February 10, 2026 – Zoning Board of Appeals – Video & Transcript
February 10, 2026 - Zoning Board of Appeals
all right we're going to get going this is the uh this is the february 10th 2026 meeting of the
zoning board of appeals i'll just read the quick preamble here this meeting may be recorded and
if recorded will be made available to the public on weekend soon after as soon as possible after
meetings the public is going to be excluded from any executive sessions we take pursuant to chapter
two of the acts of 2025 this meeting is conducted in person and via remote access in accordance
with applicable law uh everyone obviously is here in person and we have a remote access
link set up we're required by law or allowed by the chair persons wishing to provide public comment
or otherwise participate in a meeting they do so either by being in the meeting location or being
by a remote access public comment is coming into two minutes per person so for our agenda tonight
you'll notice we are starting early so we're going to move right to uh our first case of the evening
and then hopefully we can stay on track at seven o'clock we'll then go through general public
comment and then go through our ordinary process of approving the meeting minutes um so this is the
6 30 deliberation and potential vote on zba case 2602 the building permit appeal for the veritas christian
academy uh tonight this only board of appeals will consider the appeal filed by adam scarry regarding
issuance of a building permit for the veritas christian academy project this appeal involves our
edge zoning and aquifer protection overlay confines issues consistency between the issued building permit
and planning board for the site plans and related environmental and stormwater management
considerations public hearing i want to remind everyone has been closed and there's no public comment
at this point going forward so with that um oh sorry the town council reminded me that the uh the
all the board members are present tonight with the exception of one um miss jenis who is actually
accessing the meeting remotely so we have the five uh five permanent members of this eda in attendance
tonight and everyone here has been involved in all the hearings so far so i guess before we get into this
i do need to name a panel for this case and the panel is going to be the five permanent members
that's miss jenis mr hirsch miss paul mr perry and myself so what i would propose
uh we do is um i've synthesized down uh from our all the comments we have proposing that we look at
three distinct findings make a vote on each finding and then make a motion uh related to the uh the
opponent's request for the building permit and the appeal of the site so with that the first finding i'd
like the board to discuss is uh do we think that the planning board considered and evaluated the
applicability of article 16 during the approval process to me this is just a yes or question so
in my mind a couple things that we need to consider is in reviewing all of the planning board meeting
minutes that uh town council has sort of sent to us and summarized and looking at all of the
documentation on this this project it seems to me that the planning board did extensive investigation
on the question spent a lot of time previous impervious surface soil removal especially
touching into the conservation commission issues of cut and fill or open this up to discussion before
we vote on finding and what i would say is this is as i said number one did the planning board consider
and i'm listening to engineers speak you know all the extensive work that was done before this especially
pervious area calculations and that setbacks associated with slopes that you know that was a
concern to the to the applicants and really see say this that the veritas engineers in our meeting i also
have to commend a butcher's name scott morley because it made it in town we've had a lot of water issues
as you all know for me some veritas answer for us to be able to look at these things so some questions
because of mr orley's presentation and the previous issues that we've had in our town with so i do have
so yeah um one comment um could you guys all speak a little bit closer to your mics if you don't mind
somehow there should be we only have one on the table so we'll try oh really all right well i turned
my volume up as far as it goes um so i think i caught what everybody was saying so um in reviewing
the minute in reviewing the planning board packet that that was available to us and hearing the applicant
and the um and the um and the very herring both sides uh during the presentations before us it i i believe
that the planning board did quite an extensive job and went to the appropriate additional and the
application went to the appropriate additional boards for review and the planning board presented a
decision that was considered and and well done so i also i also feel that um the process was done
well and comprehensively the information we have is um good on both sides and that uh we have a valid
building permit and i did not i did not come to the conclusion that there was um an error in the
process before us so uh i guess i guess with that um that you know did the planning board consider and
evaluate the applicability of article 16 in a process so uh reese uh miss janice i yes um mr perry yes
mr harsh no mr white yes so by uh four to one vote on finding one the board finds that the planning
board did properly consider article 16 in the process um the second finding i'd like to make is
does the approved site plan conform to the requirements of the planning board decision this
is a little bit of a or as part of the request to overturn the building permit is an allegation
that the permit that the building commissioner approved was different from the site plan decision
approvals based on um so and any difference between obviously things that you approve on a building
permit that have nothing to do with the site kind of work so the building permit drawings that the
commissioners approved on building details fixture schedules windows schedules information about
the construction of the buildings um the is there like a difference a substantive difference between
the planning board's approval of the site plan and then the subsequent building permit that was
issued for that they are based on the exact same drawing of the site plan so i i struggle to find
the difference but what i want to do is is sort of i mean this is the this is the question i think we do
need to ask the building commissioner that um is there anything in the building permit that you approved
you think that is different from what site plan approval because i mean they're obviously from different
dates and understand that like when you're looking at a building permit approvals you're looking at a
set of drawings and they have additional information that is not part of a conceptual site plan
at this juncture with the procedures and the project i do not see any deviation from what was reviewed to
what has been produced so far there's been no work on the steam building at this time so i've not been
off for any inspections on the structure have been on site i've reviewed some of the stormwater work
that's being done but i have not seen any deviations so that was again raised by the applicant that the
building permit is for something that is not what the cyclone is for i i certainly i don't say this
lightly i understand and i respect the sincerity of the applicant's concerns i'm not listening to what to
what's being presented if i if i look strictly through the we're being asked about i'm struggling to
to see a mistake and approve something but very carefully vetted through the planning board through
the peer review process process for the varying consultants and engineers that sort of were all
engaged for the entirety of that segment generally in agreeance with you uh i didn't see any deviation
that would certainly uh cause us to overturn the building permit um i didn't like specifically
one of you guys yeah i think that there were um that the potential for future additions i think um might
have been the maybe the only thing that may have seemed like it deviated but it wasn't um a clear
difference from the drawings um necessarily maybe just a um and i think that that was what um kind of
got my attention in the beginning was the this was for a certain amount and then in it was going to
be for 400 and something um but i think that that was addressed and discussed so i think that the
building permit that on its face um matches the drawings and as issued it's one thing that was flushed
out a big concern especially with people in town which is totally warranted was that was this idea that the
project was essentially for a school 400 students primarily because of the size of the septic tank in
the event that you know the veritas would want to someday attempt to grow in size uh to that capacity
they're going to have to go through the exact same process again um and you know that is something that
that could take years may never happen so um stopping overturning a building i think that's an excellent
