's not a special permit, not a variant. Um, did that have, uh, what should I know about that as the applicant? A lot easier. It's easier. A variant is an extremely tricky legal standard to me. Yeah. I don't think this project would be applicable for a variant. There's no real hardship, um, involved. You're better off as a special permit. Yeah. No, that's what I always thought. Yeah. A variant requires, like, the articulation of a particular hardship that's unique to this property that's different from every other property. Okay. It doesn't really mean that. We've already applied for the permit. We're in that process right now, so I'll just continue with, uh, the building permit process. And revise, just revise your... Revise this week. Yeah, you're going to revise your application. Okay. Thanks. Okay. 14-day. We're in order to do a project. Yeah, thank you very much. 15-day process is on a 20-day appeal period. That's just required by the state. But after that, um, that would be what you need to have to finalize before you get the billing permit. Right. Good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. And, uh, look forward to meeting you guys, my neighbors. Yeah. Nice to meet you. Yeah. Great. I'm your neighbor, too, actually. Oh, yeah. Oh, really? Oh.
Oh, hi. Nice to see you. We should all get together. I'll come down here and go. Nice to see you guys. Yeah. All right. So, um, thank you. I don't know if we're going to be a little... So, what does the board want to do? We've got seven minutes left, and we've got one more case. There's no one here. I'm assuming they're online.
That's good. They're not going to be online. There are types of panelists. I'm online. I'm here. Oh, okay. So, the applicant is here. So, is the board able to stick out? Except for you guys. So, we want to push this off.
Are we able to get... Are we able to get actually our paid members, our paid employees that are here? Is it reasonable to sort of stay later or not? I think we'll be okay. Okay. I'm good. All right. I think we can do this. Let's do this. This is our last case of the night. This is case 25-32 for 13 Harrison Street. This is the application of a not sewer Romanian and Christopher Mangold for the property located at 13 Harrison Street, and the single residents are 20 Gunning District. The applicants are seeking a special permit, variance, or other zoning relief to construct additions to their house. The proposed addition is approximately 219 square feet, including an entrance mudroom, a kitchen, expansion on the first floor, and an extension on the second floor. The existing structure is non-conforming with respect to lot size, frontage, lot coverage, side, and 20-yard setbacks. So, good evening. Why don't you give us an introduction to who you are and what your project is about? Okay. Excuse me. My name is Alan Julius, and I'm actually the architect on the project. I'm here by Zoom because I thought it wasn't going to – I had a 6 o'clock. It looks like I could have made it now, but I chose to come by Zoom because I didn't think it made it. The owner was supposed to be there, but they have a small – they have a newborn small child. We're here. We're online. Oh, they're here. Okay. I didn't see the name of that. The small child was dead, I guess. Yes. All right. So, good. We do have an owner's there. But – so, I guess you have the application, but they're – you know, the – they're not conforming for lot size, frontage, which, you know, is what it is. You can't do anything about that. We've got side yards, front, and we're not changing that. We have – I mean, excuse me. We have a front yard. We're not changing that. We're – we are putting addition on the side, but it's beyond the closest point, so, of the existing non-conforming spot, I guess you'd say. So, I don't see that it's – makes it less conforming or increases the non-conformance. There's a small addition on the opposite side, which is much greater than the setback, and it's – you're just enclosing an existing covered porch for a – for a mudroom and entrance. But the addition on the – that's nearest the – the property line is a kitchen addition and a second-floor addition that'll stretch the bedroom and bathroom area. It'll actually stretch the bedroom so you can fit a bathroom, I guess is the – is the idea, because there's no bathroom on the second-floor, a common bathroom.
It doesn't increase the height. It, you know, I don't – it does increase – it does increase. It's just the – let's see. What is it? There's the lot coverage by about 1%. It's 20%. I think currently it's 22-something, and then it adds an extra 1%, but it's already slightly over.
And that's pretty straightforward, I think. I have – if I need – if you need me to share, or I don't know if you have a screen or – or do you have the drawings, I think? We've got all of – we've got all the drawings here, and I've actually got a – I've got a ball up on my – a ball up on my laptop here, so I'm – does the rest of the board feel like they understand? Oh, yeah, I understand. Okay. I – there's obviously no one else here in the room, and there's no one else online, so I know there's no other – there's no other people that we have to listen to tonight for a presentation.
