December 9, 2025 – Zoning Board of Appeals – Video & Transcript
December 9, 2025 - Zoning Board of Appeals
all right good evening this is the uh december 9th 2025 meeting for the wavelength zoning board of
appeals um i'm just going to read the preamble of the meeting uh pursuant to chapter 2 of the
act of 2025 this meeting will be conducted in person and by remote meetings of importance
with applicable law the meeting link can be found both on the town website this meeting may be
recorded and made available for the public unwaking and was soon after the meeting since
it's factable times are approximate and some items may not be discussed in the order listed or at the
specific time estimated all topics may be subject to deliberation when required by a lot allowed by
the chair persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting
may do so by in-person attendance or by accessing the meeting remotely as noted public comments are
requested to be limited to two minutes per person uh so with that uh there's no one here
tonight and i don't know if there's anyone online that has general public comment but it doesn't
look like there is all right uh so with that um moving on to the next item the agenda is the draft
minutes from uh november 18th i understand these are not quite available yet they're not available so okay
all right so we will move that to the next meeting possible um so with this that brings us to the first
case of tonight this is the continuation of zva case 25-27 for 42 pemberton road this is the application
of cara and ethan rice for the property located at 42 pemberton road in the single residence r20 zoning
district the applicants are seeking special permit variants or other zoning relief to construct an
addition and remodel portions of the existing single family dwelling a lot is pre-existing non-conforming
with respect to a lot size and setbacks and proposed work requires relief from the side yard setback
requirements both sides of a lot and before we get started um we do have everybody here um tonight who
was uh heard this case the first time so we don't need to worry about either a quorum or a molinizer for
this case so with that we can uh open it up to the applicants uh good evening and uh if you could just
give us a quick overview of the update that you made to the project since we last spoke hello this is ethan rice
speaking um so steve kamali should be attendee right now i'm not sure if he's brought over yet um but he was
able to uh adjust the side elevation um sheet so that you can see the ridge lines so now it will show the
the front portion of the uh property having that um new ridge line the existing ridge line
of what the house currently states at and then the um back of the house where our master bedroom is
i'm uh i'm here now as well okay great great good evening good evening so that would give us like a
quick like a quick overview of the i think you it looks like you fully updated all of the architectural plans
from last week uh yes sir uh we did um uh per your request and uh we had gone ahead and did that uh
primarily the plan that shows uh the side view of the house with the roof line
uh that has been updated so that you can see the highest point of the ridge uh towards the street
uh that's at 30 feet uh the ridge line comes to the left uh 22 feet drops down to the original uh roof
line and then continues to the left for the rest of the house um as you recall from the last time we met
uh that uh that wasn't depicted accurately on the drawing so i'm looking at it now it looks like you've
got the height listed at 30 feet on the elevation the front elevation and then the side elevation
i see the eight foot extension i see the 23 foot extension of the roof and then i see the existing
ridge line with the back i guess i'd call it like one third of the side i guess the left side elevation
uh yes sir correct okay those were the notes that i had for the changes i said uh looking back through
my notes i think the concern that the board had was that the drawings didn't accurately accurately
reflect the fact that the existing ridge line on front of the house was going to be raised in addition to
the front facade of the uh project that we pushed forward right by before we sort of open it up to
any uh any questions from the board any additional comments on the updated uh updated drawings um
me no um you know again as as you go through the different pages i updated every possible uh area
that could be that could be updated to depict that accurately members of the public have any comments
about this before we close this and open up the uh deliberation with the board there's no one here
for it and i look like there's no one online um all right so we'll close that portion of for this
project um so thank you for making these updates i think this is a much clearer description in my mind
of what the plan scope of work was i appreciate that you've indicated uh height on the front elevation
and uh also appreciate that the side elevation now kind of more accurately reflects what the main
scope and intent of the project is yeah thank you for that consideration so i guess i have a question
this is probably a question for uh the building commissioner um the drawings sort of label this an
unfinished attic space um i just want to be sure that and i i think i'm correct in in this but the way
they have it depicted i think it's really clear that this is not would not be considered a third story
but we don't we don't sort of always drill into the nuance of that definition in the bylaw so i just
want to be sure that like we are interpreting that correctly right because this has it it's a much a
smaller section of the the third level than it would be considered a story it's got knee walls on the two
sides that appear to limit that headroom clearance to sort of looks like less than six eight does that
is that how you define that as well mr christian yes that is correct so it does not um it's not
considered a living how rural space because it does not does not meet the uh the height requirement six
eight and um so it can be used as storage as i think i understand it that there is a stairs proposed to
go up to the second to the third floor to the attic yes so it could be it could be used as
unconditioned space yeah and it's listed that way here yes i did not have any additional questions
well wait i suppose hang on the the the the knee walls are at six eight sort of the space beyond the knee walls in the middle is taller than six eight so the the third floor does the third level does he need that you you you could consider it a habitable space because it looks like the collar ties are i don't know probably say eight feet above the floor and we're more than 70 square feet yes it is okay um did this go through the board of health steve um uh yes it did so in our notes to the board of health um we let them know that um the the reason for this the stairwell and uh the the unconditioned storage space is that these folks the existing basement is is a little under six feet and it's it's impossible to um well it's not impossible but it's it's difficult to use the basement as as a storage area so this uh smaller house uh gives them a lot um some dry storage in the attic
and so that was what we uh proposed to the board of health and they came back and uh they agreed with that assessment of it okay and i did they denote that on their approval that the uh the the attic space is to be used as storage only on when darren did it he he did he said that um at if there was any change to that uh at this meeting they would have to review uh the the the whole application again or the plan again um but for now him and i were both in agreement um and he wrote back to us that uh they're acknowledging that it's just um unfinished storage okay then i have no problem with that that's uh fine we've seen this before okay yeah i have a question i thought i thought we had but we we probably don't have that additional correspondence with uh health department but that's okay i don't think that would necessarily pull this off you if you've seen it and and you've read it that that's fine with me i think we could also condition you know the approval to get around that if there was a question it says in the health pre-approval um stairs to unfinished attic walk-up attic approximately 12 by 22 feet so it says on which attic maybe i'm looking at the wrong one is that from the november 17th one or uh no this is an earlier one i guess this did 10 to 25 yeah 10 to 25 oh okay more recent one supersedes there but yeah that's okay so do we have a plan that shows that depicts the basement level i did our page that depicts the basement level by the way there isn't one submitted in the drawing set now okay it's not really a requirement uh aida but i understanding and being in some of those uh dwellings on on pemberton the basements are quite low and the stature was much lower at that time so yeah it did fit but they didn't do uh very rarely did they do a very uh uh high ceiling height in a basement or cellar if i can interject just for a second i have darren's note uh from an october 14th email he says um from your note steve the basement is not considered livable space uh meaning that it's unfinished and unheated um please clarify so we clarified that to him um that it never could be livable space because of the very short height of the basement thank you any additional questions from the board nope nothing i have one just uh as a confirmation um the commissioner so it is normal for this area to have these types of houses to have these like short basements and stuff like that so this is this is a value add for the homeowners and it's it's a normal part of this part of this small community uh yes that it and um yeah it's very normal for that neighborhood and the age of the house which is i believe 1800s or earlier 18 and and um yeah and uh they're limited on what they can do on the lot anyway so it's a it's a very thin lot so i i have no problem with that at all okay just wanted to get a little bit of clarification just from my understanding and making sure that this is a unique scenario for um the applicants and that this isn't a normal expected so that's all yeah any other questions or not for this the panel that i want to put together for this is going to consist of um i think we've heard this from the commissioner the history of houses in the neighborhood you know we saw um at the first hearing for this case um support from you know the uh people on the adjoining property um we've seen the applicant come back and sort of make some refinements to the design to make sure that it kind of conforms with that so i'm comfortable that this is this is not going to be substantially more detrimental yep um so i'd like to uh like to make a motion that uh the zba under 203.1 um brands a special permit because we've we can conclude that the building or structure from which the application is made 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 should not be more detrimental or offensive because of noise vibration smoke gas and odor dust or other objectionable features and as such use building or structure is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town whether property or dangerous to public health or safety second second all right um i guess in addition to that motion i'd add a couple of conditions to that one that the product has to be constructed in substantial conformity with what the advised plants that the board has um that were presented at the december not hearing um and that the the attic level needs to remain a uh unfinished storage space and three that the applicants got to obtain any other approvals as may be required from town boards sure yeah so yeah so you so you added conditions after the vote so do you want to check we haven't voted oh i'm sorry i thought yeah okay second that's right conditions right after the motion so okay so we have not voted on the motion yet i was about to actually call that as a roll call because we that's right because we're half hybrid half in person so i guess we'll start with you on the screen um miss jenis hi mr perry hi mr hirsch hi mr sarion all right mr white aye so this uh this is approved so um we have to write the decision and then there is a 21 day appeal period and then after that you can pick up this decision um from the building and then you will be off and running to the next steps for this project it's a 14 day writing period oh i forgot about that yes thank you very much members of the board and mr commissioner good luck thank you very much thank you um we have a little bit of a challenge because the continuation of the next case has been listed at 7 30 and it's 7 23 so we technically can't open this case so we should try um didn't we make them all of it like 705 or something yeah for the future we should probably try to put all of the cases at list them all at 705 i know that that's not it may not be the most helpful to sort of applicants that are looking at this remotely but the problem can we can run into a problem especially if you look at the continuation of uh case 24 that's only going to take 30 seconds we aren't going to be able to start commonwealth road until 8th so we have a little bit of a although i suppose i should ask our resident um historical expert please janice we do say in the preamble that the times are estimated and the items might may not be discussed in the order listed um would we be violating any um requirements if we shortened the time between the cases that are listed on this because i i mean we can't we're gonna be waiting 20 minutes between each of these cases i understand i think that this is a um a different situation than um another board having so so what we've done in the past is we are bound by the times we have to wait till the time that is posted because that is what the public has done in the past is to have a lot of information so there could be somebody who's interested in the case but will not clock on until that time and if we address that before then they're prejudiced because we gave that notice what we have also um thought was that if so for example on another board where the public is not an integral part of the cases right because these are hearings so a board of library trustees um trying to think of another board uh you you there aren't um you don't have items on other agendas necessarily that are you are requesting or offering a time for people to come in and speak to it so i you know i'm for and so if you're asking for an opinion sorry miss janice i just want to just interject sounds like it'll be cleaner just uh bite the bullet tonight and then make the adjustment for meetings yeah okay yeah which is something that we had done it um before anina was here we had been shortening the time and just blocking everything between calendaring them between 7 and 7 15 so that we could then extend the times as needed i i do recall we did we did we did historically have some complaints from certain parties when we adopted that tactic as well so yeah i mean but then you get into this scenario where you know all right well this is i guess this is the scenario we're in for tonight so uh i think so we'll just have to yes a question uh because last meeting we announced with the continuation to be 7 and 7 30. if it's in the minute like that are we still able to like adjust it on the agenda that's a good point so what i suppose we should do is we in the future if we continue something we should always continue it to 7 15 even if it winds up overlapping with another case that will allow us that will give us the flexibility so yeah we may have erred in in in saying that this would be continued to this time yeah it's a good it's a very good point yeah we do have to we do want to be precise about if we if we make a vote and we say that yeah we are bound by that vote so we do have to be we do have to be careful so i guess it's something for all of us to consider if we if we run into another continuation that like we just don't pick 7 15 all the time and then what about the other cases should we tonight like non like i feel like everything should be at 7 15 then and then you just put them in order let me just confirm with town council that that doesn't create some additional problem or move it to 7 15 7 16 7 7 7 one minute maybe one minute or five minutes or something like that every five minutes would be more reasonable five minutes five minutes apart ought to do five five minutes more before the subject we had a five to ten minutes part okay yeah all right it was just because it was announced like this yeah we pigeonholed ourselves so those of you here tonight sorry about that you got another two minute wait you got another you got another two minute wait for this next case and then we have a half an hour do we have people in attendance in the yes they're angry and they have pitchforks and they're gonna they're gonna run us gonna run us out of this room good thing i'm remote someone pointed out we can go by the uh the frozen clock on the side of the room and then we're free from all sins um should we potentially in our down period pause the recording i think we can i think we can do that i think after the continuation at 7 30 we can probably talk i would assume we can pause the recording at least i don't know i mean there's no sense of us just kind of sitting here with our foot on our thumbs i believe that if you end the link because uh uh uh another board had that issue that you cannot re-enter so we're not ending it we're pausing the recording okay that's a word so i believe you could just mute it i don't feel like that gives or yeah or mute it that's a good point as well but hear them whenever you want to don't you think that language is very clear that you can hear them whenever you want to times are approximate and some items may not be discussed in the order or listed or at the specific time estimated i feel like that means you can hear them whenever you want to i i i would agree um i just said i also just my my as an attorney i would say that means you can hear them whenever you want to