point and that's something that we didn't obviously spend a lot of time talking about but it's like
yes there were a lot of concerns raised about work happening that is related to future expansions in
some ways that is work at risk because there is no plan for the other buildings associated with this
campus that's been submitted to the town yet so going through the same process all of that subsequent
work also has to be fully engineered and designed and it has to go back through sites and review
process and it may it may shape and change those things and it may render some of the work that
they're doing at the site right now you know have to be modified in some way but again can't really
consider that because we don't have an application for any of those other pieces of the project at this point
uh and to be fair too some of those other components are also they are regulated by by
regulated by the more popular conservation commission so there's absolute there's also
this is complicated in that project but there are sort of separate categories of approval
for other aspects of this project that do overlap but interestingly those two other boards did
manage to get their approvals completed prior to the planning board decision being issued so there was
continuity in this process even though it's kind of a fragmented process so yeah um for this state
there's nothing that prevents veritas from prepping there's nothing there's accountability from the like
you said the other departments to be able to have weigh the foundations for the future expectation
there's no expectation that that could be used either um also to go on with that you have you know the
sub pieces of that which is dealing with the septic the water and everything else traffic um all these
things you know traffic right now is only set for that 108 you know expectation as part of the building
permit accountability from these other departments this was accounted for um so the fact that we're
limited to the 108 and we have the reassurance and expectation that you know veritas will have to come
back and go through the process again to do an expansion or anything along those lines um i think it'll be a good
trial run for when students get into play and be able to see how this actually impacts and the neighbors
and the local community in that spot i i the permit was outside the expectations of what was approved
permit itself was uh appropriately executed by the building department as such and there are any
problems with the outside because it matches like what you were saying it matches to what they're doing
right now and it's not very well for the future i think uh miss jess uh thank you yes it's i i agree
with what has been shared already on the board and what is before us is a as a planning is sorry is a
building permit for a portion of the grander grander vision of varietals and the building and the
building commissioner's permit approved is in concert which what with the site plan approval process that
the um planning board did so i don't see i don't see a deviation from it and i see that again it's in
concert with what was decided and also to echo what what the chair said the very toss when very toss
finishes this project should they want to be continuing they have to go through the same
a similar process again and at that point in whatever time span that is the bylaw could have changed
other laws could have changed they need to be raising funds as they indicated to us and none of that is
before us we just have a discrete task here with what has been shared um now the future they're just at
their because they didn't go for a building permit for the entire entire project now all right so i
guess with respect to this finding number two um does the approved site plan conform to the requirements
of the planning board decision i would say i would say it does yes so i guess i want to go a roll call vote to
answer this question about um number two um so miss janice uh yes it does aye uh mr hush yes
this ball mr murray yes and mr white yes so i would say um five to zero we agree on a finding that the
approved site plan um so finding number three the support believe it's the setback requirement decision
this one is also was we discussed at length the last time um there's a little bit of uh i guess
in my mind it's it comes down to two very simple things um there is a slight intrusion in the setback
for the accessibility walkway but we know that it's not governed by setback requirements
there is a uh a stabilized slope that is inside of the setback and then there's the core of the sport
core that is inside the set um these structures these are not you would not these are not defined
as structures in our zoning bylaw like so in my mind they're not they're exempt from setback requirements
and also i want to note that all of those things were shown in the site plan that was approved by the
planning board so because of the nature of this development like the setbacks are at the
discretion of the planning board right so um there was a discussion about a uh a 30-foot setback and by
and large all of the structures that are defined as structures on the site won't depend on these two
things i don't believe that i agree on site address this i agree with the other members
of the board these two items do not do not um they are exempt from the setbacks so i guess to be
precise we should just do a quick roll call vote on this um does the approved project violate the
setback requirements of the planning board decision miss jetz no mr hush no miss paul mr white no okay
so these are the three oversimplified the right way to say these are the three simplified
requests that the applicant has made for us and i think we've we've been able to sort of go through
make a finding on each one of these so with that i'd make a motion to affirm the planning board's site
plan approval dated april 15 2025 and uphold the building permit granted october 30 pursuant to the
planning board decision for america christian academy at 172 subject okay so um by roll call vote on
this is chance aye mr harsh nay miss paul mr parrot aye mr white aye so that is a four to one vote to
affirm the planning board's site plan approval and to uphold the building permit granted all right so
thank you everyone for uh agreeing to the earlier time and i want to thank uh both the applicants
and uh for toss for agreeing to sort of go through the process of these meetings recognize this is
maybe not an outcome that certain people would like but i want everyone to know that the board
took this task very as seriously as as possible and sort of spent a lot of time uh in between these
meetings looking for a way to sort of uh come to a decision that we thought was fair and reasonable
forever so thank you we're right at seven o'clock all right
speak later absolutely yeah i probably should have asked you that okay um all right so uh before we go on to general public comment i want to take advantage of the fact that we have town council here um before she has to leave uh i maybe i'll let i'll let mr hirsch articulate the question that came up about signing of decisions or maybe the building commissioner we had a an issue that came up about the way we were signing decisions with respect to the registry of deeds and we just don't know you know anything about this we got the town clerk looking into it but it was a problem i don't really understand now that i understand the problem but can anyone describe it briefly uh an applicant took their decision to the registry of deeds and they denied accepting the decision because it had a docu-sign signature from the chair on it instead of the west yeah and we have been doing the docu-sign for a period of time and had no issues up to this point and our town clerk look into it and um and it is overall accepted practice but we'd like to give verification to town council as to the legidity of the docu-sign to what stand yeah we we also have experienced some inconsistency with the registry on on that aspect um i think during covid there were some special rules that were put in place that because we couldn't necessarily all get together or were supposed to be keeping our distance from each other um that there were some relaxation of the rules um but my understanding is that most registries will accept a digital or electronic what they prefer a wet signature but that they will take um maybe not docu-sign but they will take some sort of a digital stamp but i can certainly ask our real estate folks who do much more work with them i'm assuming it's middlesex uh the county registry of deeds that's getting some issues i can certainly follow up with them and ask what what the practice is but i know we get some inconsistent results as well which we could go but i don't think i'm going to go start writing a decision you can cut to all the meetings yeah from now on my pleasure from now on yes now on