I think this is extremely straightforward. Thank you for submitting, I would say, very comprehensive architectural plans and a very comprehensive site plan where everything is labeled, it's dimensioned, it's clear, and I also think we can see clearly between the existing and the proposed floor plans exactly what the scope of the project is. And I would agree, it's extremely minor, and I think this is the – this is the kind of addition that, you know, one of our previous applicants probably would have benefited from, some sort of thoughtful designs and more than this.
So thank you for putting together, I would say, a comprehensive project plan. I didn't have any additional questions, but I'm hearing there might be a question. I have one question, and I just want to make sure – this is more for the applicant's safety and stuff. So the – on the existing – on the singular page, it's showing 16155 for the addition on one side, 88, and 47. But if you go to the actual plans, it shows it as 9148, 5, 6 1⁄4, and 15, 11 1⁄2. I think that's the difference between metric – oh, not metric, but decimal and inches. I don't know if – there may be a slight – I know that was done by the surveyor. I'd have to do the math, but – Oh, I see. So I just want to make sure that everything's covered appropriately, that's all. Fair. Yeah, the plot point is listed all in feet, like 4.7 feet and 5.5 feet. So if that would really be 5 foot 6 inches, if it were not in – not expressed as a decimal feet. But what about the 8.8 going up to 9 foot 1 inch, though? Well, that I don't understand. That's a discrepancy. I – it was probably scaled off of our field dimensions and the surveyor – you know, off of his survey. I would say the survey is more accurate. They're done by instruments. We took it – we do ours by tape, but – So just to be on the safe side here, I want to make sure we're going to go off of these plans and not the – No, I think he's saying we should go off the survey. Going off the survey? Okay. Yeah. We're filling in that corner, whatever it ends up being. No, no. It's not a lot or anything. I mean, it's more along the lines of more just minor housekeeping stuff that I just want to make sure that it's just accounted for appropriately. That's all. And we can – we actually – we can actually change ours to match, you know. We'll probably put the inches equivalent, but we can make it match. Okay. Yeah, we can make that. Yeah, yeah. We can make that. We can make that. This is not a large change. No. Any other comments or questions from the board? No, it's totally reasonable. Totally reasonable.
Listen, I want to close that and sort of, I guess, move on to the deliberation perspective here. Again, I think this project is an example of how we can sensitively modify a pre-existing non-performing structure. I think this is something that, like, maybe members of the public are not sort of understanding about the work that we do on the board in approving things. But I would hold this out as a good example. And maybe this could be published on the building department website or held up as an example of how one can modify a pre-existing non-performing lot. It's extremely challenging. It's narrow. It's got side yard sit-back problems. And there's a lot of other accessory structures on the site plan as well. And someone has figured out a way in which they can execute a project like this. So thank you for that. I think this one is extremely easy to make a finding under 401.1.2. I think that what the applicant is proposing is not, this alteration is not potentially more detrimental than the existing non-performing structure. We see that in two reasons. One, I think that the application is, it's very clearly part of the existing architecture. It's part of the fabric of the existing neighborhood. I think we can also see that there's no one here is interested in opposing this project. That also says something about the character of the neighborhood and how we can apply the language in 401.1.2. So unless there's any other discussion for the board, I would move right to make a motion on this. I'll go with that. Okay. So I make a motion under 2 or 3.1 that the board grants a special permit for application 25-32 at 32 Harrison Street. Because I would argue that the applicant has shown to the board that the proposed structure is not against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which such use building or structure occurs. And it's not more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas fumes, or dust, or other objectionable features. And that the proposed additions are not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangers to the public health or safety. Second it. Thank you for that. I think the only two conditions we would apply to this is that the project has to be constructed and constructed in substantial conformance with the plans that are submitted. And the applicant have to obtain any other approvals, any other approvals, as may be required. So without any additional modifications, I do a quick roll call vote to approve this. Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. Sarian. Ms. Jenis. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So this is approved. So we have to write the decision up. And that takes about two weeks. And then after that, there was a statutory required period, and from there, you can then take that document, file it, and then proceed with your building permit application. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Good luck. They'll make a nice difference. Thank you. Thanks. I make a lot of attention. Well, didn't we have, we had an update, we had an update from the building commissioner on two issues. Oh, so when I go through my breakneck speed, uh, yes.