it's a question we should ask it's a question i would say ask if we're if we're not going to do it tonight i would say uh and maybe ask the town council or whomever wrote this but clarity i i i feel like the purpose of writing it is for the purpose of putting them in whatever order yeah we choose to put them in yes i would agree and i think historically we have usually always listed them about 10 minutes apart so we we never run into this exactly so we may never have asked this specific question yeah question exactly like you phrased it all right but it is 7 30 so if you want we can go on to the next case um this is a request to continue um to next month uh zva case 25-30 for 43 plain road good evening good evening members of the board nice to be before you again um we were before you on 43 plain road last month there was a large contingent of neighbors who were present at that night um we asked for continuance at that point to tonight our plans are now ready but they weren't submitted in time to be on for tonight they were submitted today to be on for january um i just wanted to check in the board generally we got the contact information for everybody who was here last month uh we started the text chain with all the neighbors to just kind of let them know especially tonight you don't need to come tonight it's going to get continued um the plan is that the house that was proposed last month is being reduced in scope uh and we are planning to have a meeting or a zoom meeting or something with the neighbors in advance of the january meeting just to uh just kind of review everything with them and take their temperature you know there were some complaints that were related to the house there were some things that were really unrelated to the house that i don't know what we're going to be able to resolve you know outside of traffic and stuff like that but um certainly everything was heard we'll do the best we can to address everything um and you know we're trying to trying to be good neighbors and work with neighborhoods so i hope that when we come back in january um it'll be a a better received uh project in general having everyone been heard and concerns addressed so um i i'm here for another matter tonight so i just wanted to step in just to request the continuous formally and we would ask to just put over to the january meeting if the board would grant us that that i thank you for that um yes i think we could do that so i would make a motion oh actually before we do that it is technically it wants to be the same panel that heard the case last time uh so uh that's mr perry mr hirsch mr sarian miss jenness and myself um so i make a motion that we continue case 25-30 for 43 plain road to 7 15 on january uh 13th 2026 second all right so we'll do a roll call vote on this starting online uh miss janice hi mr perry hi mr hirsch hi mr sarian uh january 13th uh january 13th uh it's right i so that is set so you are officially approved to continue and hopefully we'll have the time police issues sorted out so there's a wait period it'll only be a couple of minutes i would just say generally i wonder is there a requirement that you have a time because we've appeared in other cities with without that we've been in cities and towns with times been in cities and towns without and it's it's what seems more likely to create a scenario like you're in tonight then you know i i guess my only comment would be i i think if the times posted you have to honor the time that's what i think too but again i i'm not an attorney so i'm not 100 sure but i have read the statute i think it says you have to continue something to a date and time certain now as i said i think what we could do is is put them either all at the same time or five minutes apart which then sure i think the latitude but yeah i don't know how to reconcile the fact that our attorney wrote this preamble the preamble says we can do this but you know town council has also advised us that um you do have to adhere to the times that are posted as you kind of i just could see i could see a scenario where you blow through the agenda and it's like 8 15 and everyone shows up to say we were here for 8 40 at night and the meetings already resulted and then you know that's i think that's the danger in in taking it in advance i feel like it also makes the time irrelevant if we put all the times at the same time like what's the point of putting a time if we meet all the same time it's the same thing as not having any time it's somebody's somebody's gonna be unhappy in either occasion and i guess the general public having the ability to be heard whatever falls on that the better side of that is the one i go with i guess i don't know what the answer is interesting question thank you all right all right thank you thank you very much thank you all right so now i i don't i don't know what to do with the next 25 minutes yeah i would assume that we i i don't know why we can't take it out why listen to adam's speech oh yes definitely need to stop recording um yeah so i guess we do we do need to we do need to take a recess for 25 minutes so do you have a quick question sure we're about to fully clean so we do have the revised plans in the package and because uh i also wanted to ask since they um gave us check again we potentially need to um send out another abutters notice because this might be vastly different from the first project that they uh applied for so it would be up to the board to decide whether or not this has to be resubmitted within those papers you know since you're contacting town council to ask about the preamble ask about ask about that so we know the procedure going forward yeah yeah i think that's a good call so do we need to make a vote to take a recess right in an abundance of caution i would just say that you we can take a recess and reconvene okay you know five minutes before whatever it is motion and vote on if you'd like to i'm going to make sure we're we're doing this properly so i can make a motion that uh the board recesses until uh 7.55 7.55 sorry uh miss jess hi mr perry hi mr hirsch hi um mr sarion sorry this fall hi mr white aye so we are recessed until 7.55 so you can pause every time all right okay i'll come back all right that's good we have to come at least back to it we can't talk about anything yet but we can at least uh yeah we have to be available that she was going to come back so yeah stop all right now i think we're because they're moving at the end that's too quick i didn't know the signs have to reply but all the guards had a mask
but i'm assuming we can maybe see that in the planning department
it's in the packet or is it online uh it's on why i think it was just i don't know what's going on so i just read that that is uh several things that i didn't think about so i like the design like the sign that a lot more information can officially reconvene i don't believe we need a vote to re um re-enter the hearing i don't think so okay i didn't think so yeah all right um so thank you for everyone who's persevered through our 25 minute uh recess there so this is the 8 p.m hearing this is case 25-33 for 321 commonwealth road this is the application of wayland woods llc uh for a property located at 321 commonwealth road in the business aid district the applicant seeks a special permit variance or other applicable zoning relief to relocate and replace the existing sign moving it from its current entrance location to the front of the building within the front grass area the request includes relief from the front yard setback requirements associated with proposed sign relocation so do we have anyone here here or online to present this hi uh this is craig murphy i'm with cig graphics i'm the contractor who is going to install this sign uh thank you everybody um for having first of all for having a virtual uh meeting that made my life a lot easier especially with that 25 minute wait you guys had to endure uh but yeah essentially what they're going to do is remove the um old decrepit sign that's right at the entrance way that particular signs kind of falling apart and made of wood and it's just it's just a mess at this point and then uh replacing it with another sign uh more modern looking right in the middle of the lawn of the building uh they i think they feel like if you're familiar with this property where the where the the current sign is uh that entrance point is separated by a gas station and then there's an entrance to that building and i think i know when i went there the very first time i was completely confused by that so i think they're just uh literally getting rid of that sign and putting another sign right in the middle of the building same same square footage okay um have you seen a copy of the uh the design review board's um comments on this application i did not summer first okay um so uh paraphrasing i mean they they did support the proposed design of the sign however they did they did ask for some additional information i think they were looking for a more specific site plan that um located exactly where the sign the current sign is and the new sign is going to be located because you are asking the board for uh zoning relief from the set the front yard setback requirement because as i understand by reading section 501.1 signs it sounds like do you need to comply with all the yard requirements um presumably unless waived by a special permit from the zba um what what what is the setback requirement i'm sorry uh because this this sign is going to be a solid 10 feet probably plus from the right i mean the setback requirement for a front yard i i think it's 35 feet in that in that district um but obviously there's obviously numerous signs that exceed that that are inside of the setback so it's it's not that it's not permitted but i think it does require um a specific drawing that sort of indicates where the existing one is and where the new one is um and i know you submitted a like an aerial photograph um but it's it's listed as not to scale and doesn't have any dimensions on it so um i i don't i would propose this to the board and i guess with some you know with the building commissioner's uh review i don't think we need a fully engineered uh site plan with all of the building setbacks shown on it i think something that is reasonably scaled that shows those dimensions i think is appropriate for signage relief we're not we're not looking for building construction or an addition so does that mr commissioner does that seem reasonable uh it does um it does okay so i guess in in in light of that i would i would probably suggest that we do need that additional piece of information and it might make sense to to continue this um i obviously can't speak for the rest of the board but the the memo that we have from the design review board does expresses you know broad support for the proposed sign and i don't think anyone on the board is probably going to reject to you know the new sign location but i do think we need that additional piece of information i think to consider this application fully yeah i i probably would i mean it is going to be dead set in the middle of the building you know 10 feet back from the plot line um i don't know if that helps to move this along but if you know if you need the drawing i understand that yeah i think we are going to need a drawing just because we want to make sure that we want to make sure that the decision is kind of is legally correct and has all the uh the parts the parts in place but also to protect you it does give you some protection too but as i said i i think that drawing could be made reasonably yeah by um yeah in a couple different there's a couple different software programs that are easily available for you to take this not the scale photograph that you have convert it to scale put some dimensions on it i said i i i don't think you need to go hire a civil engineer and give us a no no i can i can definitely i can definitely do it all right that's great um yeah we would use the scale of the building to figure out the size yeah okay so yes yes if i may add um so just for the record we shared the uh design review advisory board memo with him on december 1st so the memo was shared okay so you might you might want to check your email because i think you did get uh a copy of this this memo from the design review board yeah okay i definitely will uh actually if i can ask for it to be i i honestly didn't see it so if i did i think i probably would have done additional drawing or something like that uh if it can be re-sent i'd greatly appreciate it i just somehow probably stepped on it we can easily take care of that thank you so much you guys are really nice well we try to be people pleasers here right um so we do have to put a quick panel together for this and then vote on a continuance so the panel will be uh mr perry mr hirsch miss janice mr white and uh miss paul uh so i make a motion that we continue uh case 25-33 for 321 commonwealth road um january 13th at uh 7 15 7 15. i love it i think 705 which is it's the second uh okay all right did the other one that's on 15. we did the uh yeah we did the other one at 7 15. yeah thank you edward oh oh so we'll do it at 7 15. that way we'll this will be covered but thank you for that um okay uh so we'll do a roll call vote on this miss jess hi mr perry bye mr hirsch hi miss paul mr white aye so you are officially continued um and we should be right ready at 7 15 so this shouldn't you shouldn't have a problem here thank you thank you very much everybody have a great night thank you very much all right drive safe
all right so we have another go to wait we have another 12 minutes so as we want to recess we want to just keep uh hearing open it's 12 beds yes it's just 12 minutes so that's okay he's gonna come back in seven anyways true okay okay and you guys have um five five people there right one two three four five okay so i will step away okay okay and i will be back oh got stuck my price is still cheap i think sean's price is going up yes you see that so in the uh you're okay so zero
yeah this is the existence surrounding that is there somebody uh it's just been um it's just been really good that it's been really good that it's been really wasted and uh it's been kind of so divided and
this is the like uh i'm sure Gary Barlow can do. And also, he's the two workers at the time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . And the single residence part of 60 zoning, the applicant seeks a special permit variance or other affordable zoning relief to construct a garage on the recently acquired parcel of 203 Gleason Lane. The parcel of 203 Gleason Lane previously contained buildings that were removed following the subdivision. The applicant proposes to construct a garage in the location of the former garage previously situated on the parcel. So, good evening. Thank you for your patience as we're struggling with these timing issues. Good evening. My name is Pat Arnaug, Metro West Engineer. I'll be presenting to Mr. Tenaccio. Question. Yes, sir. I haven't done one of these live in a long time. Would you want me to set up an easel with the thing to do or use the PDFs that we have on your computers? I'm not sure. You can set it up on there, so that's fine. Yeah. We've all seen the PDFs. We all have it. Oh, I'm sure if we're getting any public input, what that would be. So, can I have to sign it? You could, yes. We are here to request a special permit for construction of a new garage at 197 Gleason Lane.
It is going to be very close in proximity, as you just mentioned, to the previous owner's garage. Using this location, which is in brown on the colored board there, will require relief from section 198-703.2, the zoning bylaw, which states that the garage may be located beside the dwell. Mr. Zucker, the building inspector, has denied the flat builder's building permits for the new garage, as the plan showed the new garage in front of the existing dwelling, instead of beside it. This can be brief history. The area where the garage is proposed was part of 203 Gleason Lane, and after the passing of the previous owners, the Ryans, the existing house and garage fell into disrepair. Neighbors at 215 Gleason Lane, the Jakes, purchased the property in 2022. Jakes requested an RDA from the Conservation Commission to demo the old house. That was in February of 23. We do know, I don't know exactly when the old garage was demoed, but it was probably prior to October of 22. We have some pictures from that. In October of 24, Mr. and Mrs. Bonaccio purchased the western half of what was 203 Gleason Lane, and that's the area where this garage was proposed. Due to the shape of the lot and the location of the wetlands on the lot, it kind of creates a hardship to try to put the garage beside the existing house. This is the wetland buffer, and it goes right behind the house. So if you were to set the garage beside it, it would be way into the buffer. With the location that we have where the previous garage was, we're not in the buffer, and we're not within any setbacks. Close, but on the other side. There's also a handy thing about where the garage is proposed. In front of it is an area of mature landscaping, which pretty much hides it from anybody driving by on the road. So it's not going to be standing out like it would if it was up by the house with nothing but lawn in front of it. Let's see, we filed a request for determination of applicability of the Conservation Commission for this location that we're trying to get for the garage, and we got a negative determination with some conditions putting up hay bales and things like that, other erosion controls. That's all been finished, and it's on file, and registered means now. I believe that you have in the packet several letters from abutters that's stating that they're supportive of what we're trying to do. And so due to the hardships and the shape of the lot, nearby wetlands, and with the support of the neighbors, we ask that you grant a special permit to construct the garage as shown on the plants. Can I answer any questions? Yes. What was the section of the bylaw that you said the building inspector referenced in the denial? No, section 198703.2. I have a copy of that here. Let's take it out. Did you have, yeah, did they give you a document? I got it offline. It's right in the, uh... Oh, no, no, no, I didn't get it. You didn't get a, you didn't get a document. Okay. And I don't, no, I guess we did not. Okay. No, it was just on the portal. And then I spoke with... Mr. Zupa, and that's when he said, we need a special permit. Okay. But I do have a copy of the section right here. If you'd like to see it. Uh, no, I'm looking at, I'm looking at 703.2. Yep. It's like the last long sentence.
703.2 is talking about the side yard. But his interpretation of the line that says a garage, either attached to single family, two family, detached dwelling, or multifamily dwelling, or detached, may be located beside the dwelling, divided that there's yard, twin garage, and side lot line. And he told me his interpretation of that is, it can't be in front of the house.
I, but 703.2, specifically talking about side yards, the front, front yard set back, is front yard definition is silent on a question of whether a garage can be there. So I, I don't actually believe that interpretation is correct.
He's the building inspector. He gets to interpret the zoning bylaw. And he gets to appeal on his decisions. We can confuse him. So, but without getting too far into that, um, I guess I'd ask that the building commissioner is on, is, is, is joining us online. Um, I, I recognize, Mr. Commissioner, that 703.2 has given us trouble in the past because of the ambiguous legal wording. But I, I do think 703.2 is clear that, that a garage can be inside of, you know, the side yard, as long as it complies with the setbacks, right? But the front yard section, um, doesn't have any language about prohibiting a garage. So I, I don't think, I, I, I don't think this is exclusive. I think a garage can be located anywhere on a site. That's, that's my interpretation of it admittedly poorly worded, uh, yard definition.
Uh, yes, it is. And so I don't have the plan in front of me, but what is the proposed setback for the front yard, uh, to the, to the proposed garage? Uh, it is 38.6 feet. Which would give us a 10th or so extra to the center line of Gleason Lane, because Gleason Lane is only 33 feet wide. Yeah. So, I mean, it, I guess where I'm confused is that, um, given the two lots are in common ownership, the interior lot line doesn't apply. It's really treated as one parcel from a zoning perspective. It seems to me that this is like an entirely by right construction. I had thought that that's where we, um, because it complies with the front yard setback, the side yard setbacks. It, it, it complies with the 100 foot wetland buffer. How many, so I, I don't, I don't know why this isn't just permitted. I, I don't think this needs a special permit. How many garage bays can you have on a single property in this zone? Three. I think it's, I think it's three. Three. So this would take them to four. This would be four garage bays. Yeah. But doesn't that apply to lots of, only of a certain size? I'm not a hundred percent sure, but that's not the relief request. That's an interesting, that's an interesting observation.
Um, that's an accessory use, correct? It isn't clearly written in the buy, in, in zoning, but the wording and the interpretation is three garage bays per property. And I don't think, I don't think there's any delineation between the lot size for that. Uh, that's right. That's, that's the three. I think that's the house's three stories are permitted. I think if a lot is in excess of four acres or something like that, but it's not applicable here. We can still grant them a special permit for four garage. They have four garage lots. I think so. You know. Yeah. Yeah. Especially with the idea that this is, we're placing an existing garage. Yeah. That's true. We're not creating a new garage. Yeah. I think if, if that is true, although that's not necessarily the relief requested. Yes. We could grant relief to add a, to have there be four garage bays, given the lot size and location. But I don't think the garage itself, um, the structure itself necessarily needs relief. Perhaps it just, we need relief for the fact. Where is the number of garage bays called out in bylaw? We're looking at that right now. Uh, well, it's back in the, I think it's in the table of uses principle or the accessory. I think accessory.
Yeah. I'm not, I'm not seeing, I'm not seeing that.
Our practice has been three.
It's true, but I just want to, I want to be sure that we actually, that is listed somewhere. I mean, I'm, I'm not finding it. So, yeah, you can all find one. Uh, numbers, number 64 and accessory uses, garages, carport, three vehicles or fewer. That's, um, got it. That's just for accessory use. That's only for accessory. So there's something else to consider here is that there's only two for the accessory and two that are attached to the current house. So maybe that doesn't apply then. Would that apply? Oh, it's an interesting, that's an interesting point because this is an accessory structure. There are only two in the accessory structure. The main domain, the other two garages are attached to the house.