there you go you can stay thank you folks you'll find out that it's not actually that's not funny especially after that first thank you night night uh before uh is there any general public comment look like it i don't know if there's any anyone online is there for public comment everyone had a chance to review the draft minutes from uh january 13th and january 26th yes yes any comments i actually had a comment to the january 13th um i voted nay on the moving forward with curing veritas sorry i can't hear what you're saying hey did you abstain about hearing veritas i did yeah
when it's when we were deciding whether or not we should the appeal was timely and whether we should hear it everybody voted to move forward to hear it so we have to correct any other comments so i would make a motion to january 26 2026 and to approve an amendment to the meeting minutes for january 13th based on the edit discussed tonight seconded all favor all right hi hi well we have to do miss jenis hi mr harsh hi miss paul mr white hi all right so we are set um with that we can actually get into our first case of the evening this is the 705 continuation of gba case 25-30 for 43 plain road this is the application of ipa development company llc by evonne varian for the property at 43 plain road this is in the single residence our third zoning district the applicant seeks a special permit variance or other applicable zoning relief to demolish the existing structure and will start to replacement dwelling blocks pre-existing not conforming in respect to the minimum lot coverage and this is a continuation of this case so do we have anyone here tonight to present good evening this is jerry i'm on game hey good evening how are you can everybody hear me all right yes okay i just want to make there's a little bit of an echo on my one so i'm going to make it reciprocated but um yeah it's a little it's a little choppy it's a little choppy you can try that again is it better that's a little better yeah i think you guys okay okay okay i'll do that that i can do that i'm good at uh nice to be before you again my name is attorney andrew delori uh i have uh my father attorney paul delori here with me off camera as well as uh the applicants ivan therion and rick capucci from ipa development our combination i think on zoom and uh potentially in person uh i'm also supposed to have the architect uh cheyenne wrangle joining me uh on the zoom tonight as well if we have any questions i will confirm that um we are before the board tonight under sections 198 201 and 203 requesting a special permit uh pursuant to 198 401.1.2 to expand the existing non-conforming single-family house that's presently located at 43 plain road uh we were before the board in november of 2025 and have been continued to this date i'll get into that more in a minute 43 plain road is located in the r30 district it's presently non-conforming due to the lot size and the side yard setback on one side of the house uh if you were facing the house the right side is non-conforming at this point um i do note that the frontage also appears to be non-conforming but uh i according to the code uh it predates uh there's a 1953 date in the code that if the frontage was in place uh as of that date that it is it is conforming so uh the frontage is not changing but i i i also think that it's it's not conforming under the code uh but the frontage is remaining the same regardless i did just want to point uh that out um as i said we originally appeared before the board in november um there was uh proposed originally as a large expansion of this single-family house uh there was a large contingent of neighbors who'd appeared uh on that uh evening i wanted to discuss custom things related to the project uh the main uh points of emphasis that we understood from the neighbors and the board were there were concerns related to the scope of the house the scope and the size uh the stormwater runoff visibility and safety uh related to uh the location of the structure and also the board had asked for just some technical things like uh the layout of the attic and uh stuff like that so um i do want to start if i can if i can share the screen if that's all right since i have the ability to do that i'm gonna try to do okay great okay so you're with me now yes okay so i am starting this was our original proposal at 43 plain road uh large three three bay car garage this was a large house approximately 5500 square feet and this is the new proposal here on the right uh this is uh 3800 square feet so it's a significant reduction uh in the in the square footage uh so uh we were originally one of the items that we were before the board originally was for the lot coverage requirement so this house is presently if you if you increase the lot coverage greater than above the 20 threshold obviously it triggers a special permit uh the original iteration of this house which is on the the left here did so um i am happy to report to the board tonight that the current iteration of the house uh the footprint is significantly smaller and now the house on the right uh now falls under that 20 threshold and that special permit is now moot in in my reading of it so the the new project is already more conforming than the original proposal uh in for purposes of the lot uh law coverage it's a seven percent reduction from what was proposed originally now down to 16.4 uh percent uh i'm just gonna i'm gonna maximize this if this is all right just so we can just focus with this one for now um okay why did that happen to me hold on a second sorry sorry okay um another thing i want to focus on is uh the square footage obviously has greatly decreased uh the original proposal was 107 uh 107 percent um 100 173 increase of the existing square footage of the house uh it has now uh been reduced by 103 and it's now a 70 percent increase so significant reduction in the gross floor area as well uh and also i want to show the board the plot plan and some of the efforts that my clients made here um so what you'll see is this is the original the original plan here let me just maximize it um what so you can see our existing this is the existing foundation here what was originally proposed was this was going to be a large addition here to uh the left and you know what i understood from the neighbors was that the intersection of plain road and glenn road here is is a high traffic intersection there was concerns about visibility here related specifically to the location of the house so one of the things that my clients did is now this is just pull this one up this is now our current uh this is the current proposed plot plan now here and what you'll see is um this addition now has been pulled this is over 10 feet from glenn road where it was originally and additionally this has been pulled back seven feet here so you know this delta of space which has been created here in the reduction of the footprint of the house was done with the intent to you know not only reduce the square footage but also to help increase visibility if that was if that was a potential complaint there um one other thing i do want to go over quickly was there was a in a butter um there's a butter to the rear here and uh there's a butter on glenn road here uh and he had raised concern uh where the lock slopes from front to back uh he had raised concerns about stormwater runoff onto his lot and i just the applicant has now presented a site plan i just wanted to show the board there's two cultec uh 150 gallon chambers here so there's two chambers in each one of these total four chambers here um for the roof runoff so any stormwater runoff now will run into these chambers and will be discharged into the street to help alleviate any water um running backwards to the back there so uh we're just overwhelmed let me just click out here so
question with respect to the site plan where is the uh where is the septic system on site plan oh do i have that uh the septic is existing so no no i i know i know that it is i'm just curious it's going to the rear it's in the rear it's in the rear okay yeah i mean it would happen it would have to be in the rear yes well i so i don't see it on the site plan no it's not on the site plan uh we we probably do need that shown on the site plan just because if i look at the site image it's pretty wooded in the back so the site if the septic is in the back it's it's kind of in the woods we should we should get this we probably should get the site plan updated to at least show that
noted noted um so yeah overall um that's the that's the big changes that have been done here um you know my i just want to you know emphasize that my client did that first meeting in november we were aware that the neighbors were there we were aware that they had concerns what we did on that night was we took the phone numbers of everybody who was in attendance my clients created like a group chat amongst all the all the people that were in attendance and any revisions of these plans have been shared to these neighbors uh throughout the months as we've been working through this revision and i'm not aware of any feedback that that we've received from the neighbors in addition um i just wanted the board to know that you know my my clients did make a concerted effort to hear the neighbors and work with them to try to present a project that excuse me no no excuse me stop talking please uh can you please pull back up the site plan yeah i can do that yes thank you