So the updated hearing schedule for 2026, um, in our bylaws, it does say that we have to have a 30, it's a 35 days minimum, 35 day minimum. And we have been doing less than that. 35 day minimum for, for, um. So it has to be, um, submitted, basically five weeks before the deadline, uh, before the hearing. So that is supposed to be the deadline. But we have it more closer to 30, to 30 days. For applications to be conceived and then next month? Yes. Okay. So the deadline, but because under Massachusetts general law, the only, uh, rule that is, you have to open the hearing within 65 days. And we do that, but it's not always a minimum of 35 days. Okay. So it sounds like you guys are going to increase your requirement as far as for being able to get that application in prior, 35 days prior to being able to be seen at the next year. Okay. Makes sense. Yep. And that's what this is. This is the. Yes. The proposed schedule. The proposed schedule for next year. Okay. And do you want to touch on 228 Gleeson? So, yeah, we had someone come by from the select board from 25, uh, 20. 228 Gleeson. 228 Gleeson. Which is the, uh, tennis. Tennis and swim club. Wales tennis is one. And they like to amend their permit. They want to increase their membership by 25 additional members. And so they want to ask when would it be a good time to schedule that for a hearing. Obviously you have a lot of, um, material and a lot of, since this is, I believe. So we wouldn't need to go through all these, uh, previous, um, decisions to see if there was a condition, but basically it's just asking you when it would be a good time for them to schedule, to combine it. So I have a unique perspective on this because I'm a past president of the Wales Women Tennis Club. And I actually had to oversee the application of the renewal of the special permit. And I would just say that there is, um, the club has always had a desire to get more members and it would be important because it's, uh, membership restricted and the waiting list is at this point up to nine years. Um, the only thing I would add is that there is an extremely vocal group of neighbors that have bought the club that are extremely opposed to any increase in the membership. So without a hearing for this, we can expect something that will take a fair amount of time. So the, and the board, the club usually is aware of this. So we might, if we're going to come up with a time, it's like, we're going to want to probably set this up as, uh, we want, just want to have the expectation that there might be a fair number of people that are going to show up and are going to want to be heard to review this, to, to do anything with the club. Um, depending on the board schedule, could we start a meeting earlier and have them go first? I don't see, I don't see why not. I mean, I don't know what, it just might be a custom that we start at seven o'clock, but I'm happy to move it earlier. I don't think it's fair to the two of you to have to be here at 1030 at night. Um, you know, are on the job sometimes. So what about, what, do we know that there's a light docket coming up on a particular month and maybe January? Well, it definitely said, uh, in the new year, it would be January or February. So is, is there a potential lighter month that may not require as much time in which we can say? I have no idea. Yeah. I mean, you guys would know better than us. It's just more, it really isn't an ideal time. I think it's just for you and the board to be aware that in the past, this has attracted a lot of attention. So how about, how about if we have a lot of hearings that we can come to communicate and make it at six 30 maybe, but if there's no hearings, then why would we change the time? Yeah, that's a good point. If we get no applications, like we'll know, we'll know very, you'll know very soon. Yeah. You'll know.
I think the community is well notified ahead of time that there'll be a time change. Well, people that live there, they, they, they, I know. They, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they're finding out about, uh, well, let me know because when they submit the application, they'll get part of me know that, you know, how many applications we're going to have. But I just want to be cognizant of that. That's all. So the application wouldn't be influenced by the deadline. It's always two weeks before the hearing and then one week before the hearing. And then the hearing goes out. The notice goes out, I believe, uh, at least two weeks.
Okay.
So are you talking, so are you considering a change from seven o'clock start times to earlier or for a particular case? We're just asking if we, if we see, if we see a case where we anticipate a large, a large amount of turnout, or we have a large number of cases, could we, could we pull the members at some point before the meeting and see if we could move it to 630, a 630 start time? If we were in that situation, just being aware that we have this 35 or right? 35 day notice to pick that, make sure that time gets posted. Just confirming something, February, the date for the ZBA meeting is the 9th.
Just double checking, because I'm going to be on vacation the week afterwards. Here it gets the 10th. Or sorry, the 10th, excuse me. Yes. Okay. Second Tuesday. Okay. Just double checking, because you're not around. The week after, I won't be around.
Any, uh, anyone want to make a motion? I do. You got to do it again. I didn't make my motion. Second it. All right. Uh, roll call. Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Herney. Aye. Mr. Sari. Aye. Ms. Gettis. Aye. Mr. White and I were adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.