Yeah. So it is an accessory use. So accessory. But is the attached garage considered an accessory use? The existing one, not the one, not the one, not the one, not the one being applied for air.
But in Harris, our coat, our bio is so clear. Oh, yes. Thank you. You know, it says garage, comma, carport, three vehicles or fewer. So really the only reason why we're running into this potential is because there's a combination of two properties that are now being combined into one property where we went from two conforming properties to being a non-conforming singular property. Well, yeah, but I don't think you can treat the property with just a garage as a lot because, like, it wouldn't be a compliant lot. Right, but it was parceled off, right, from another property to be included in this one is my understanding. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, I guess thinking about this, I would agree. Like, I initially thought this was an as-of-right project, but I guess given the accessory use, probably the safest path is to sort of review, is to consider this as a special permit requesting relief from the table of permitted uses.
This thing about the applicant, like, from a safety perspective from their side, dealing with the inclusion of this, I think it might be safer for them, for us to do it as that. Yeah, I would agree. I would agree. Okay. All right. So, looks like we sorted out our little bit of a legal issue here. Any other, anything else, I guess, any other questions from the board on the application? I had a question, and I was hoping the commissioner could shine some light on it, which was the accessory replacement looks to have two stories, but I just want to make sure that it is considered to be a one-and-a-half story versus a two-story. And if you could just shine some light on that, that would be great. Well, I believe the plan on the front of the plan says one-and-a-half story detached garage, and the maximum footage that is permitted is 35 feet.
So, you could have a second story inside the garage. There was actually, I believe, Nine Wayside built an accessory garage. I believe it went in front of you guys recently. And that has a two-bay garage also in it. And that does have a second floor. I mean, it is only a 6-7-5 pitch, and then some of it is 12-11-4-5. But, you know, the interior section definitely seems to have a larger area inside there, which, you know, is fine. But at the same time, I just want to make sure this isn't considered to be a two-story and that it is a true one-and-a-half from your perspective and from the building code. That's all. Yes, I do believe so. Okay. Great. All right. I guess we want to, I want to concede. Is there anybody else here in the public that wants to be heard on this case?
It doesn't look like we have anyone online. Oh, someone's ready to ask. I'll do that, someone online. Fine. Can you give us your name and address, please? Yes, I'm Bill Jakes, 215 Gleason Lane.
Good evening. And I'm the guy that purchased the property, and it was a toxic waste site full of asbestos, and I feared for my grandchildren's lives, actually, and that they'd be wandering about. That's why we purchased it as kind of a public service. And Frank came to me and said, you know, I'll help you do that. And so I'm strongly in favor of this. I mean, we're just trying to do something good for the neighborhood. And, you know, so as a neighbor, I mean, I really, I can't tell you how strongly I support this. It was a horrible thing that whoever let this happen over 10 years, it was a disaster. And, you know, I'm kind of emotional about this because, you know, I really, really want to thank Frank. And as a neighbor, I really strongly support this.
Okay. Great. Thank you very much. I don't have any additional questions for the applicant. Does anyone on the board have any questions? No. I don't have any additional questions. Okay. Could I just get a little clarification? Sure. So this special permit will cover the four days on the whole property? Yes. And not the, not being beside the existing house. But we'll cover both. So, yeah, the special permit will be, basically, would be for you to construct this garage as proposed. Okay. Like, as I said, I, yeah, I, I, I appreciate the building inspector raising questions on section 70, 702, I believe. It's 40 worth, but I think it doesn't, that actually doesn't apply here. But what does apply is a special permit under 2 or 3.1, because we can issue a special permit for a, a use that is going to be slightly different from the table of permitted uses. In this case, it would be having a total of four garage days on a property instead of three. So, yes, it would be for, it would be for the project as proposed. Okay. Thank you very much.
All right. Uh, so with that, since this is slightly different from a preexisting non-conforming, um, I'd make a motion under 203.1 that we grant a special permit for the garage as proposed at 197 Gliese Lane. Um, because I, and this is to, um, sorry, this is a building, this is a per, a special permit for a, uh, for the use. Um, because this is a special permit, you can, they use the building or the structure for which the special permit is granted. Right. So to rephrase that, I'd make a motion, uh, under 203.1 to issue a special permit for, um, for the use of the accessory structure, um, for the garage. Uh, in, to vary the case for, uh, uh, accessories number 64, which is a garage park with three vehicles or fewer, this would have a total of four garage bays. Um, and I think it meets the standard of a special permit under 233.1 because the proposed accessory garage, um, is not against the public interest. It doesn't dig or derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which the use, building, or structure occurs and shall, it is not more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, fumes, odor, dust, or other objectionable features. Um, and that such use, building, or structure should not otherwise be injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangerous to the public health or safety. Second. Second. All right. Um, so I realize I didn't name a panel for that, but the, this, for this case, but the panel is going to be, um, five, uh, permanent members. Mr. Perry, Mr. Hirsch, Ms. St. Janis, um, Ms. Paul, and Mr. White. Um, so thank you for that second. Um, I would add to that some conditions that the project has to be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans that have been submitted and the applicant needs to obtain any other approvals from other boards as may be required. Just for the paperwork, just make sure that the variance is accounted for. It's not, it's not a variance and that it is a special permit. Ah, but I, I see a red X are on the special permit side, so I just wanted to double check that. Yeah, yeah, the, the paper application has, has special permission. Okay. All right. Also, one, one additional thing, um, do they need relief for the front yard setback, given that you, they're, they're, they're not, they're not, they're inside of the setback. Yeah. We set it up. They're beyond the setback. Oh, okay. It's only a small amount. Okay. Right, so the setback is 35 feet. Oh, it is. 38. Yeah, but it's also 55 feet from the center line. And that's what we, we're actually 55.1. Okay. Got it. Got it. Yeah, so yeah, so no, no step back. All right. So I think, so we don't need to add any additional conditions. Okay. Yeah. So, uh, we'll do this by roll call starting online. Ms. Janice. Aye.
Mr. Barry. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Ms. Paul. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So this is approved. So we have, uh, 14 days to write this decision. And then there is a, uh, 20 day appeal period. And then after that, you can pick that up. And then should be off and running with this construction. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck with your program. Yes. Good luck. All right. So I guess we thought tonight was going to be boring. It would be nothing, nothing like that at all.
All right. So it's 840. So we can move on to our last case of the night. This is, um, this is EMA case 25-35 for 8th Park Ridge Road. This is the application of the API development fund for those were the property located at 8th Park Ridge Road. In the single residence of our 20 district, the applicant seeks a special permit variance or other applicable zoning relief to demolish the existing structure and construct a replacement dwelling. The block is pre-existing and non-construing with respect to minimum blot area requirements. So good evening. Good evening again. The chair members of the board, uh, attorney Andrew DeLorey. I'm joined with my father, attorney Paul DeLorey this evening. Um, well, as you said, we're here, uh, this may ring a bell to you. We were here before you earlier in the year, uh, at 15 Park Ridge Road, which happens to just be diagonal from the parcel that we're talking about tonight. Uh, same clients, same developers, uh, received a similar special permit as to what is being requested here tonight. So, uh, as you said, pre-existing non-conforming lot as to the lot size and the frontage, uh, what's being proposed is to demolish the existing tiny studio house that is on this lot with a detached barrage and to, uh, replace there with, um, a four bedroom, four and a half bath, uh, single family, which will be compliant for, uh, setback purposes. Uh, the basis of the special permit that we are, uh, seeking tonight, uh, is under 401.1.3.2, I believe. Um, simply that the increase of the square footage, uh, is over 20% on a pre-existing non-conforming lot that triggers the need for a special permit. Uh, again, the, uh, the house itself is dimensionally compliant, uh, in terms of the setbacks. Um, I did notice, um, I did notice on the application, uh, which I, I think that the building inspector agrees with me, uh, that there is a proposed lot coverage. Uh, this listed as 25%, um, which would have additionally required a special permit, but, uh, when you do the math on it, uh, I just think it was calculated incorrectly. I, I have the dwell under 20%. The, the house itself is, uh, uh, 2650, uh, when situated on 15,500 square foot lawn, it's, it's under 20%. I think that a house this size, 20% of the measurement would be 13,600. So there's the 2,000 extra square foot in here. So, um, I think where it was not cited, uh, I'm, I'm assuming that the building department agreed with my analysis there. Um, so I believe we're here just for the special permit for the increase in the square footage. Um, I will say, um, the, I know that the square footage increase, um, feels large. It feels larger than the one that would, was given, uh, across the street. However, the house at 15, which was diagonal across the street, was larger. Uh, so in order to expand that footprint, uh, it was a little easier to cover the, the percentage. That existing house was about 1,800 square feet at the beginning, uh, at the exact same. So this house is 1,200 square feet, uh, in discussing with my clients, uh, you know, like I said, it's, it's largely in the studio home. So, um, no partition walls, the, the kitchens in the, in the bedroom, the bedrooms in the kitchen type situation, um, with, with a detached garage. So, um, the house will be, uh, two stories with an unfinished attic, with an unfinished basement. And it has a, it rebaked garage, as this board just, uh, explored it at great length. That's still the, the bank out there. Uh, so, again, we are here, um, under, uh, 198.203, uh, requesting a special permit. Uh, we do not believe that the granting of this is against the public interest, or that it will derogate from the character in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, fumes, odor, dust, or other objectionable features such to be injurious to the public. Uh, and again, we're seeking that special permit, I think, 401.3.2, sorry, I have a code on my, uh, 401.3.2, yes. Um, so, um, I, I, I'd like to open it up to the board if there's any questions, uh, I'm happy to answer it. My clients are also here as well, uh, but with the developers saying, kind of architectural questions or anything, we can drill down on, on anything the board may have. Thank you. All right, thank you. Um, I don't see plans for the attic as far as for the, uh, structural and how it's set up in the attic. Sure. Do you have that? Uh, it's not, I mean, not have it. Uh, yeah, I don't, I don't, I don't have a cross-section of the attic, or the intent is that it's not finished. I have a question. Sure. Why would, uh, 401.1.2 not be applicable or warm?
Yeah, maybe one second. I guess maybe more specifically, because the existing dwelling is pre-existing, non-conforming, and it's being modified by this. Um, 401.1.1.3.2 is, um, site reconstruction. So I'm not, I'm not quite sure. Um, my, I guess, by, uh, a teardown of rebuild, I, I define personally as reconstructing, um, if, is that, uh, quite, you know, we could reasonably, uh, disagree, of course, on interpretation. I just think that, um, they're all kind of drilling down on the same thing, just kind of pick, pick which section is, it is applicable to, to what we're doing. Um, yeah, yeah, so I, I, I just discussed with my father, I think, uh, we, we, possibly incorrectly, view 401.1.2 as, uh, renovation of the existing structure. Whereas we view the 401.1.3.2 as tear-down rebuild. Correct. But, um, because the existing lot is non-conforming, as soon as you tear down the existing non-conforming structure, your reticely, the lot's not billable.
That's how I would interpret this. So I don't know how you could not be bound by 401.1.2. Okay. Um, let me just read the other ones. Hold on. Um, there's a critical distinction is that under 401.1.3, the board would not need to make a finding that this is, you know, substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And I think we've seen the memo from the planning board, which indicates that is not the case. So I think this is a crucial, this is a crucial distinction in my mind. Correct. Because I think that coverage, the, the, the coverage that is afforded the owner of the non-conforming property, I would think would go away. If the non-conforming house is demolished, because then the lot that's left over is below the minimum. There's no structure on it. It's, I would think it would render it non-billable. So I, I'm sorry, I'm trying to look at my decision on 15, because 15 was pretty, I recall, uh, the other project we talked about, um, Yes. We talked about, we, we used the depth, we used the distinction of 401.1.2 because it was a non-conforming structure that was changed.
Uh, I, I, I guess the flavor of the board, um, 401, if you think 401.1.2 is the appropriate section. Um, my instinct, and I, I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm actually, I'm actually trying to, you know, think about preserving the owner because I, you know, again, I, I want to, I, I, I'm happy to have this, this sort of reconfirmed with, uh, with town council. But it would appear to me that, like, you kind of lose the protection of the pre-existing non-conforming nature of the original law if the existing house is torn out and it doesn't necessarily exist anymore because it's not a case where you're modifying that existing house to create this new owner. You're sort of leaving a portion of it, which is traditionally how things like this have been accomplished. This appears to sort of propose getting rid of it entirely and replacing it with something that, while is more conforming, is still on, still the underlying lack of conformity kind of, I think, is erased by the full demolition of the project. I guess what, it's a question of what is, what percentage or quality of houses to remain in order. Correct. And, of course, the bi-law doesn't provide any, any guidance. So, uh, I remember on 15, that house had been demolished. And, uh. So, um, yeah, it's a little different that, um, that that remains. So, um, not to, not to sort of put the, uh, the building commissioner on, on the spot, but Mr. Commissioner, I'm, I'm wondering if you have any, any insight or sort of can add any kind of, uh, clarity to this, to this conversation that we're having relative to this. Well, I, I do believe you're correct, Mr. Chairman. Um, it, it does refer, uh, this case does refer to 401.1.2. Um, and, um, because it is a non-conforming lot size. Um, and it's, uh, similar to the other case, uh, um, at the beginning of our meeting tonight, uh, same type of situation where, uh, I don't know if that's lot size is, uh, adequate. But, um, then it would, it definitely would then come back to my decision that it's a non, it's a, um, uh, it's the extension alteration of single family increases in non-conforming nature. So, it, it, it will increase in non-conforming nature, um, with this dwelling on the property. Thank you. Um, and that makes sense to me as well, because if I look at the, the leading section of 401.1.2, a pre-existing non-conforming structure, right, can be changed, extended, or altered. Now, I know those are all three terms that one could argue also about what, what those mean. But, um, I think you could, you could say that, that this is altering that. It's not, you're not sort of proposing to keep a portion of it. I don't necessarily know that you need to keep a portion of it. Um, but the, the, the last section of this here is, um, is correct, that the setting, that setting, whether you keep a portion of the existing house or not, what you're still proposing is much larger. And it does, it does increase the non-conforming nature of this lot, because this was a non-conforming house on a non-conforming lot. The house was a lot smaller. The new house is substantially larger, and you are, are increasing the non-conformity of that, even though you are improving the setbacks from the front yard and the side yard of the existing dwelling. So, I, I would agree with the commissioner that I think 401.1.2 is the applicable, applicable bylaw here for this. Uh, the board, if anyone else on the board has any other questions or conditions, at least on this piece, this initial, I would say, gating issue of this application. I'd agree with you.
Could, could I ask you a question, Mr. Chair? So, if we went under this section, all right, do we have a sense of how much of the existing structure has to be preserved? And we've seen that, you know, we've seen houses go down, they have one wall that's left up, and they work on that. And they consider that an extension or an expansion, or does the, uh, building, an alteration or an expansion, does the building inspector have an opinion on that? Uh, that's a fair question. Uh, so, I don't, I don't know, uh, Mr. Commissioner, if you heard that, that question or not. But the question, the question is just, would a portion of that existing dwelling somehow need to remain on to, to sort of work under the context of 401.1.2? And so, like, what would that necessarily be?