can you see me yeah can you just zoom in please it's a straight line that's that's not the site plan that we have oh you want this okay you want the other one i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry too many plans yeah the site plan the the updated site plan i think is the revised january 5th bottom right corner let's do something separate well that's that doesn't match what that is
has the deck in another location and there's no flat line on the back all right i i i might have just pulled up the wrong plan just give me one second yes i if if i presented it it's it's just an error on my end if i presented something that's outside of the package i'm just i'm trying to be i'm trying to be of assistance by sharing the screen it's i it's just it's just an error on my end so we have we have two site plans in the packet we have the plot plan which is dated december 8th and then we have the site plan which shows the contour lines which the date on the print is january 5th bottom right right corner i said of december 4th no i have december 9th then revise january january 5th yeah okay there's two dates on so missing on here number one is we don't have distances to the outlines and what you were saying is that we're missing the location of well it's confusing as i said because there's two there's two site drawings one of them shows the contours and call tech drainage and the other one is the certified plot plan that shows the zoning setbacks the zoning setbacks are indicated on the december 8th plan and the call tech is indicated on the january 5th plan and that's what the that's what the applicant presented these don't match those don't match the those don't match the documents in the share file those two prints they add them as do not match what i have so the additional application if you go on additional application 1208 and you click on that it should be all in one so there should be the plot plan and the revised plan so revise materials yes revise the application and then 1209 if you click on that document there should be third page to be revised site plan yeah that's what i haven't seen so that's exactly what i got so did you so look there's there's two different things here okay that's the one that i'm looking at so this is from date stamp january 8th yeah that's not the most recent one it says yeah it says december 4th that says december right so that's from that's an older one i get i'm assuming it was revised but then that says december 8th i understand that but then if you go back it says revised so go to uh right so i don't know the summer 4th to most recent one which is january 8th here's a lot of plot plans i i understand which is this let's keep going yeah i assume it's the most recent one yeah and that's consistent with what the applicant presented i mean this is what what happens when last minute revisions are done it was jimmy the last one was i know we just got one friday the fire where's the stamp jimmy yeah so i so one of the challenges we're having right is that in the completed application the new the newest completed application the site plan is different from the updated site plan that you submitted that's why this is so confusing because the board has two separate packages of information and they have different site plans so it's making this harder it's making this harder than it needs to be to review at this point what does the board want to do with this because we're we're just wasting time time on this so i guess i i i want to understand like the board cannot understand which is the final site plan and i recognize sorry sorry which is which application material is correct because we have your completed application file it has site plans that do not match the most recent site plans that you seem to have submitted separately and they don't seem to match what was approved by the board of house so there's continues to be a paperwork problem with this project that i don't i don't know how to sort out mr care i think it seems appropriate to to reflect the continuance while we continue i i apologize that this happens i you know i i'm i'm doing it's a lot it's a lot of plans i'm overwhelmed as well but i i apologize that this continues to happen clean slate it with the applicant yeah i mean it's getting everything fresh so like when we meet next time yeah i i think it i think it makes it just be better for the applicant and better for us yeah just because like i i mean you've spent a lot of time revising this and i i want to respect that you've got an updated set of architectural plans that is radically different and i think does exactly what you said um so i just want to make sure we give this thing a fair proper hearing and we don't have information that is mismatched and we don't have either people on the board or the neighbors sort of referencing site plans that may be slightly different than your final intended site plan understood so i think it makes sense to again to to look for our continuance um hang on let me just what is our next meeting uh it should be march 10 right march 10th march 10th um i guess i'd make a motion to continue uh uh cba case 25 30 43 plain road to march 10th at 7 p.m second we'll call miss jenis hi mr hirsch hi miss paul sorry uh mr wright hi so you are continued to um march 10th at 7 p.m and you don't have another appeal in front of you so you can literally leave me first okay thank you all about paul paul need the gun so we did 7 p.m okay yes i'd rather get it sorted out properly and as i said make sure that you have a chance to present all the information exactly as you want it and in that also being called you know the neighbors also see the same information so what does receive i wonder uh how does the applicant receive comments i guess um yes let me ask you sorry just a quick question um the board receives letters from the neighbors do you do you also receive those i i have not been receiving those items if they're being submitted to the board though okay we usually don't share them unless the applicant asks for that okay i can share it yeah i just want i think it makes sense that like we do share it because if if the board has those comments i think it makes sense for you to also have those comments of course we're trying to have a we're trying to have a productive session we're trying to be good neighbors so if there's if there's feedback to be had we'd like to receive it and and you know do what we can with it of course yeah no absolutely i think that'd be great so yes if you could please please please forward that information off that would be great thank you all right so we're going to move on to the next case um this is the continuation of case uh cva case 25-35 for 8 parkridge road this is the application of api development company for the property located at 8 parkridge road in the single residence are 20 districts the applicant seeks a special permit variance or other applicable zoning relief to demolish the existing structure and in respect of replacement drawing a lot is pre-existing non-informing in respect to a lot area requirements so is this a separate is this a typo in the in the notice or is instead of ipa this is api no that is that is not a that is not a typo that is correct okay i just want to be sure okay all right and i'm assuming you're going to be presenting uh information on this case as well i am i am thank you thank you again uh members of the board again andrew delori i have my father again just for the record i have my father attorney 12 with me here off camera as always my clients ivy ferrion and uh rick capucci are in the audience i believe the architect is also on the zoom if we have any questions um the applicant again is is before the board 198201 198203 requesting a special permit pursuant to 19840112 to again expand pre-existing non-conforming single family uh presently located at 8 parkridge road 8 parkridge road located in the r20 district and presently non-conforming due to lot size and side yard setback again as to the frontage uh appears to be non-conforming as the frontage on its face but it predates the uh date in the zoning code and as thus is in my opinion is conforming under section 706.1 um in this instance the applicant originally appeared before the zba in december again with a larger uh expansion of uh the home and will be presented tonight uh there was some neighbors in attendance again my clients uh you know had to have been in discussions uh with those neighbors uh and we did have some comments from the board again uh focused on uh the scope and size of the home we also had a long discussion about the location and where the house may sit on the lot uh also particularly related to where the garage was located and uh another simple simple request to again show the attic plan um so i'm going to try to share the screen again here see if i have better success this time around and before before you do i just want to be sure you received um did you receive the memos from the planning board on this project