I don't know how you, I don't know how you'd incorporate the existing structure into a new structure. Um, you're going from existing 1,200 square feet to 4,006 square feet of a new dwelling. So, um, I, I, I just don't know how you'd incorporate that. And, uh, as far as the plan is, showing the existing, I believe, I believe that, yeah, so the existing dwelling, um, is closer to the side yard setbacks and the front yard setbacks. Um, so the new dwelling does fit within the parameters of the R5, uh, the R20, which is a 15-foot setback. They do meet those requirements. So, um, so you'd be, you'd be, um, conforming as far as the proposed dwelling, but the, you're, you're adding three times as much square footage on a non-conforming lot. So that's the decision that has to be made. Um, trying to preserve the old structure is, um, I don't see it as feasible. Um, so, uh, we're going to have to come to a conclusion between the board and myself as far as how to proceed on this. All right. But if, uh, if the, uh, existing dwelling comes through the criteria of teardown, why would they keep anything up to add or to instruction or to do it? Um, what they, it, it, it doesn't fit the criteria of teardown, it's not, it's not an abandoned, no, it's not an abandoned structure. It's not like the garage that we just read the application for. So, yes, if the, it is, so there was a property on East street, which was very large as this is large. If this property were torn down and reconstructed and not as large, what would be the path for that? Say that again. Well, under 401.13, the existing house could be torn down and a new house could be built that was no larger than 20% of the area of this one. Right. Right. But then this is where it gets, this is where it gets, this is where in my mind it gets strange because if, if you say make it 21%, is it possible that your protection of the preexisting non-conforming goes away? I mean, it seems to imply that, I mean, I understand why the applicant has come forward and said, you know, 401.3.2 says that, you know, you can modify this without a special permit provided it is no more than 20%. That implies that you need a special permit if it's more than 20%. But that isn't what 401.1.3 says, it doesn't say that, it implies it. So, um, the question I'm raising is that if you demolish the house and you exceed the 20%, does the protection of the preexisting non-conforming structure go away, make the lot unbuildable? Or does that mean that you have to consider a 401.1.2? And even if this isn't a reconstruction, you know, it says existing structures can be changed, extended, or altered. It's not an extension. You could argue that you're changing it. You're removing it, putting in something else. That's a change. You could also argue that you're altering it, you know? I don't know. But those are three, those are three terms of art that I think could be better defined as well. However, if you're going to change or alter it, then it also implies that some of the original structure remains as the applicant was suggesting or questioning. So, so, I don't know. You're right. It is a path to be figured out. But also wondering, was it considered whether any part of the original structure could remain and be rebuilt, you know, around it? And that's up for the applicant to determine how much that could be. Yeah, it's possible. I mean, it's not, it doesn't appear from the current plans, it doesn't appear like that's possible. But I think it could be, it probably could be designed to be possible, yeah. But then getting back to my question, Mr. Chairman. So, let's say they take this house down, fall but a four-foot piece of foundation that's the existing house that's being expanded. So, again, I, you know, we have to figure out in the building inspectors' determination how much of it has to be retained. How much of it do you need to work with to reconstruct? Take everything down, put a piece of the foundation, say we can reorient the house and use that as part of the foundation. Then I think that. It does, it does seem, it doesn't possible, yeah. So, by the way, were there, were there any, I didn't look on the, online on the share file to see if there were any letters from, or. Well, we have some, we have, we have a comment, we have some comments from the planning board that are pointing out that this house is, is, it's got an FAR that is substantially larger than any other houses in the neighborhood. So, we have some planning board comments that imply the, the proposed house is far too large for the lot. We also have a memo from the board of house that says that they, they conceptually approve this project. However, um, they need to submit plans that indicate like, uh, an appropriate septic system can be built on the site as well. So, which also has to be the new code. Yeah. We, we don't have a clear, we don't, with the two documents we have, the staff comments, we don't have a clear path yet. But, uh, we have guidance. But, were there any comments from neighbors or butters? Possibly some neighbor comments. Um, based on the, based on, we haven't, we haven't even, we haven't even really started to get into the case. And we probably also have some neighbor comments because we have several, we have, we have individuals here. So, we can. Okay. Do we have approval from the, the department? No. Do we have approval from the department? It's conceptual. It's conceptual. It says that you, it says that they still, we'll need to create a full set of plans and, and fully engineer the septic system. So, they've had like a strange approval because, like, we don't even know if the site could support the septic system. I don't think so. Wouldn't, and it has to be involved in your nitrogen expectations too. That's possible. Um, all right. So, sorry that we've sort of been, we've been consumed with some legal precision care. But as I said, I'd like to be, if we're going to act on it, I do want to make sure we're sort of approaching it. The right way. We're not, we're not accidentally creating, uh, an additional problem by tearing the house down without fully sort of reviewing this. So, uh, I guess setting that aside, um, can you tell us some, any, any else about this project before we sort of ask if there's any other comments? Uh, just one thing I did just review with my clients is, uh, there is a possibility to kind of reverse the location of the garage and to lay it on the existing, but the existing foundation is not great. But there is a possibility to use, use it for purposes of supporting the garage, laying a slab or, and putting the garage there. And then also I'm just looking at, I, part of the issue, it seems to me is that they work diligently to create so many conformities that they created a non-conformity by doing that. It's almost, I, it's almost, I think if you look at the plan, you could kind of just use the same sidewall and just kind of use, you know, core kitty corner of the house like that instead of fronting it directly on the. Yeah. And then it may be considered, it may, it may be sort of easier to sort of, you know, fit it under for a 1.1.2. It's fair. It's complicated. I, I, I guess the question is that if, if you had to go to a, uh, a variance, um, you know, generally the, the lawn is, is, uh, a little funky shape that to me would, would render it a hardship actually that we've got. Well, yeah, but you don't have any, you don't, well, the site plan doesn't show any topography, but I, I, I'm familiar with the site, but to comply with a variance standard under the state statute, you'd also need to demonstrate that topography makes the lot, uh, most of the lot, you know, either unbuildable or unpractical. The large, the lot is largely flat. So I don't think you have a topographical issue there. I, I, it's, I, I, my understanding is the shape, the soil condition or the topography, any of, any of the three, not necessarily all of, all of the three. So, uh, you know, the shape, uh, the shape generates a hardship in, in a, you know, Well, I don't know, but you just said that you could, you could, you could, you're, the shape's not a hardship because you proposed a more conforming dwelling than the existing one. So I would say if you couldn't propose a more conforming dwelling, you might have a, a situation with the geometry, but yeah, so I, it's just, it's a parallelogram. That's not, that's not that uncommon. I just, I don't even know if we're going to go down the road. So I think let's just, yeah, I, I think that they are, just in, in reviewing, there is, there is the possibility to leave some of the existing structure. Um, I think the, the effort was made to make the house as compliant as possible, set it back from the street, front it properly on the road as the rest of the houses are. Uh, and that triggered some of the difficulties that we're wrestling with. Yeah. And as I said, I just want to be sure that like, we're procedurally correct with the application of 401.1.2 versus the 401.1.3.2. That's all. Yes. Um, but I do appreciate, I do appreciate that the applicant looked at this and proposed something that does align with the other houses. So I'm not, I'm not saying they proposed this out of bad faith and they, they proposed something. I just want to be sure that we, we don't really get erred here. I, I think the only thing that I, that I see is that I think that the way that the, the way that the agendas are worded and generally, I think, you know, special permit or variance, I, I feel like it leaves the board, the interpretation. It does. It does, it does give, it does give, it does give the appropriate statute. Yep. And apply it appropriately. I would still say that a special permit is the appropriate statute for this one because the, the, the lots that we've granted variances on in town are usually incredibly geometrically challenged or topographically challenged. Like they're triangular or, so there's literally, uh, such a change in elevation that, that the plot is visually unbuildable. Sure. Yeah. Appreciate that. All right. Well, I guess with this, let me, let me sort of, let me open this up. It looks like we have some, some members of the public that, that, um, have, uh, desired to put on it. So if anyone has any thing about this product, they want to articulate, if you could please come up and just, uh, give us your name and address. So, um, it was answered in my question. Hi, I'm Linda Pavarotti. I live at 17th Anfield Road. So I bought the land directly. Um, and I, you know, just as what's been said here is I just believe the house is really big for that area. Um, and I would like to make sure that someone reviews the, the plans and the, um, measurements because I've locked it at first and came up very short. And, but then I took a tape measure out and I mocked it. It was only, I was only off by four or they're off by four feet. Um, you know, I just don't want their house coming right up and, and budding our property. Um, and I know, you know, and I'm sorry, but you know, the other house that was done, uh, was pretty shoddy at first, you know, and you talk about leaving an existing wall. Well, they were supposed to leave an existing wall. It ended up being the wrong wall and they had to do something else. Um, so I want to make sure that people really look at this before tearing down the house and before embarking on a plan with these, um, these people who are working on this, because we have seen the work that they've done. Um, and I have questions about it. Um, but mostly I have questions about the size of the house on this property. And we had to, we put an addition in and we had to go through variants for our septic system. Um, so that makes me wonder four and a half bathrooms. Um, and this lot is quite a bit, I think based off of bedroom, based off of bedrooms. All right. But still, that's a lot, you know, I have a bigger property than they do. We had to go through a variance for all that kind of stuff. So I'm just saying that if, you know, and you know, when we first did ours, we had a lot of small buildings around the neighborhood. So we did, I was trying to conform into the neighborhood. Uh, of course, since then, there's been a few big houses going up. Um, and that's really what I'm fearing is that all of this place is just going to be, uh, huge houses in areas that are not set for that. You know, I just don't, I don't see the need for a three door garage if that's what they're working at in this area. They can make it small, a smaller house to fit in by eliminating one of those doors, you know, making it smaller that way. But I, you know, aside from everything that you've brought up, you know, I just am concerned about the impact that we have looking at it. And, you know, I don't want to begrudge anybody, you know, doing it properly over again. I think it's great if they also improve the neighborhood, but I also don't want it to be an eyesore to me. Okay. So thank you. If you wouldn't mind just signing in. Oh, sure. Thank you. Um, anybody else? Again, it looks like, I don't think we have anyone, um, and there's nobody else here.
Did you have a comment or? Oh, no, no. Um, I just. Please come on up. Yeah, you've got to come up. Did you miss me? Um, I'm back. Um, Debra Stewart, 12, um, Park Ridge Road. And the only concern I have is that, um, one that they call dig safe. Because they already did some digging without calling dig safe. There is gas going to the house. So we're concerned about that. The other thing, uh, is that when they do the demo this time, they don't leave everything all over the yard the way they did at 15, that they get rid of the refuse as quickly as possible. Um, and, um, the other thing I think Lynn mentioned that some of the plot, the way the house is on the plot, they show the garage with a setback from our property. And I think that setback's fairly large. I think the garage is more on the property line. So I don't know if that is a concern to anybody, but I'm not sure that those dimensions are exactly correct. Um, so the, the, you may not remember 15, the state of the property while it was being built. It was pretty awful. The demo company was using snow shovels and other hand tools to demo the house. Um, so I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about the gas. I'm concerned about lead paint.
And that's it. Those are my concerns. Okay. Thank you. Would you mind just signing in? Thank you. Kind of. Uh, can I ask a question? Um, there's, there's mention of 2015 and a house being taken down. What property was that on?
15 Park Ridge. 15 Park Ridge Road. That was different. 15. Different. 15 Park Ridge. Diagonally from our house. Yep. Okay. Not this property. Not this one. Not this one. I just didn't want to repeat the same partake we went through. Okay. So if I may interject, 15 Park Ridge was initially supposed to be a second floor edition, second story edition to that dwelling. And the contractor took it down to the foundation. Well, then in turn was, it was not conforming. We in turn put a self work order on it. And then they, you, uh, had to review the case. Um, and, uh, the additional dwelling was, uh, a new dwelling was put on the foundation with a new garage on the side. Um, so there was a situation and, um, some, uh, we had to do a lot of homework and a lot of observation on the previous site. Uh, um, so, um, there is a track record here. Um, I have fielded complaints, um, from that property and I feel complaints from this new property. Um, there was no dig safe. They did do some bush removal. I did go on site. I did note that there was a gas line. Um, there were some shrubberies moved by the time I got there that weren't in direct line with the, with the gas service. Um, but, uh, uh, and I, I understand, um, people kind of think where property lines are, but unless you have balance in the ground and you can't, you can't estimate where property lines are and measuring with the tape, unless there are balance in the ground and lines run, you cannot determine a lot lines on a property. So, um, um, I appreciate everyone's efforts. I know the concerns, but, um, when we have an accurate survey, we ask them to put the balance in the ground. And then we have a certified plot plan, um, prior to construction of the dwelling to certify that the foundation is where it's supposed to be. Thank you. I guess based on everything we've heard, I would, I'd be inclined to, to recommend that we continue this case. Um, I think there's, I think there's some, some concerns about the appropriate zoning relief. I think there's some concerns raised from the planning board about the size of the project and the applicability of, um, potentially a workable subject system on the site. And I think we've heard performance rated concerns from the current development helping. So my continuation would make sense. I don't know what the rest of the board feels. I also feel like the plans are incomplete because they don't have a, um, attic, an attic, you know, giving us awareness of, you know, what that attic is going to end up looking like. And then I was just running some preliminary numbers and they are not matching up to what the gross floor plan is from what is being proposed. So I'm a little nervous that the numbers are not matching.
Um, I guess I, I would note, I would note that the drawings, drawings don't, they don't call out the average grade. They don't call out the height of the building, which is listed as 30 feet, but that's 30 feet above the first, above the, this is above the ground. But we do need to have the, we do need to have the average grade calculated mathematically by your engineer and sort of included into these drawings.
Um, so would your, would be, would you be amenable to a continuance? And we promised that we would wait it also at 715. So we don't run into the issue that we had before, um, or maybe six, 716, just to be on the safe side, but we're not going to, I don't know. I'm not sure what other options we have. So just so I, just want to make sure I satisfy the board's condition. So we'll get an attic rendering with the cross sections in it. Uh, and we'll have the average grade calculated on, to show related to the height. Is there anything specific? Yeah. I mean, I guess if you, yeah, if you could do a little, a little additional digging to, uh, 401.1.2. Okay. Um, or if you want, I'm also happy if you want to put together like a quick narrative on 401.1.3.2. Cause I'll also, I mean, I happen to run it by town council as well, just to be sure that like, there isn't an opportunity here under that other provision to, to make sure that it complies. Um, it doesn't have to be long, but I just, I just want to, I want to fully vet that just to be sure. Again, I would agree with the building commissioner's argument that I don't want to encourage you to try to keep a portion of the existing dwelling. If it winds up compromising either the design of the house or making it actually inadvertently worse than you would want it to be. Cause I, I do respect that the applicant tried to come up with something that aligned with the other houses on the street, et cetera. Sure. So I, I just want to be sure though, that we don't, we don't sleepwalk into a situation where we, we give you the permissional care of a house down and we, we accidentally create another great, a greater non-conformity for you. That does render the property problem. So understood. I would add, um, I think it's worth looking at the planning board's recommendations. I mean, I wasn't even aware of those. So yeah, those, I, I, I thought, you know, I think those were unsensibly, but I can, I can work with the town and get myself a copy of those. Yeah. So, I mean, that should be, is that, was, was that distributed to anybody? No, just the board. Just the board. Okay. It just came. It hasn't been sitting, it hasn't been sitting around for weeks. So we just, yeah, I understand. It's just, so I, it's all good. I just want to prepare it with, obviously. And then I just want to make sure that the numbers are actually correct. Yeah. I just, I was coming up with different numbers and like, I tried to, I did, I did the math and I, I, I had the square footage as, as 4,007, which is what the application is. That was about 800 more, 800 more square feet. Oh, you found the basement? No. Okay. I'll, I'll review that in the garage as well. So I'm like. I took out the garage. We'll do the math on it and, and reevaluate. So I have one number with the garage and then I have one number without the garage. So we'll get a, we'll get a handle on that. Yeah. I guess also on the site plan, like you do need to show the driveway, sidewalk, the sort of the driveway, you know, paving any, any other pervious areas on site as well. Yeah. Those do, those do need to be indicated. Because that is going to go to that lot coverage question. I want to be sure again, that, that, that calculation has been precise. Yeah. No problem. Right. So with that, I guess I would request a continuance to the January 13 meeting at 7, 17. I like that one. I think we can take that. That was good. We take, can we take an applicant's motion? We have to, we have to, we have to receive it. I want to err on the side of caution. So I, I, in agreement with the applicant, I would, I would make a motion that we continue case 25, 35, 8th Park Bridge Roads, 7, 17, on January 13th. Second. Okay. Okay. So, do a roll call. Ms. Candice. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. I, I, I, I, I, we have staff, but we are officially concerned to them. Thank you very much. Mr. Perry. Thank you very much. Mr. Perry. Thank you very much. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. So, I'm not aware of any, I'm not reasonably anticipated by the chair of 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Robert, do we have any updates from the building commissioner?
I don't have anything at this moment. So, sorry, I'm not, I'm not feeling 100%. not feeling 100 so okay great well hope you feel better thank you um anyone have a motion we'll move to adjourn second miss janice aye mr harry aye mr harry hi mr harry hi mr white aye we are adjourned thank you everyone
well wait i suppose hang on the the the the knee walls are at six eight sort of the space beyond the knee walls in the middle is taller than six eight so the the third floor does the third level does he need that you you you could consider it a habitable space because it looks like the collar ties are i don't know probably say eight feet above the floor and we're more than 70 square feet yes it is okay um did this go through the board of health steve um uh yes it did so in our notes to the board of health um we let them know that um the the reason for this the stairwell and uh the the unconditioned storage space is that these folks the existing basement is is a little under six feet and it's it's impossible to um well it's not impossible but it's it's difficult to use the basement as as a storage area so this uh smaller house uh gives them a lot um some dry storage in the attic
and so that was what we uh proposed to the board of health and they came back and uh they agreed with that assessment of it okay and i did they denote that on their approval that the uh the the attic space is to be used as storage only on when darren did it he he did he said that um at if there was any change to that uh at this meeting they would have to review uh the the the whole application again or the plan again um but for now him and i were both in agreement um and he wrote back to us that uh they're acknowledging that it's just um unfinished storage okay then i have no problem with that that's uh fine we've seen this before okay yeah i have a question i thought i thought we had but we we probably don't have that additional correspondence with uh health department but that's okay i don't think that would necessarily pull this off you if you've seen it and and you've read it that that's fine with me i think we could also condition you know the approval to get around that if there was a question it says in the health pre-approval um stairs to unfinished attic walk-up attic approximately 12 by 22 feet so it says on which attic maybe i'm looking at the wrong one is that from the november 17th one or uh no this is an earlier one i guess this did 10 to 25 yeah 10 to 25 oh okay more recent one supersedes there but yeah that's okay so do we have a plan that shows that depicts the basement level i did our page that depicts the basement level by the way there isn't one submitted in the drawing set now okay it's not really a requirement uh aida but i understanding and being in some of those uh dwellings on on pemberton the basements are quite low and the stature was much lower at that time so yeah it did fit but they didn't do uh very rarely did they do a very uh uh high ceiling height in a basement or cellar if i can interject just for a second i have darren's note uh from an october 14th email he says um from your note steve the basement is not considered livable space uh meaning that it's unfinished and unheated um please clarify so we clarified that to him um that it never could be livable space because of the very short height of the basement thank you any additional questions from the board nope nothing i have one just uh as a confirmation um the commissioner so it is normal for this area to have these types of houses to have these like short basements and stuff like that so this is this is a value add for the homeowners and it's it's a normal part of this part of this small community uh yes that it and um yeah it's very normal for that neighborhood and the age of the house which is i believe 1800s or earlier 18 and and um yeah and uh they're limited on what they can do on the lot anyway so it's a it's a very thin lot so i i have no problem with that at all okay just wanted to get a little bit of clarification just from my understanding and making sure that this is a unique scenario for um the applicants and that this isn't a normal expected so that's all yeah any other questions or not for this the panel that i want to put together for this is going to consist of um i think we've heard this from the commissioner the history of houses in the neighborhood you know we saw um at the first hearing for this case um support from you know the uh people on the adjoining property um we've seen the applicant come back and sort of make some refinements to the design to make sure that it kind of conforms with that so i'm comfortable that this is this is not going to be substantially more detrimental yep um so i'd like to uh like to make a motion that uh the zba under 203.1 um brands a special permit because we've we can conclude that the building or structure from which the application is made 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 should not be more detrimental or offensive because of noise vibration smoke gas and odor dust or other objectionable features and as such use building or structure is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town whether property or dangerous to public health or safety second second all right um i guess in addition to that motion i'd add a couple of conditions to that one that the product has to be constructed in substantial conformity with what the advised plants that the board has um that were presented at the december not hearing um and that the the attic level needs to remain a uh unfinished storage space and three that the applicants got to obtain any other approvals as may be required from town boards sure yeah so yeah so you so you added conditions after the vote so do you want to check we haven't voted oh i'm sorry i thought yeah okay second that's right conditions right after the motion so okay so we have not voted on the motion yet i was about to actually call that as a roll call because we that's right because we're half hybrid half in person so i guess we'll start with you on the screen um miss jenis hi mr perry hi mr hirsch hi mr sarion all right mr white aye so this uh this is approved so um we have to write the decision and then there is a 21 day appeal period and then after that you can pick up this decision um from the building and then you will be off and running to the next steps for this project it's a 14 day writing period oh i forgot about that yes thank you very much members of the board and mr commissioner good luck thank you very much thank you um we have a little bit of a challenge because the continuation of the next case has been listed at 7 30 and it's 7 23 so we technically can't open this case so we should try um didn't we make them all of it like 705 or something yeah for the future we should probably try to put all of the cases at list them all at 705 i know that that's not it may not be the most helpful to sort of applicants that are looking at this remotely but the problem can we can run into a problem especially if you look at the continuation of uh case 24 that's only going to take 30 seconds we aren't going to be able to start commonwealth road until 8th so we have a little bit of a although i suppose i should ask our resident um historical expert please janice we do say in the preamble that the times are estimated and the items might may not be discussed in the order listed um would we be violating any um requirements if we shortened the time between the cases that are listed on this because i i mean we can't we're gonna be waiting 20 minutes between each of these cases i understand i think that this is a um a different situation than um another board having so so what we've done in the past is we are bound by the times we have to wait till the time that is posted because that is what the public has done in the past is to have a lot of information so there could be somebody who's interested in the case but will not clock on until that time and if we address that before then they're prejudiced because we gave that notice what we have also um thought was that if so for example on another board where the public is not an integral part of the cases right because these are hearings so a board of library trustees um trying to think of another board uh you you there aren't um you don't have items on other agendas necessarily that are you are requesting or offering a time for people to come in and speak to it so i you know i'm for and so if you're asking for an opinion sorry miss janice i just want to just interject sounds like it'll be cleaner just uh bite the bullet tonight and then make the adjustment for meetings yeah okay yeah which is something that we had done it um before anina was here we had been shortening the time and just blocking everything between calendaring them between 7 and 7 15 so that we could then extend the times as needed i i do recall we did we did we did historically have some complaints from certain parties when we adopted that tactic as well so yeah i mean but then you get into this scenario where you know all right well this is i guess this is the scenario we're in for tonight so uh i think so we'll just have to yes a question uh because last meeting we announced with the continuation to be 7 and 7 30. if it's in the minute like that are we still able to like adjust it on the agenda that's a good point so what i suppose we should do is we in the future if we continue something we should always continue it to 7 15 even if it winds up overlapping with another case that will allow us that will give us the flexibility so yeah we may have erred in in in saying that this would be continued to this time yeah it's a good it's a very good point yeah we do have to we do want to be precise about if we if we make a vote and we say that yeah we are bound by that vote so we do have to be we do have to be careful so i guess it's something for all of us to consider if we if we run into another continuation that like we just don't pick 7 15 all the time and then what about the other cases should we tonight like non like i feel like everything should be at 7 15 then and then you just put them in order let me just confirm with town council that that doesn't create some additional problem or move it to 7 15 7 16 7 7 7 one minute maybe one minute or five minutes or something like that every five minutes would be more reasonable five minutes five minutes apart ought to do five five minutes more before the subject we had a five to ten minutes part okay yeah all right it was just because it was announced like this yeah we pigeonholed ourselves so those of you here tonight sorry about that you got another two minute wait you got another you got another two minute wait for this next case and then we have a half an hour do we have people in attendance in the yes they're angry and they have pitchforks and they're gonna they're gonna run us gonna run us out of this room good thing i'm remote someone pointed out we can go by the uh the frozen clock on the side of the room and then we're free from all sins um should we potentially in our down period pause the recording i think we can i think we can do that i think after the continuation at 7 30 we can probably talk i would assume we can pause the recording at least i don't know i mean there's no sense of us just kind of sitting here with our foot on our thumbs i believe that if you end the link because uh uh uh another board had that issue that you cannot re-enter so we're not ending it we're pausing the recording okay that's a word so i believe you could just mute it i don't feel like that gives or yeah or mute it that's a good point as well but hear them whenever you want to don't you think that language is very clear that you can hear them whenever you want to times are approximate and some items may not be discussed in the order or listed or at the specific time estimated i feel like that means you can hear them whenever you want to i i i would agree um i just said i also just my my as an attorney i would say that means you can hear them whenever you want to
it's a question we should ask it's a question i would say ask if we're if we're not going to do it tonight i would say uh and maybe ask the town council or whomever wrote this but clarity i i i feel like the purpose of writing it is for the purpose of putting them in whatever order yeah we choose to put them in yes i would agree and i think historically we have usually always listed them about 10 minutes apart so we we never run into this exactly so we may never have asked this specific question yeah question exactly like you phrased it all right but it is 7 30 so if you want we can go on to the next case um this is a request to continue um to next month uh zva case 25-30 for 43 plain road good evening good evening members of the board nice to be before you again um we were before you on 43 plain road last month there was a large contingent of neighbors who were present at that night um we asked for continuance at that point to tonight our plans are now ready but they weren't submitted in time to be on for tonight they were submitted today to be on for january um i just wanted to check in the board generally we got the contact information for everybody who was here last month uh we started the text chain with all the neighbors to just kind of let them know especially tonight you don't need to come tonight it's going to get continued um the plan is that the house that was proposed last month is being reduced in scope uh and we are planning to have a meeting or a zoom meeting or something with the neighbors in advance of the january meeting just to uh just kind of review everything with them and take their temperature you know there were some complaints that were related to the house there were some things that were really unrelated to the house that i don't know what we're going to be able to resolve you know outside of traffic and stuff like that but um certainly everything was heard we'll do the best we can to address everything um and you know we're trying to trying to be good neighbors and work with neighborhoods so i hope that when we come back in january um it'll be a a better received uh project in general having everyone been heard and concerns addressed so um i i'm here for another matter tonight so i just wanted to step in just to request the continuous formally and we would ask to just put over to the january meeting if the board would grant us that that i thank you for that um yes i think we could do that so i would make a motion oh actually before we do that it is technically it wants to be the same panel that heard the case last time uh so uh that's mr perry mr hirsch mr sarian miss jenness and myself um so i make a motion that we continue case 25-30 for 43 plain road to 7 15 on january uh 13th 2026 second all right so we'll do a roll call vote on this starting online uh miss janice hi mr perry hi mr hirsch hi mr sarian uh january 13th uh january 13th uh it's right i so that is set so you are officially approved to continue and hopefully we'll have the time police issues sorted out so there's a wait period it'll only be a couple of minutes i would just say generally i wonder is there a requirement that you have a time because we've appeared in other cities with without that we've been in cities and towns with times been in cities and towns without and it's it's what seems more likely to create a scenario like you're in tonight then you know i i guess my only comment would be i i think if the times posted you have to honor the time that's what i think too but again i i'm not an attorney so i'm not 100 sure but i have read the statute i think it says you have to continue something to a date and time certain now as i said i think what we could do is is put them either all at the same time or five minutes apart which then sure i think the latitude but yeah i don't know how to reconcile the fact that our attorney wrote this preamble the preamble says we can do this but you know town council has also advised us that um you do have to adhere to the times that are posted as you kind of i just could see i could see a scenario where you blow through the agenda and it's like 8 15 and everyone shows up to say we were here for 8 40 at night and the meetings already resulted and then you know that's i think that's the danger in in taking it in advance i feel like it also makes the time irrelevant if we put all the times at the same time like what's the point of putting a time if we meet all the same time it's the same thing as not having any time it's somebody's somebody's gonna be unhappy in either occasion and i guess the general public having the ability to be heard whatever falls on that the better side of that is the one i go with i guess i don't know what the answer is interesting question thank you all right all right thank you thank you very much thank you all right so now i i don't i don't know what to do with the next 25 minutes yeah i would assume that we i i don't know why we can't take it out why listen to adam's speech oh yes definitely need to stop recording um yeah so i guess we do we do need to we do need to take a recess for 25 minutes so do you have a quick question sure we're about to fully clean so we do have the revised plans in the package and because uh i also wanted to ask since they um gave us check again we potentially need to um send out another abutters notice because this might be vastly different from the first project that they uh applied for so it would be up to the board to decide whether or not this has to be resubmitted within those papers you know since you're contacting town council to ask about the preamble ask about ask about that so we know the procedure going forward yeah yeah i think that's a good call so do we need to make a vote to take a recess right in an abundance of caution i would just say that you we can take a recess and reconvene okay you know five minutes before whatever it is motion and vote on if you'd like to i'm going to make sure we're we're doing this properly so i can make a motion that uh the board recesses until uh 7.55 7.55 sorry uh miss jess hi mr perry hi mr hirsch hi um mr sarion sorry this fall hi mr white aye so we are recessed until 7.55 so you can pause every time all right okay i'll come back all right that's good we have to come at least back to it we can't talk about anything yet but we can at least uh yeah we have to be available that she was going to come back so yeah stop all right now i think we're because they're moving at the end that's too quick i didn't know the signs have to reply but all the guards had a mask