i am in the possession of two i think the most recent ones from january if there if there's a more recent one than that i'm not in possession but i do have two from the planning director yeah okay i just wanted to be sure you had that okay yes i i am in receipt of those thank you so we're looking at this one 121 yeah uh so again yeah okay on eight parkridge road um i'm gonna reverse the time on the right here this is where we started uh on the right here um you know larger house uh again three-car garage uh located on the right here uh to the left this is this is the new iteration smaller footprint um one of the key components of this which we discussed with the board of that original hearing was the board had we had a long discussion about uh using a portion of the existing structure which the original proposal here on the right uh was not doing its best job to utilize the existing structure my clients made an effort to uh front the house on the street kind of bring it into uniformity uh with the rest of the neighborhood but we had a discussion uh about you know difficulties that that may cause with other scenarios for them so um what my client did was instead we reversed the location of the garage this garage is is uh located upon uh the existing foundation of where the house is um let me just show you now so this is where we started originally here on parkridge road and uh as you can see this is the this was the existing dwelling here which is you we're trying to use a small portion of it originally there's also a detached garage over here which is which will be raised um this is the this is the new layout okay so uh this is the new proposed existing garage which uses uh the existing foundation uh with an expansion uh here to the to the right um again decrease from the between the two proposals we're discussing a decrease um this was again a 20 percent uh law coverage special permit the the reduction in the house has allowed uh this to come down to 13 and a half percent so again that's now moot uh and and informing uh there's a square footage reduction here as well um and uh you know overall uh my clients had the board remembers my client had constructed a project across the street um trying to bring similar success to the to the neighborhood with a project that complements it in the same way uh my class so my client did try to present the project here that uh you know is more uniformity with what the neighbors uh seem to have to have desired um so i do just want to open i'm a little concerned based on my last presentation about the plans that are in front of the board now um i'm hoping that we're all we're all looking at the same plans that um but this is the uh this is our our reduced footprint here uh i just want to show you quickly here's our attic layout that had been discussed it's an unfinished attic uh and then this is just our general uh layout layout of the property here so um the applicant if if things are in order uh the applicant would uh obviously invite the comment of the board and then uh if the board were so inclined would uh request the favorable grants of a special permit under uh 198401.1.2 thank you okay thank you um so i'm glad you asked the question about materials because there also seems to be a little bit of confusion with the materials here um it looks like something was submitted with some incorrect dates so can maybe we could get some guidance from the building commissioner or um the building staff on this question it's it's really confusing to look through the materials we have correct so we received upon uh a architectural plan uh with the date january 8 which was a revision to the previous architectural plan which will then we have a plan for the applicant not accept this since there have been revision made through prior plans the same date so we received a new central plan dated january 21st but then the clock plan was submitted with the old plan of january 8 revision month and it's dated january 19 so the new site plan should be generally uh the new architectural plan should be january 21st anina um what is the what is the uh the stamp the date stamp on it from the building commissioners from your office february 9th
i think the one that you received is still the one with the wrong date january 8 that's the one that you picked up that has the revision so you don't have the january 21st because they were dropped off on monday i believe okay so it was a late submission as well as the memo came after perfect and there's no site plan on the last version there's no and there's no site plan okay we dropped off without the site plan and without a you know being able to see everything look at the student record sitting here but we're still missing a site plan can you just you can't see some places that means i don't even have any is there another revised version besides this for the application they dropped off the architectural plan wise but no version of this and no site plan so we're missing so it looks like we're missing a site plan for the current architectural set is that does that can does that run here special set dated january 21st 2026 which is the most recent does not have a site plan all right so as much as i hate to do this i think we may need to continue this until we can get uh i guess a site plan that matches the architectural plans and we need a new form that matches as well all right it needs to be revised the application needs to be revised so i'm trying i'm just trying i'm trying to simplify this so if it's just if it's just a site plan that we need to get to match the architectural plan the dwelling change in size dwelling change in size which means all of the information so the application needs to be updated needs to be updated now you may approach and state your name please okay that's my name um the application was like as the last application we like i explained to her we did not change anything on the plans we just put some information about the height like but in the memo that i sent was explained you have different plans here different plans you have different numbers that go along with those plans for like death death that's the same plan the only thing we when i sent the plans here the only thing i mentioned to her we include was uh some information about the attic we did not change anything and the size of the size of the house on the drawing anything so you didn't know this not no no from from uh december 30 no no he was saying for november for the old one not on that one the only thing we had some more information include that to be like about the height that was like wasn't complete and i wrote a memo memorandum that uh i gave to her to uh sent you and explain that wasn't changed anything on the structure of the house on the size it's only it was only explain like uh some other information about like showing the attic that's unfinished the base that was unfinished just include some more information but all that information should be on your place yeah that is on this plan yeah but didn't change the application and that was i i explained to her yeah we asked for a memo because there were so many changes okay so you asked for the memo to reflect the current set then so you don't know what would change okay that makes that that makes sense all right so it sounds like i'm sorry planning speaker thank you yes yes and we have the memo here um it summarizes change uh refinement of the building massing clarification the building height and adage configuration no increase in habit of the floor area the interior layout adjustments so i'm reading this look the only thing we're missing i just want to be clear on this is just simply a site plan that matches this in the package the uh that's a good point well we have staff comments from the board of health um i have to spare you for a second um as the board of health gave a conceptual approval for this already so uh now it was based on a was based on a plot plan from november 15th so this makes it a little complicated but sometimes if they have a new plot plan they need to be able to go off the there should be an easy approval but they need to go back and get another yeah just may need to get i the board of health has already approved this we just may need to get have them issue us a new memo that replaces the uh this plot plan with the newer one and since the newer one is smaller i have no reason to suspect they won't just be able to create this quickly i'm trying to streamline this so we can um we can actually get to this this case um but what it sounds like again is i think we're going to need a continuance on this just to make sure we have the paperwork 100 uh squared away on this understood yeah i would make a motion that we continue zba case 25-35 for eight parkridge road to march 10th at 7 05 pm so we'll make sure that you are again first and second on that second um so if i will call miss janice hi mr harsh hi miss paul all right mr white i so you are officially extended to that time and we'll see if we can get this uh squared away thank you all have a very nice thank you sexual all right um thank you thank you thank you all right so we we can move on to our next case this is uh zba case 2603 for 228 bleeds and lane um the applicant doug ravine on behalf of the wayland stone and tennis club is requesting a special permit for the property at 228 district the applicant is seeking renewal of the special permit for an additional five years to increase the non-member membership from 200 to 225. the meeting will be opened and the request will continue this continue this to the march 10th 2026 community um good evening good evening how are you i'm good good to be here there is um a neighbor here as well yeah i'd love to