but i'm assuming we can maybe see that in the planning department
it's in the packet or is it online uh it's on why i think it was just i don't know what's going on so i just read that that is uh several things that i didn't think about so i like the design like the sign that a lot more information can officially reconvene i don't believe we need a vote to re um re-enter the hearing i don't think so okay i didn't think so yeah all right um so thank you for everyone who's persevered through our 25 minute uh recess there so this is the 8 p.m hearing this is case 25-33 for 321 commonwealth road this is the application of wayland woods llc uh for a property located at 321 commonwealth road in the business aid district the applicant seeks a special permit variance or other applicable zoning relief to relocate and replace the existing sign moving it from its current entrance location to the front of the building within the front grass area the request includes relief from the front yard setback requirements associated with proposed sign relocation so do we have anyone here here or online to present this hi uh this is craig murphy i'm with cig graphics i'm the contractor who is going to install this sign uh thank you everybody um for having first of all for having a virtual uh meeting that made my life a lot easier especially with that 25 minute wait you guys had to endure uh but yeah essentially what they're going to do is remove the um old decrepit sign that's right at the entrance way that particular signs kind of falling apart and made of wood and it's just it's just a mess at this point and then uh replacing it with another sign uh more modern looking right in the middle of the lawn of the building uh they i think they feel like if you're familiar with this property where the where the the current sign is uh that entrance point is separated by a gas station and then there's an entrance to that building and i think i know when i went there the very first time i was completely confused by that so i think they're just uh literally getting rid of that sign and putting another sign right in the middle of the building same same square footage okay um have you seen a copy of the uh the design review board's um comments on this application i did not summer first okay um so uh paraphrasing i mean they they did support the proposed design of the sign however they did they did ask for some additional information i think they were looking for a more specific site plan that um located exactly where the sign the current sign is and the new sign is going to be located because you are asking the board for uh zoning relief from the set the front yard setback requirement because as i understand by reading section 501.1 signs it sounds like do you need to comply with all the yard requirements um presumably unless waived by a special permit from the zba um what what what is the setback requirement i'm sorry uh because this this sign is going to be a solid 10 feet probably plus from the right i mean the setback requirement for a front yard i i think it's 35 feet in that in that district um but obviously there's obviously numerous signs that exceed that that are inside of the setback so it's it's not that it's not permitted but i think it does require um a specific drawing that sort of indicates where the existing one is and where the new one is um and i know you submitted a like an aerial photograph um but it's it's listed as not to scale and doesn't have any dimensions on it so um i i don't i would propose this to the board and i guess with some you know with the building commissioner's uh review i don't think we need a fully engineered uh site plan with all of the building setbacks shown on it i think something that is reasonably scaled that shows those dimensions i think is appropriate for signage relief we're not we're not looking for building construction or an addition so does that mr commissioner does that seem reasonable uh it does um it does okay so i guess in in in light of that i would i would probably suggest that we do need that additional piece of information and it might make sense to to continue this um i obviously can't speak for the rest of the board but the the memo that we have from the design review board does expresses you know broad support for the proposed sign and i don't think anyone on the board is probably going to reject to you know the new sign location but i do think we need that additional piece of information i think to consider this application fully yeah i i probably would i mean it is going to be dead set in the middle of the building you know 10 feet back from the plot line um i don't know if that helps to move this along but if you know if you need the drawing i understand that yeah i think we are going to need a drawing just because we want to make sure that we want to make sure that the decision is kind of is legally correct and has all the uh the parts the parts in place but also to protect you it does give you some protection too but as i said i i think that drawing could be made reasonably yeah by um yeah in a couple different there's a couple different software programs that are easily available for you to take this not the scale photograph that you have convert it to scale put some dimensions on it i said i i i don't think you need to go hire a civil engineer and give us a no no i can i can definitely i can definitely do it all right that's great um yeah we would use the scale of the building to figure out the size yeah okay so yes yes if i may add um so just for the record we shared the uh design review advisory board memo with him on december 1st so the memo was shared okay so you might you might want to check your email because i think you did get uh a copy of this this memo from the design review board yeah okay i definitely will uh actually if i can ask for it to be i i honestly didn't see it so if i did i think i probably would have done additional drawing or something like that uh if it can be re-sent i'd greatly appreciate it i just somehow probably stepped on it we can easily take care of that thank you so much you guys are really nice well we try to be people pleasers here right um so we do have to put a quick panel together for this and then vote on a continuance so the panel will be uh mr perry mr hirsch miss janice mr white and uh miss paul uh so i make a motion that we continue uh case 25-33 for 321 commonwealth road um january 13th at uh 7 15 7 15. i love it i think 705 which is it's the second uh okay all right did the other one that's on 15. we did the uh yeah we did the other one at 7 15. yeah thank you edward oh oh so we'll do it at 7 15. that way we'll this will be covered but thank you for that um okay uh so we'll do a roll call vote on this miss jess hi mr perry bye mr hirsch hi miss paul mr white aye so you are officially continued um and we should be right ready at 7 15 so this shouldn't you shouldn't have a problem here thank you thank you very much everybody have a great night thank you very much all right drive safe
all right so we have another go to wait we have another 12 minutes so as we want to recess we want to just keep uh hearing open it's 12 beds yes it's just 12 minutes so that's okay he's gonna come back in seven anyways true okay okay and you guys have um five five people there right one two three four five okay so i will step away okay okay and i will be back oh got stuck my price is still cheap i think sean's price is going up yes you see that so in the uh you're okay so zero
yeah this is the existence surrounding that is there somebody uh it's just been um it's just been really good that it's been really good that it's been really wasted and uh it's been kind of so divided and
this is the like uh i'm sure Gary Barlow can do. And also, he's the two workers at the time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . And the single residence part of 60 zoning, the applicant seeks a special permit variance or other affordable zoning relief to construct a garage on the recently acquired parcel of 203 Gleason Lane. The parcel of 203 Gleason Lane previously contained buildings that were removed following the subdivision. The applicant proposes to construct a garage in the location of the former garage previously situated on the parcel. So, good evening. Thank you for your patience as we're struggling with these timing issues. Good evening. My name is Pat Arnaug, Metro West Engineer. I'll be presenting to Mr. Tenaccio. Question. Yes, sir. I haven't done one of these live in a long time. Would you want me to set up an easel with the thing to do or use the PDFs that we have on your computers? I'm not sure. You can set it up on there, so that's fine. Yeah. We've all seen the PDFs. We all have it. Oh, I'm sure if we're getting any public input, what that would be. So, can I have to sign it? You could, yes. We are here to request a special permit for construction of a new garage at 197 Gleason Lane.
It is going to be very close in proximity, as you just mentioned, to the previous owner's garage. Using this location, which is in brown on the colored board there, will require relief from section 198-703.2, the zoning bylaw, which states that the garage may be located beside the dwell. Mr. Zucker, the building inspector, has denied the flat builder's building permits for the new garage, as the plan showed the new garage in front of the existing dwelling, instead of beside it. This can be brief history. The area where the garage is proposed was part of 203 Gleason Lane, and after the passing of the previous owners, the Ryans, the existing house and garage fell into disrepair. Neighbors at 215 Gleason Lane, the Jakes, purchased the property in 2022. Jakes requested an RDA from the Conservation Commission to demo the old house. That was in February of 23. We do know, I don't know exactly when the old garage was demoed, but it was probably prior to October of 22. We have some pictures from that. In October of 24, Mr. and Mrs. Bonaccio purchased the western half of what was 203 Gleason Lane, and that's the area where this garage was proposed. Due to the shape of the lot and the location of the wetlands on the lot, it kind of creates a hardship to try to put the garage beside the existing house. This is the wetland buffer, and it goes right behind the house. So if you were to set the garage beside it, it would be way into the buffer. With the location that we have where the previous garage was, we're not in the buffer, and we're not within any setbacks. Close, but on the other side. There's also a handy thing about where the garage is proposed. In front of it is an area of mature landscaping, which pretty much hides it from anybody driving by on the road. So it's not going to be standing out like it would if it was up by the house with nothing but lawn in front of it. Let's see, we filed a request for determination of applicability of the Conservation Commission for this location that we're trying to get for the garage, and we got a negative determination with some conditions putting up hay bales and things like that, other erosion controls. That's all been finished, and it's on file, and registered means now. I believe that you have in the packet several letters from abutters that's stating that they're supportive of what we're trying to do. And so due to the hardships and the shape of the lot, nearby wetlands, and with the support of the neighbors, we ask that you grant a special permit to construct the garage as shown on the plants. Can I answer any questions? Yes. What was the section of the bylaw that you said the building inspector referenced in the denial? No, section 198703.2. I have a copy of that here. Let's take it out. Did you have, yeah, did they give you a document? I got it offline. It's right in the, uh... Oh, no, no, no, I didn't get it. You didn't get a, you didn't get a document. Okay. And I don't, no, I guess we did not. Okay. No, it was just on the portal. And then I spoke with... Mr. Zupa, and that's when he said, we need a special permit. Okay. But I do have a copy of the section right here. If you'd like to see it. Uh, no, I'm looking at, I'm looking at 703.2. Yep. It's like the last long sentence.
703.2 is talking about the side yard. But his interpretation of the line that says a garage, either attached to single family, two family, detached dwelling, or multifamily dwelling, or detached, may be located beside the dwelling, divided that there's yard, twin garage, and side lot line. And he told me his interpretation of that is, it can't be in front of the house.
I, but 703.2, specifically talking about side yards, the front, front yard set back, is front yard definition is silent on a question of whether a garage can be there. So I, I don't actually believe that interpretation is correct.
He's the building inspector. He gets to interpret the zoning bylaw. And he gets to appeal on his decisions. We can confuse him. So, but without getting too far into that, um, I guess I'd ask that the building commissioner is on, is, is, is joining us online. Um, I, I recognize, Mr. Commissioner, that 703.2 has given us trouble in the past because of the ambiguous legal wording. But I, I do think 703.2 is clear that, that a garage can be inside of, you know, the side yard, as long as it complies with the setbacks, right? But the front yard section, um, doesn't have any language about prohibiting a garage. So I, I don't think, I, I, I don't think this is exclusive. I think a garage can be located anywhere on a site. That's, that's my interpretation of it admittedly poorly worded, uh, yard definition.
Uh, yes, it is. And so I don't have the plan in front of me, but what is the proposed setback for the front yard, uh, to the, to the proposed garage? Uh, it is 38.6 feet. Which would give us a 10th or so extra to the center line of Gleason Lane, because Gleason Lane is only 33 feet wide. Yeah. So, I mean, it, I guess where I'm confused is that, um, given the two lots are in common ownership, the interior lot line doesn't apply. It's really treated as one parcel from a zoning perspective. It seems to me that this is like an entirely by right construction. I had thought that that's where we, um, because it complies with the front yard setback, the side yard setbacks. It, it, it complies with the 100 foot wetland buffer. How many, so I, I don't, I don't know why this isn't just permitted. I, I don't think this needs a special permit. How many garage bays can you have on a single property in this zone? Three. I think it's, I think it's three. Three. So this would take them to four. This would be four garage bays. Yeah. But doesn't that apply to lots of, only of a certain size? I'm not a hundred percent sure, but that's not the relief request. That's an interesting, that's an interesting observation.
Um, that's an accessory use, correct? It isn't clearly written in the buy, in, in zoning, but the wording and the interpretation is three garage bays per property. And I don't think, I don't think there's any delineation between the lot size for that. Uh, that's right. That's, that's the three. I think that's the house's three stories are permitted. I think if a lot is in excess of four acres or something like that, but it's not applicable here. We can still grant them a special permit for four garage. They have four garage lots. I think so. You know. Yeah. Yeah. Especially with the idea that this is, we're placing an existing garage. Yeah. That's true. We're not creating a new garage. Yeah. I think if, if that is true, although that's not necessarily the relief requested. Yes. We could grant relief to add a, to have there be four garage bays, given the lot size and location. But I don't think the garage itself, um, the structure itself necessarily needs relief. Perhaps it just, we need relief for the fact. Where is the number of garage bays called out in bylaw? We're looking at that right now. Uh, well, it's back in the, I think it's in the table of uses principle or the accessory. I think accessory.
Yeah. I'm not, I'm not seeing, I'm not seeing that.
Our practice has been three.
It's true, but I just want to, I want to be sure that we actually, that is listed somewhere. I mean, I'm, I'm not finding it. So, yeah, you can all find one. Uh, numbers, number 64 and accessory uses, garages, carport, three vehicles or fewer. That's, um, got it. That's just for accessory use. That's only for accessory. So there's something else to consider here is that there's only two for the accessory and two that are attached to the current house. So maybe that doesn't apply then. Would that apply? Oh, it's an interesting, that's an interesting point because this is an accessory structure. There are only two in the accessory structure. The main domain, the other two garages are attached to the house.
Yeah. So it is an accessory use. So accessory. But is the attached garage considered an accessory use? The existing one, not the one, not the one, not the one, not the one being applied for air.
But in Harris, our coat, our bio is so clear. Oh, yes. Thank you. You know, it says garage, comma, carport, three vehicles or fewer. So really the only reason why we're running into this potential is because there's a combination of two properties that are now being combined into one property where we went from two conforming properties to being a non-conforming singular property. Well, yeah, but I don't think you can treat the property with just a garage as a lot because, like, it wouldn't be a compliant lot. Right, but it was parceled off, right, from another property to be included in this one is my understanding. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, I guess thinking about this, I would agree. Like, I initially thought this was an as-of-right project, but I guess given the accessory use, probably the safest path is to sort of review, is to consider this as a special permit requesting relief from the table of permitted uses.
This thing about the applicant, like, from a safety perspective from their side, dealing with the inclusion of this, I think it might be safer for them, for us to do it as that. Yeah, I would agree. I would agree. Okay. All right. So, looks like we sorted out our little bit of a legal issue here. Any other, anything else, I guess, any other questions from the board on the application? I had a question, and I was hoping the commissioner could shine some light on it, which was the accessory replacement looks to have two stories, but I just want to make sure that it is considered to be a one-and-a-half story versus a two-story. And if you could just shine some light on that, that would be great. Well, I believe the plan on the front of the plan says one-and-a-half story detached garage, and the maximum footage that is permitted is 35 feet.
So, you could have a second story inside the garage. There was actually, I believe, Nine Wayside built an accessory garage. I believe it went in front of you guys recently. And that has a two-bay garage also in it. And that does have a second floor. I mean, it is only a 6-7-5 pitch, and then some of it is 12-11-4-5. But, you know, the interior section definitely seems to have a larger area inside there, which, you know, is fine. But at the same time, I just want to make sure this isn't considered to be a two-story and that it is a true one-and-a-half from your perspective and from the building code. That's all. Yes, I do believe so. Okay. Great. All right. I guess we want to, I want to concede. Is there anybody else here in the public that wants to be heard on this case?
It doesn't look like we have anyone online. Oh, someone's ready to ask. I'll do that, someone online. Fine. Can you give us your name and address, please? Yes, I'm Bill Jakes, 215 Gleason Lane.
Good evening. And I'm the guy that purchased the property, and it was a toxic waste site full of asbestos, and I feared for my grandchildren's lives, actually, and that they'd be wandering about. That's why we purchased it as kind of a public service. And Frank came to me and said, you know, I'll help you do that. And so I'm strongly in favor of this. I mean, we're just trying to do something good for the neighborhood. And, you know, so as a neighbor, I mean, I really, I can't tell you how strongly I support this. It was a horrible thing that whoever let this happen over 10 years, it was a disaster. And, you know, I'm kind of emotional about this because, you know, I really, really want to thank Frank. And as a neighbor, I really strongly support this.
Okay. Great. Thank you very much. I don't have any additional questions for the applicant. Does anyone on the board have any questions? No. I don't have any additional questions. Okay. Could I just get a little clarification? Sure. So this special permit will cover the four days on the whole property? Yes. And not the, not being beside the existing house. But we'll cover both. So, yeah, the special permit will be, basically, would be for you to construct this garage as proposed. Okay. Like, as I said, I, yeah, I, I, I appreciate the building inspector raising questions on section 70, 702, I believe. It's 40 worth, but I think it doesn't, that actually doesn't apply here. But what does apply is a special permit under 2 or 3.1, because we can issue a special permit for a, a use that is going to be slightly different from the table of permitted uses. In this case, it would be having a total of four garage days on a property instead of three. So, yes, it would be for, it would be for the project as proposed. Okay. Thank you very much.
All right. Uh, so with that, since this is slightly different from a preexisting non-conforming, um, I'd make a motion under 203.1 that we grant a special permit for the garage as proposed at 197 Gliese Lane. Um, because I, and this is to, um, sorry, this is a building, this is a per, a special permit for a, uh, for the use. Um, because this is a special permit, you can, they use the building or the structure for which the special permit is granted. Right. So to rephrase that, I'd make a motion, uh, under 203.1 to issue a special permit for, um, for the use of the accessory structure, um, for the garage. Uh, in, to vary the case for, uh, uh, accessories number 64, which is a garage park with three vehicles or fewer, this would have a total of four garage bays. Um, and I think it meets the standard of a special permit under 233.1 because the proposed accessory garage, um, is not against the public interest. It doesn't dig or derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which the use, building, or structure occurs and shall, it is not more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, fumes, odor, dust, or other objectionable features. Um, and that such use, building, or structure should not otherwise be injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangerous to the public health or safety. Second. Second. All right. Um, so I realize I didn't name a panel for that, but the, this, for this case, but the panel is going to be, um, five, uh, permanent members. Mr. Perry, Mr. Hirsch, Ms. St. Janis, um, Ms. Paul, and Mr. White. Um, so thank you for that second. Um, I would add to that some conditions that the project has to be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans that have been submitted and the applicant needs to obtain any other approvals from other boards as may be required. Just for the paperwork, just make sure that the variance is accounted for. It's not, it's not a variance and that it is a special permit. Ah, but I, I see a red X are on the special permit side, so I just wanted to double check that. Yeah, yeah, the, the paper application has, has special permission. Okay. All right. Also, one, one additional thing, um, do they need relief for the front yard setback, given that you, they're, they're, they're not, they're not, they're inside of the setback. Yeah. We set it up. They're beyond the setback. Oh, okay. It's only a small amount. Okay. Right, so the setback is 35 feet. Oh, it is. 38. Yeah, but it's also 55 feet from the center line. And that's what we, we're actually 55.1. Okay. Got it. Got it. Yeah, so yeah, so no, no step back. All right. So I think, so we don't need to add any additional conditions. Okay. Yeah. So, uh, we'll do this by roll call starting online. Ms. Janice. Aye.
Mr. Barry. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Ms. Paul. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So this is approved. So we have, uh, 14 days to write this decision. And then there is a, uh, 20 day appeal period. And then after that, you can pick that up. And then should be off and running with this construction. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck with your program. Yes. Good luck. All right. So I guess we thought tonight was going to be boring. It would be nothing, nothing like that at all.
All right. So it's 840. So we can move on to our last case of the night. This is, um, this is EMA case 25-35 for 8th Park Ridge Road. This is the application of the API development fund for those were the property located at 8th Park Ridge Road. In the single residence of our 20 district, the applicant seeks a special permit variance or other applicable zoning relief to demolish the existing structure and construct a replacement dwelling. The block is pre-existing and non-construing with respect to minimum blot area requirements. So good evening. Good evening again. The chair members of the board, uh, attorney Andrew DeLorey. I'm joined with my father, attorney Paul DeLorey this evening. Um, well, as you said, we're here, uh, this may ring a bell to you. We were here before you earlier in the year, uh, at 15 Park Ridge Road, which happens to just be diagonal from the parcel that we're talking about tonight. Uh, same clients, same developers, uh, received a similar special permit as to what is being requested here tonight. So, uh, as you said, pre-existing non-conforming lot as to the lot size and the frontage, uh, what's being proposed is to demolish the existing tiny studio house that is on this lot with a detached barrage and to, uh, replace there with, um, a four bedroom, four and a half bath, uh, single family, which will be compliant for, uh, setback purposes. Uh, the basis of the special permit that we are, uh, seeking tonight, uh, is under 401.1.3.2, I believe. Um, simply that the increase of the square footage, uh, is over 20% on a pre-existing non-conforming lot that triggers the need for a special permit. Uh, again, the, uh, the house itself is dimensionally compliant, uh, in terms of the setbacks. Um, I did notice, um, I did notice on the application, uh, which I, I think that the building inspector agrees with me, uh, that there is a proposed lot coverage. Uh, this listed as 25%, um, which would have additionally required a special permit, but, uh, when you do the math on it, uh, I just think it was calculated incorrectly. I, I have the dwell under 20%. The, the house itself is, uh, uh, 2650, uh, when situated on 15,500 square foot lawn, it's, it's under 20%. I think that a house this size, 20% of the measurement would be 13,600. So there's the 2,000 extra square foot in here. So, um, I think where it was not cited, uh, I'm, I'm assuming that the building department agreed with my analysis there. Um, so I believe we're here just for the special permit for the increase in the square footage. Um, I will say, um, the, I know that the square footage increase, um, feels large. It feels larger than the one that would, was given, uh, across the street. However, the house at 15, which was diagonal across the street, was larger. Uh, so in order to expand that footprint, uh, it was a little easier to cover the, the percentage. That existing house was about 1,800 square feet at the beginning, uh, at the exact same. So this house is 1,200 square feet, uh, in discussing with my clients, uh, you know, like I said, it's, it's largely in the studio home. So, um, no partition walls, the, the kitchens in the, in the bedroom, the bedrooms in the kitchen type situation, um, with, with a detached garage. So, um, the house will be, uh, two stories with an unfinished attic, with an unfinished basement. And it has a, it rebaked garage, as this board just, uh, explored it at great length. That's still the, the bank out there. Uh, so, again, we are here, um, under, uh, 198.203, uh, requesting a special permit. Uh, we do not believe that the granting of this is against the public interest, or that it will derogate from the character in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, fumes, odor, dust, or other objectionable features such to be injurious to the public. Uh, and again, we're seeking that special permit, I think, 401.3.2, sorry, I have a code on my, uh, 401.3.2, yes. Um, so, um, I, I, I'd like to open it up to the board if there's any questions, uh, I'm happy to answer it. My clients are also here as well, uh, but with the developers saying, kind of architectural questions or anything, we can drill down on, on anything the board may have. Thank you. All right, thank you. Um, I don't see plans for the attic as far as for the, uh, structural and how it's set up in the attic. Sure. Do you have that? Uh, it's not, I mean, not have it. Uh, yeah, I don't, I don't, I don't have a cross-section of the attic, or the intent is that it's not finished. I have a question. Sure. Why would, uh, 401.1.2 not be applicable or warm?
Yeah, maybe one second. I guess maybe more specifically, because the existing dwelling is pre-existing, non-conforming, and it's being modified by this. Um, 401.1.1.3.2 is, um, site reconstruction. So I'm not, I'm not quite sure. Um, my, I guess, by, uh, a teardown of rebuild, I, I define personally as reconstructing, um, if, is that, uh, quite, you know, we could reasonably, uh, disagree, of course, on interpretation. I just think that, um, they're all kind of drilling down on the same thing, just kind of pick, pick which section is, it is applicable to, to what we're doing. Um, yeah, yeah, so I, I, I just discussed with my father, I think, uh, we, we, possibly incorrectly, view 401.1.2 as, uh, renovation of the existing structure. Whereas we view the 401.1.3.2 as tear-down rebuild. Correct. But, um, because the existing lot is non-conforming, as soon as you tear down the existing non-conforming structure, your reticely, the lot's not billable.
That's how I would interpret this. So I don't know how you could not be bound by 401.1.2. Okay. Um, let me just read the other ones. Hold on. Um, there's a critical distinction is that under 401.1.3, the board would not need to make a finding that this is, you know, substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And I think we've seen the memo from the planning board, which indicates that is not the case. So I think this is a crucial, this is a crucial distinction in my mind. Correct. Because I think that coverage, the, the, the coverage that is afforded the owner of the non-conforming property, I would think would go away. If the non-conforming house is demolished, because then the lot that's left over is below the minimum. There's no structure on it. It's, I would think it would render it non-billable. So I, I'm sorry, I'm trying to look at my decision on 15, because 15 was pretty, I recall, uh, the other project we talked about, um, Yes. We talked about, we, we used the depth, we used the distinction of 401.1.2 because it was a non-conforming structure that was changed.
Uh, I, I, I guess the flavor of the board, um, 401, if you think 401.1.2 is the appropriate section. Um, my instinct, and I, I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm actually, I'm actually trying to, you know, think about preserving the owner because I, you know, again, I, I want to, I, I, I'm happy to have this, this sort of reconfirmed with, uh, with town council. But it would appear to me that, like, you kind of lose the protection of the pre-existing non-conforming nature of the original law if the existing house is torn out and it doesn't necessarily exist anymore because it's not a case where you're modifying that existing house to create this new owner. You're sort of leaving a portion of it, which is traditionally how things like this have been accomplished. This appears to sort of propose getting rid of it entirely and replacing it with something that, while is more conforming, is still on, still the underlying lack of conformity kind of, I think, is erased by the full demolition of the project. I guess what, it's a question of what is, what percentage or quality of houses to remain in order. Correct. And, of course, the bi-law doesn't provide any, any guidance. So, uh, I remember on 15, that house had been demolished. And, uh. So, um, yeah, it's a little different that, um, that that remains. So, um, not to, not to sort of put the, uh, the building commissioner on, on the spot, but Mr. Commissioner, I'm, I'm wondering if you have any, any insight or sort of can add any kind of, uh, clarity to this, to this conversation that we're having relative to this. Well, I, I do believe you're correct, Mr. Chairman. Um, it, it does refer, uh, this case does refer to 401.1.2. Um, and, um, because it is a non-conforming lot size. Um, and it's, uh, similar to the other case, uh, um, at the beginning of our meeting tonight, uh, same type of situation where, uh, I don't know if that's lot size is, uh, adequate. But, um, then it would, it definitely would then come back to my decision that it's a non, it's a, um, uh, it's the extension alteration of single family increases in non-conforming nature. So, it, it, it will increase in non-conforming nature, um, with this dwelling on the property. Thank you. Um, and that makes sense to me as well, because if I look at the, the leading section of 401.1.2, a pre-existing non-conforming structure, right, can be changed, extended, or altered. Now, I know those are all three terms that one could argue also about what, what those mean. But, um, I think you could, you could say that, that this is altering that. It's not, you're not sort of proposing to keep a portion of it. I don't necessarily know that you need to keep a portion of it. Um, but the, the, the last section of this here is, um, is correct, that the setting, that setting, whether you keep a portion of the existing house or not, what you're still proposing is much larger. And it does, it does increase the non-conforming nature of this lot, because this was a non-conforming house on a non-conforming lot. The house was a lot smaller. The new house is substantially larger, and you are, are increasing the non-conformity of that, even though you are improving the setbacks from the front yard and the side yard of the existing dwelling. So, I, I would agree with the commissioner that I think 401.1.2 is the applicable, applicable bylaw here for this. Uh, the board, if anyone else on the board has any other questions or conditions, at least on this piece, this initial, I would say, gating issue of this application. I'd agree with you.
Could, could I ask you a question, Mr. Chair? So, if we went under this section, all right, do we have a sense of how much of the existing structure has to be preserved? And we've seen that, you know, we've seen houses go down, they have one wall that's left up, and they work on that. And they consider that an extension or an expansion, or does the, uh, building, an alteration or an expansion, does the building inspector have an opinion on that? Uh, that's a fair question. Uh, so, I don't, I don't know, uh, Mr. Commissioner, if you heard that, that question or not. But the question, the question is just, would a portion of that existing dwelling somehow need to remain on to, to sort of work under the context of 401.1.2? And so, like, what would that necessarily be?