so you need a continuance yes um we had and we sent out a letter that i dropped in the mailboxes of the surrounding neighbors on gleason and autumn um they also sent a letter to us and about a week or so two of my fellow board members uh hosted a zoom meeting of which i believe eight or so of the neighbors attended and voiced some of their objections specifically to the requested increase in membership um so we as a board are going to take that feedback and actually have a discussion in about 15 minutes um and then we'd like to talk again to the neighbors uh prior to finalizing our question i think it's very commendable great so like so if we put you on for march 10th 7 15 yeah that should be plenty of time okay all right so excuse me if you had a question if you could come up and introduce yourself to the screen and address my name is uh mark somerville i live at 238 gleason lane i've lived there for the last 24 years i have the longest property line uh to the wayland swimming tennis club it goes the entire length of the eastern portion of the swimming tennis club so the closest area to west um and i just want to say that things have gotten louder uh there and people have been playing tennis there up to 10 10 p.m uh and i believe they're supposed to uh stop playing at around 8 or 9 p.m so there have been more noise uh more cars uh and things have been louder now uh it's my understanding that there's a request uh to have 25 more fam which means that it's going to be over 100 people and it's going to be over 50 cars uh that are going to start coming uh into the neighborhood in that area and the neighbors are very impacted by it i heard the individual who just stepped up say that he's been in contact with the neighbors i've had no contact whatsoever i have the longest property line uh to wayland's swimming tennis club and they've had no contact with me when this was proposed there was no outreach at least not to me and i know some of my neighbors indicated to me the same thing through a letter uh and they've indicated that there was some problems contacting uh the people who are running the swimming tennis club i've been a good neighbor over 24 years i've never come here to oppose uh anything that the swimming tennis club has uh i wanted to do this is the first time and uh so i would object to any continuance here uh if there's been conversations with neighbors i haven't been included and the neighbors who uh wrote me the letter i'm not sure if they have either maybe they have i'm not uh but this is going to be a problem for us we all have been good neighbors we've uh tolerated a lot uh we should have the right to quiet enjoyment of our property and um that's what we're asking for uh this really
has gone kind of under the radar with a lot of the neighbors and uh so if there's some other conferencing or conversations that are going to be done i wasn't aware of that so you know it's difficult to take time after you go to work and come to these meetings and um you know i made an effort and i'm sure other people uh made an effort also uh so i would ask you to reject the request uh because it's going to be burdensome for the neighborhood uh it's going to be an excessive amount of cars uh and it's going to be over uh 100 more people who are going to be attending so thank you very much thank you i can i can put you at ease in the sense that um request to continue is only so we can have another hearing on the case and the neighbors could have a chance to come and present so our vote for our motion to continue the request to continue this is not to approve the that's being asked of us it's just to continue the debate to another meeting so um if we continue this you'll have a chance to speak it also puts a burden on the department you know accept a request i don't think we get have can reject a an application yeah i don't think legally we can just reject the application so like if we voted to not if we voted to not continue this i don't i don't think we can actually do that i think we have to vote to continue we have to pick a date and a time and that has to get publicly noticed notified and then everybody who is an interested party can come to that next meeting but i i think it would be i think it would be impossible for us to deny and just say we don't want to and it is an option to do this via zoom if you can't come in that's the effect it is it is an option if you if you would like it that way you don't have to come in person just so that way you are aware yeah i was aware i am kind of curious uh mr living um how were the neighbors notified do you know yeah i was trying to look up all of the edges addresses of where i dropped we had a letter that was under the signatory of our board president who is patrick murkbox and dropped the letter we have a link hold on let me just we have a list of abutters i had to get a certified list from the town building so i worked from that list and then we also have a list of neighbors and abutters that are entitled to neighbor membership so we also hit those addresses so we really tried to capture everybody and then there's a woman who's the neighborhood liaison on our who has i am told reached out to the neighbors separately on more than a couple of occasions and through her i think they set up that zoom meeting she also is an immediate abutter of the property possible to be able to reach out to definitely yeah because i know that there'll be another meeting the town also notifies the abutter within like you know so within here and we publish it in the metro west uh we have two days one is one week before the meeting and the other one is two i got the notification from uh that's one of the reasons why i'm here but i also got a notification from two neighbors
so i think that we need to vote on the continuance yes and yeah so i guess i'd make a motion that we continue zba case 2603 for 228 weasel lane to march 10th at 7 15. second in call miss jennis mr hirsch hi miss paul hi miss perry mr white hi so full disclosure we we have to pick the times that are close to the start of our meeting the as you saw tonight we had two cases that are we are going to hear before the case for the swimming tennis club and there are a lot of people that are opposed to those two residential projects so it's likely that when you start that case at seven it's going to take us at least a half an hour to get through the first one and at least a half an hour to get through the second one so now it's also possible that one of those two doesn't show up and we're stuck so as much as i say oh you should come at eight and enjoy your time at home it's a good idea to come close to 7 15 but bring in distraction because it's possible that we won't start until 8 15. i understand thank you very much but the game boy are mute yeah
the um can i make a suggestion too you could at home you could also watch you could you could you know sign in to watch and see the progress of the meeting and then gauge how much time you need to arrive oh that's true yes if you sign in on zoom and at eight o'clock we're still talking about the first case you know there's no reason to rush down no i'd rather come in and watch the exciting okay didn't earn a show thank you so thank you we voted on that okay so we are moving on to our next case this is a zba case 2604 135 commonwealth road this is the application of richard thomas for the property at 135 commonwealth road located in the single residence r20 zoning district the applicant seeks a special permit variance or other applicable zoning excuse me to construct a garage the proposed addition would reduce the side yard setback from 20.7 feet to 8.7 feet and the applicant is therefore requesting requesting relief the lot is pre-existing non-conforming with respect to the minimum lock area on one side the setback er setback requirements so good evening you can come up and give us your name and address and tell us about your project yes thank you thank you my name is richard thomas i'm the owner of the property at 135 commonwealth and which is the house end of 2023 and that's when i moved to wayland it's my first time here very nice meeting all of you so um there is no existing garage in the property and i want to get a garage built there so i work with an architect and uh and and a land surveyor and uh based on um