I don't know how you, I don't know how you'd incorporate the existing structure into a new structure. Um, you're going from existing 1,200 square feet to 4,006 square feet of a new dwelling. So, um, I, I, I just don't know how you'd incorporate that. And, uh, as far as the plan is, showing the existing, I believe, I believe that, yeah, so the existing dwelling, um, is closer to the side yard setbacks and the front yard setbacks. Um, so the new dwelling does fit within the parameters of the R5, uh, the R20, which is a 15-foot setback. They do meet those requirements. So, um, so you'd be, you'd be, um, conforming as far as the proposed dwelling, but the, you're, you're adding three times as much square footage on a non-conforming lot. So that's the decision that has to be made. Um, trying to preserve the old structure is, um, I don't see it as feasible. Um, so, uh, we're going to have to come to a conclusion between the board and myself as far as how to proceed on this. All right. But if, uh, if the, uh, existing dwelling comes through the criteria of teardown, why would they keep anything up to add or to instruction or to do it? Um, what they, it, it, it doesn't fit the criteria of teardown, it's not, it's not an abandoned, no, it's not an abandoned structure. It's not like the garage that we just read the application for. So, yes, if the, it is, so there was a property on East street, which was very large as this is large. If this property were torn down and reconstructed and not as large, what would be the path for that? Say that again. Well, under 401.13, the existing house could be torn down and a new house could be built that was no larger than 20% of the area of this one. Right. Right. But then this is where it gets, this is where it gets, this is where in my mind it gets strange because if, if you say make it 21%, is it possible that your protection of the preexisting non-conforming goes away? I mean, it seems to imply that, I mean, I understand why the applicant has come forward and said, you know, 401.3.2 says that, you know, you can modify this without a special permit provided it is no more than 20%. That implies that you need a special permit if it's more than 20%. But that isn't what 401.1.3 says, it doesn't say that, it implies it. So, um, the question I'm raising is that if you demolish the house and you exceed the 20%, does the protection of the preexisting non-conforming structure go away, make the lot unbuildable? Or does that mean that you have to consider a 401.1.2? And even if this isn't a reconstruction, you know, it says existing structures can be changed, extended, or altered. It's not an extension. You could argue that you're changing it. You're removing it, putting in something else. That's a change. You could also argue that you're altering it, you know? I don't know. But those are three, those are three terms of art that I think could be better defined as well. However, if you're going to change or alter it, then it also implies that some of the original structure remains as the applicant was suggesting or questioning. So, so, I don't know. You're right. It is a path to be figured out. But also wondering, was it considered whether any part of the original structure could remain and be rebuilt, you know, around it? And that's up for the applicant to determine how much that could be. Yeah, it's possible. I mean, it's not, it doesn't appear from the current plans, it doesn't appear like that's possible. But I think it could be, it probably could be designed to be possible, yeah. But then getting back to my question, Mr. Chairman. So, let's say they take this house down, fall but a four-foot piece of foundation that's the existing house that's being expanded. So, again, I, you know, we have to figure out in the building inspectors' determination how much of it has to be retained. How much of it do you need to work with to reconstruct? Take everything down, put a piece of the foundation, say we can reorient the house and use that as part of the foundation. Then I think that. It does, it does seem, it doesn't possible, yeah. So, by the way, were there, were there any, I didn't look on the, online on the share file to see if there were any letters from, or. Well, we have some, we have, we have a comment, we have some comments from the planning board that are pointing out that this house is, is, it's got an FAR that is substantially larger than any other houses in the neighborhood. So, we have some planning board comments that imply the, the proposed house is far too large for the lot. We also have a memo from the board of house that says that they, they conceptually approve this project. However, um, they need to submit plans that indicate like, uh, an appropriate septic system can be built on the site as well. So, which also has to be the new code. Yeah. We, we don't have a clear, we don't, with the two documents we have, the staff comments, we don't have a clear path yet. But, uh, we have guidance. But, were there any comments from neighbors or butters? Possibly some neighbor comments. Um, based on the, based on, we haven't, we haven't even, we haven't even really started to get into the case. And we probably also have some neighbor comments because we have several, we have, we have individuals here. So, we can. Okay. Do we have approval from the, the department? No. Do we have approval from the department? It's conceptual. It's conceptual. It says that you, it says that they still, we'll need to create a full set of plans and, and fully engineer the septic system. So, they've had like a strange approval because, like, we don't even know if the site could support the septic system. I don't think so. Wouldn't, and it has to be involved in your nitrogen expectations too. That's possible. Um, all right. So, sorry that we've sort of been, we've been consumed with some legal precision care. But as I said, I'd like to be, if we're going to act on it, I do want to make sure we're sort of approaching it. The right way. We're not, we're not accidentally creating, uh, an additional problem by tearing the house down without fully sort of reviewing this. So, uh, I guess setting that aside, um, can you tell us some, any, any else about this project before we sort of ask if there's any other comments? Uh, just one thing I did just review with my clients is, uh, there is a possibility to kind of reverse the location of the garage and to lay it on the existing, but the existing foundation is not great. But there is a possibility to use, use it for purposes of supporting the garage, laying a slab or, and putting the garage there. And then also I'm just looking at, I, part of the issue, it seems to me is that they work diligently to create so many conformities that they created a non-conformity by doing that. It's almost, I, it's almost, I think if you look at the plan, you could kind of just use the same sidewall and just kind of use, you know, core kitty corner of the house like that instead of fronting it directly on the. Yeah. And then it may be considered, it may, it may be sort of easier to sort of, you know, fit it under for a 1.1.2. It's fair. It's complicated. I, I, I guess the question is that if, if you had to go to a, uh, a variance, um, you know, generally the, the lawn is, is, uh, a little funky shape that to me would, would render it a hardship actually that we've got. Well, yeah, but you don't have any, you don't, well, the site plan doesn't show any topography, but I, I, I'm familiar with the site, but to comply with a variance standard under the state statute, you'd also need to demonstrate that topography makes the lot, uh, most of the lot, you know, either unbuildable or unpractical. The large, the lot is largely flat. So I don't think you have a topographical issue there. I, I, it's, I, I, my understanding is the shape, the soil condition or the topography, any of, any of the three, not necessarily all of, all of the three. So, uh, you know, the shape, uh, the shape generates a hardship in, in a, you know, Well, I don't know, but you just said that you could, you could, you could, you're, the shape's not a hardship because you proposed a more conforming dwelling than the existing one. So I would say if you couldn't propose a more conforming dwelling, you might have a, a situation with the geometry, but yeah, so I, it's just, it's a parallelogram. That's not, that's not that uncommon. I just, I don't even know if we're going to go down the road. So I think let's just, yeah, I, I think that they are, just in, in reviewing, there is, there is the possibility to leave some of the existing structure. Um, I think the, the effort was made to make the house as compliant as possible, set it back from the street, front it properly on the road as the rest of the houses are. Uh, and that triggered some of the difficulties that we're wrestling with. Yeah. And as I said, I just want to be sure that like, we're procedurally correct with the application of 401.1.2 versus the 401.1.3.2. That's all. Yes. Um, but I do appreciate, I do appreciate that the applicant looked at this and proposed something that does align with the other houses. So I'm not, I'm not saying they proposed this out of bad faith and they, they proposed something. I just want to be sure that we, we don't really get erred here. I, I think the only thing that I, that I see is that I think that the way that the, the way that the agendas are worded and generally, I think, you know, special permit or variance, I, I feel like it leaves the board, the interpretation. It does. It does, it does give, it does give, it does give the appropriate statute. Yep. And apply it appropriately. I would still say that a special permit is the appropriate statute for this one because the, the, the lots that we've granted variances on in town are usually incredibly geometrically challenged or topographically challenged. Like they're triangular or, so there's literally, uh, such a change in elevation that, that the plot is visually unbuildable. Sure. Yeah. Appreciate that. All right. Well, I guess with this, let me, let me sort of, let me open this up. It looks like we have some, some members of the public that, that, um, have, uh, desired to put on it. So if anyone has any thing about this product, they want to articulate, if you could please come up and just, uh, give us your name and address. So, um, it was answered in my question. Hi, I'm Linda Pavarotti. I live at 17th Anfield Road. So I bought the land directly. Um, and I, you know, just as what's been said here is I just believe the house is really big for that area. Um, and I would like to make sure that someone reviews the, the plans and the, um, measurements because I've locked it at first and came up very short. And, but then I took a tape measure out and I mocked it. It was only, I was only off by four or they're off by four feet. Um, you know, I just don't want their house coming right up and, and budding our property. Um, and I know, you know, and I'm sorry, but you know, the other house that was done, uh, was pretty shoddy at first, you know, and you talk about leaving an existing wall. Well, they were supposed to leave an existing wall. It ended up being the wrong wall and they had to do something else. Um, so I want to make sure that people really look at this before tearing down the house and before embarking on a plan with these, um, these people who are working on this, because we have seen the work that they've done. Um, and I have questions about it. Um, but mostly I have questions about the size of the house on this property. And we had to, we put an addition in and we had to go through variants for our septic system. Um, so that makes me wonder four and a half bathrooms. Um, and this lot is quite a bit, I think based off of bedroom, based off of bedrooms. All right. But still, that's a lot, you know, I have a bigger property than they do. We had to go through a variance for all that kind of stuff. So I'm just saying that if, you know, and you know, when we first did ours, we had a lot of small buildings around the neighborhood. So we did, I was trying to conform into the neighborhood. Uh, of course, since then, there's been a few big houses going up. Um, and that's really what I'm fearing is that all of this place is just going to be, uh, huge houses in areas that are not set for that. You know, I just don't, I don't see the need for a three door garage if that's what they're working at in this area. They can make it small, a smaller house to fit in by eliminating one of those doors, you know, making it smaller that way. But I, you know, aside from everything that you've brought up, you know, I just am concerned about the impact that we have looking at it. And, you know, I don't want to begrudge anybody, you know, doing it properly over again. I think it's great if they also improve the neighborhood, but I also don't want it to be an eyesore to me. Okay. So thank you. If you wouldn't mind just signing in. Oh, sure. Thank you. Um, anybody else? Again, it looks like, I don't think we have anyone, um, and there's nobody else here.
Did you have a comment or? Oh, no, no. Um, I just. Please come on up. Yeah, you've got to come up. Did you miss me? Um, I'm back. Um, Debra Stewart, 12, um, Park Ridge Road. And the only concern I have is that, um, one that they call dig safe. Because they already did some digging without calling dig safe. There is gas going to the house. So we're concerned about that. The other thing, uh, is that when they do the demo this time, they don't leave everything all over the yard the way they did at 15, that they get rid of the refuse as quickly as possible. Um, and, um, the other thing I think Lynn mentioned that some of the plot, the way the house is on the plot, they show the garage with a setback from our property. And I think that setback's fairly large. I think the garage is more on the property line. So I don't know if that is a concern to anybody, but I'm not sure that those dimensions are exactly correct. Um, so the, the, you may not remember 15, the state of the property while it was being built. It was pretty awful. The demo company was using snow shovels and other hand tools to demo the house. Um, so I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about the gas. I'm concerned about lead paint.
And that's it. Those are my concerns. Okay. Thank you. Would you mind just signing in? Thank you. Kind of. Uh, can I ask a question? Um, there's, there's mention of 2015 and a house being taken down. What property was that on?
15 Park Ridge. 15 Park Ridge Road. That was different. 15. Different. 15 Park Ridge. Diagonally from our house. Yep. Okay. Not this property. Not this one. Not this one. I just didn't want to repeat the same partake we went through. Okay. So if I may interject, 15 Park Ridge was initially supposed to be a second floor edition, second story edition to that dwelling. And the contractor took it down to the foundation. Well, then in turn was, it was not conforming. We in turn put a self work order on it. And then they, you, uh, had to review the case. Um, and, uh, the additional dwelling was, uh, a new dwelling was put on the foundation with a new garage on the side. Um, so there was a situation and, um, some, uh, we had to do a lot of homework and a lot of observation on the previous site. Uh, um, so, um, there is a track record here. Um, I have fielded complaints, um, from that property and I feel complaints from this new property. Um, there was no dig safe. They did do some bush removal. I did go on site. I did note that there was a gas line. Um, there were some shrubberies moved by the time I got there that weren't in direct line with the, with the gas service. Um, but, uh, uh, and I, I understand, um, people kind of think where property lines are, but unless you have balance in the ground and you can't, you can't estimate where property lines are and measuring with the tape, unless there are balance in the ground and lines run, you cannot determine a lot lines on a property. So, um, um, I appreciate everyone's efforts. I know the concerns, but, um, when we have an accurate survey, we ask them to put the balance in the ground. And then we have a certified plot plan, um, prior to construction of the dwelling to certify that the foundation is where it's supposed to be. Thank you. I guess based on everything we've heard, I would, I'd be inclined to, to recommend that we continue this case. Um, I think there's, I think there's some, some concerns about the appropriate zoning relief. I think there's some concerns raised from the planning board about the size of the project and the applicability of, um, potentially a workable subject system on the site. And I think we've heard performance rated concerns from the current development helping. So my continuation would make sense. I don't know what the rest of the board feels. I also feel like the plans are incomplete because they don't have a, um, attic, an attic, you know, giving us awareness of, you know, what that attic is going to end up looking like. And then I was just running some preliminary numbers and they are not matching up to what the gross floor plan is from what is being proposed. So I'm a little nervous that the numbers are not matching.
Um, I guess I, I would note, I would note that the drawings, drawings don't, they don't call out the average grade. They don't call out the height of the building, which is listed as 30 feet, but that's 30 feet above the first, above the, this is above the ground. But we do need to have the, we do need to have the average grade calculated mathematically by your engineer and sort of included into these drawings.
Um, so would your, would be, would you be amenable to a continuance? And we promised that we would wait it also at 715. So we don't run into the issue that we had before, um, or maybe six, 716, just to be on the safe side, but we're not going to, I don't know. I'm not sure what other options we have. So just so I, just want to make sure I satisfy the board's condition. So we'll get an attic rendering with the cross sections in it. Uh, and we'll have the average grade calculated on, to show related to the height. Is there anything specific? Yeah. I mean, I guess if you, yeah, if you could do a little, a little additional digging to, uh, 401.1.2. Okay. Um, or if you want, I'm also happy if you want to put together like a quick narrative on 401.1.3.2. Cause I'll also, I mean, I happen to run it by town council as well, just to be sure that like, there isn't an opportunity here under that other provision to, to make sure that it complies. Um, it doesn't have to be long, but I just, I just want to, I want to fully vet that just to be sure. Again, I would agree with the building commissioner's argument that I don't want to encourage you to try to keep a portion of the existing dwelling. If it winds up compromising either the design of the house or making it actually inadvertently worse than you would want it to be. Cause I, I do respect that the applicant tried to come up with something that aligned with the other houses on the street, et cetera. Sure. So I, I just want to be sure though, that we don't, we don't sleepwalk into a situation where we, we give you the permissional care of a house down and we, we accidentally create another great, a greater non-conformity for you. That does render the property problem. So understood. I would add, um, I think it's worth looking at the planning board's recommendations. I mean, I wasn't even aware of those. So yeah, those, I, I, I thought, you know, I think those were unsensibly, but I can, I can work with the town and get myself a copy of those. Yeah. So, I mean, that should be, is that, was, was that distributed to anybody? No, just the board. Just the board. Okay. It just came. It hasn't been sitting, it hasn't been sitting around for weeks. So we just, yeah, I understand. It's just, so I, it's all good. I just want to prepare it with, obviously. And then I just want to make sure that the numbers are actually correct. Yeah. I just, I was coming up with different numbers and like, I tried to, I did, I did the math and I, I, I had the square footage as, as 4,007, which is what the application is. That was about 800 more, 800 more square feet. Oh, you found the basement? No. Okay. I'll, I'll review that in the garage as well. So I'm like. I took out the garage. We'll do the math on it and, and reevaluate. So I have one number with the garage and then I have one number without the garage. So we'll get a, we'll get a handle on that. Yeah. I guess also on the site plan, like you do need to show the driveway, sidewalk, the sort of the driveway, you know, paving any, any other pervious areas on site as well. Yeah. Those do, those do need to be indicated. Because that is going to go to that lot coverage question. I want to be sure again, that, that, that calculation has been precise. Yeah. No problem. Right. So with that, I guess I would request a continuance to the January 13 meeting at 7, 17. I like that one. I think we can take that. That was good. We take, can we take an applicant's motion? We have to, we have to, we have to receive it. I want to err on the side of caution. So I, I, in agreement with the applicant, I would, I would make a motion that we continue case 25, 35, 8th Park Bridge Roads, 7, 17, on January 13th. Second. Okay. Okay. So, do a roll call. Ms. Candice. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. I, I, I, I, I, we have staff, but we are officially concerned to them. Thank you very much. Mr. Perry. Thank you very much. Mr. Perry. Thank you very much. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. So, I'm not aware of any, I'm not reasonably anticipated by the chair of 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Robert, do we have any updates from the building commissioner?
I don't have anything at this moment. So, sorry, I'm not, I'm not feeling 100%. not feeling 100 so okay great well hope you feel better thank you um anyone have a motion we'll move to adjourn second miss janice aye mr harry aye mr harry hi mr harry hi mr white aye we are adjourned thank you everyone