based on the location of the septic tank and the leech field the only place where i can build a garage that's going to be a one car garage is um is where it's been presented in the in the plan and it's it's along the uh left side of the house if you were to be facing the house and it's going to be on an existing driveway so there is no new impervious land and um and yes and and so the um because of the location i mean because of the septic uh field and septic tank and the leech field is the only place i can do it and so that brings the the required setback is 15 feet but um this would bring it down to eight feet um seven inches and so that's why i'm looking for relief and uh my immediate neighbors um three of them so two of them are residential properties i reached out to the uh to the landlords and they expressed their support um the third property is uh the one that's actually right next to the garage is is a commercial property i i did reach out to them by email they they acknowledged the receipt of the email but i haven't um heard from them yet i don't know if they're on zoom right now but um as such um i haven't had any um you know none of the neighbors have had any have had any problems with this plan as of yet here i am looking for relief thank you did you receive a copy of town planner yeah so i read the memo from the town planner and the town planner is incorrect this is a straightforward special permit application the town planner was suggesting that this is a variance because you can't distort the garage so before we go any further i want to ask the building commissioner who is also the chief zoning enforcement officer um if he's read this planning board memo he either agrees with me or agrees with the town planner i'm not trying to put you on the spot as your commissioner but this is an extremely confusing memo from the town planner because like if what the town planner says is correct like i would say virtually every application we have would be unallowed under a special permit okay i just want to i want to i'm going to be sure i'm not i'm not missing something yes okay he didn't apply saying that he has a hardship he just wants to go to the garage so correct i mean the application is for a special permit the town planner has written us a memo saying that like this is you can't approve this i don't understand because this is this is like any other special permit application we have for a non-pre-existing non-performing lot asking for a side yard you've done this before okay i just like we've done this before under a special permit i don't know why we would need a variance for this he's got a different view on things and i don't know why but um but i i do i do think it's important because this is the second time we've received this memo that i think is is not legally correct so i think it's important that we have we bring the town planner to the next zoning meeting and we have him articulate his concern because i don't i would like to not receive i'd like the zoning board not to receive another memo like this that i think is factually important that it goes does the board agree i agree 100 percent miss janice do you have a any insight no i was actually trying to look at look up the memo i'd read it before but i did not print it so um i think if there's a question either there's a communication with him before the meeting or requesting that he come to the meeting that's true he doesn't necessarily have to come to the meeting you could give us like you could give us some clarification but um yeah so under 401.1.2 is is and i'll read it verbatim pre-existing non-conforming building structures or uses may be changed extended or altered by a special permit issued by the cva pursuant to the provisions of 198.201 and 198.203 of the sony by one so okay it's straightforward straightforward yeah i i would agree all right so now that we have that out um i actually i've reviewed this material i think this is a very complete application i was here true i yeah i was just gonna before we before we go into that so i just want to get that out of the way i didn't want i didn't want the applicant to be concerned that we're gonna veer off into a different direction here so before we go into any deliberations uh is there anybody online it doesn't look like it i think i only see the three oh someone has raised their hand hang on for one second so i think so yeah carrie mccormick so good evening mr mccormick you had a you had a question uh yes good evening i'm not sure how to uh put on the video oh sorry okay
but i am unmuted so you can hear me okay yes we can yes okay great so so i'm carrie mccormick director of development crosspoint associates we own the shopping center next door with the star starbucks and um various uh retail um tenants so we were we were able to connect with um um richard earlier today uh i'm just getting up to speed on it i'm curious if there are going to be any trees that are going to be cut down along the property line because i think it is good to have some level of buffer for both of us um sorry the question was am i going to add trees is that the question no no no well i think there's a tree tree buffer yes yes yes yes there are multiple trees along the boundary are you planning to remove any of them no no not at all there's going to be on the existing driveway so none of the trees in fact i would love to add more arborvited trees and get more that's the plan uh so mr mccormick any other questions or no no that was the main question we're just we just got the plans today so we're looking at them uh circulating to the team okay anything for or against i apologize uh question to me yes mr mccormick uh no nothing at this time okay i guess any questions from the board i make a comment on the dwelling but this line has been substantially uh rehabbed uh several years ago um a gentleman from natick um quite the eyesore and uh he um he brought it back to life and made it a very beautiful uh historic building that really puts in that neighborhood and i think that the architectural drawings that uh proposed matches the flat roof matches the the the um the structure the addition on on the right side of this um so it is in uh keeping with the character of the uh of the existing dwelling and roof lines so i i think it's a good fit for the neighborhood
thank you location materials like the drawings are great everything is labeled it's so in order to um we need to um we need to make a finding under 401.1.2 that um oh you had a question yeah i did so i'm just looking at the plans because i didn't i didn't get these um in physical form and i have a question is there is the garage a one-story structure yes okay so the drawings that we have are these more of a um um uh courtesy it says a i'm seeing a proposed second floor plan oh no no so that's the whole existing and proposed plan of the entire building and nothing else is going to be changed the the architect felt it to be complete to to have a full package of every floor for both pre and post and so nothing else is going to be changed yes it's just a courtesy yes okay okay thanks okay then i got it all right so i mean the under 401.1.2 we've got to make a finding that this isn't substantially more detrimental um i think it's very clear that it's not i think uh especially the the way the garage has been designed to sort of complement the flat roof of the of the addition on the left side of the structure and sort of continuing the same fenestration and materials i think this is uh any other comments okay i'd make a motion under uh section 203.1 um that the proposed structure for the application for which the application is being made it's not against public interest it doesn't derivate from the character of the neighborhood in which the use building structure occurs and it's not more detrimental or it's not detrimental or offensive because of noise vibration smoke gas fumes odor dust for any other objectionable features and if the proposed use building or structure is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the inhabitants of the town where there are being dangerous to the public health or safety and that we should approve a special permit under that section um propose that we add two conditions to that that the project is constructed in accordance with the plans and application materials that have been submitted and the applicant needs to um obtain obtain any other approvals that may be required to get it in front of class so we're going to do this by roll call vote miss jennis hi mr harsh hi miss paul hi mr parry hi mr white aye you were approved so we have a there's a two-week period to write the decision and then there's a mandatory 20-day appeals period and then after that you can pick up the signed decision and file it with registry deeds and you're off to the next step which is to get the permit fantastic so thank you thank you thank you thank you all right so um we just have one more case tonight this is zba case 2605 for 44 boston close roads this is the applicant applicant uh signorama of ulster on behalf of the property owner wayland plaza llc seeking a special permit for the property at 44 boston post road located in the business aid district to install an additional building sign of 38.5 square feet non-illuminated and to obtain retroactive retroactive approval for a standalone sign of 27 square feet the applicant is requesting relief for both the number of signs and total square footage so um do we have uh anyone here to present this good evening my name is mike can you hear me yes we can oh great uh i'm the owner of signorama worcester uh on behalf of the uh the business there at uh on post road uh first i want to i want to start by apologizing for um not pulling the permit on the face that we replaced on the standalone sign when we were filing the paperwork for this uh this building sign uh it was my impression that it was uh it was a rebrand and not actually a business takeover so uh i just wanted to get that out of the way appreciate that thank you
this is a uh these are channel letters uh we have proposed two locations uh as options here one would be on that funny funny shaped roof that is just above the entrance uh the other would be on the brick where it used to have uh i believe it said post road liquors uh on individual letters so uh following the same theme as what was there before okay and um you were saying that the sign the sign is not illuminated correct it it is not illuminated no um have you received a copy of the uh design review board um memo or no i have the uh the paperwork here for this meeting but i do not have the memo from the design review board i'm just going through the stack here in my folder so we received a memo from actually from the planning board it seems a little odd because it it it says that the sign it says that the sign you're requesting is illuminated but i think it's not well it certainly could be it could be illuminated but i was under the impression that that was just simply not going to be an option so we we forfeited yeah and our materials to be fair saying not illuminated so i'm not quite sure well actually this memo is from anina so anina can you can can you give us a uh shed a little light on um yes i think during the design report they presented plans with um a sign that was illuminated and they made them the applicant aware that this is actually not allowed so they answered to this memo and they made it run and they also submitted two options because i think there there has been discussion whether it is possible for them to put it on the roof if that's like structurally uh safe or if they should go with the second option and um so that's how we got this mission got it okay thank you
so i guess one of the one question is is is is your intent to pose a sign that doesn't match the font and branding of the sign you're asking us to approve on a retroactively approve on the road
the sign on the road is is as it sits now we we and we put those faces in uh in the late fall somewhere around that time uh but the but the sign on the building here in the two options is as it is shown this is liquor hub's font uh at all their locations the one that's on the building or the one that's on the sign out front the one that's on the building when they do the channel letters on the building they what they go with this font so the one on the road is already there yeah so they're so they're asking us to retroactively approve the one on the road that wasn't approved and they're asking us to approve this new one and which we can do because under the file we can approve signs that exceed the total square they're also if i'm getting this right to choose between option one and option two yes as part of that i would agree i mean i have i have a very strong opinion about that i don't know um in my opinion option two a solid idea i don't understand how those dimensional letters would actually work on the mansard reform i also think it's extremely attractive compared to option uh two which that is where the previous sign was located yeah i mean i was literally thinking the same thing but the uh i'm actually in agreement with all of you on that uh this was originally proposed on the on the roof but um as this progressed i i have the cut the our client has leaned more towards the brick so we quickly inserted that as a as another option
you have a question yes i do the sign that is on the lawn that they're asking for a retroactive approval was there a sign already there that said post road liquors in that yes this is that that sign is the same cabinet that was there that said post road liquors it's just a new face inserted in in the cabinet okay and is there any illumination in that sign um i have not been there in the evening i do not think there is i know that the uh they asked me about it um and i told them i need to to look into that i i don't think that it is illuminated i didn't know if there was any wiring that's already out there for the i don't i think that if i if i remember there is up lights uh from uh from down in the in the uh the vegetation okay and the lighting that's on the building is it is it more that um it's the color that is so brilliant so yes it's um it's it's not illuminated it's just it's just a red vinyl that's their their um their color uh for their liquor hub stores so it looks very vibrant but in reality it's it's just a standard red vinyl rising wise and to scale wise is this this yes if you're asking if it is to scale it is to scale it is to scale and it's two feet high two feet yes the letters the letters themselves are are two feet tall oh so it's really 48 inches worth of signage well if you if you if you stacked it um on the on the brick option it comes out to about four feet yeah four feet high sorry the the dimensions are showing what's on the roof because each letter is actually two feet but uh on the when you have liquor and then you have hub below it it comes out to four feet just over with the spacing what's the current size of the wettering that's on there currently um i didn't measure it we took it off it was all broken and and sunbeet so um i'd have to try to find some pictures to figure out what was there before but it was in a it was in a weird shape it was like a half circle for post the post road portion and then liquor kind of came up like a like a flat or smiley sort of shape it covered it covered a lot of that wall oh it looks like i mean we're looking at the the old google uh photo and they look substantially smaller okay like substantially smaller but i also think it's it's because the original letters on the building were silver or gray it looks a lot more subtle um i i in my opinion i i think the proposed sign is is too large and i i think i i don't know that i think what's particularly attractive on the building i think the the sign that was there previously is a lot more in keeping with uh maybe not so distinguished architecture of the building but i i think it's a little too much signage on that building base in my opinion on the rest of the board feels but i i have a question are you open changing the color and potential size of the option two well their interest is primarily to have the sign on the building um i would i would hope that we can meet halfway by changing the color to make it blend more with the wall and keep the size the same if that's possible like a silver would be a you know a silver color or gray would be a lot more suitable less less uh stop sign less flash uh i think we want to see any we want to see we want to see some additional options would yeah would this be possible to create uh additional renderings of different size options and colors that could be amenable to both you the board would that be something that you'd be open to creating you mean continuing it to next month potential yes yeah yeah i think we have to continue it to next month um so give you a chance to put together an alternate um an alternate idea but i i'd like to see one where the letters are smaller i i still think the letters are too large you know this is only 30 feet from the other side okay would you be amenable to continuing to uh uh the march 10th hearing sure any other comments from the board on this before we is having multiple options that we you know we could choose one well i mean i mean we were told we were told by the planning board to reject this application so i'm trying to i'm trying to find a way to sort of find a minute to find a middle ground yeah just when he comes back this idea of having multiple options and us choosing an option during the meeting is that we can do that if you choose to yeah yeah uh one additional piece that one additional piece can you just get confirmation for us whether or not uh there is any uh lightage around the street sign and that way we have a solid answer on that since we're going to be continuing anyways you're asking me to get confirmation on the lighting for the for the street sign and to confirm whether or not oh yes yeah there there is no lighting inside that sign the only lights are are vegetation lights that shine up on the sign that's that's i don't even know that those are even working anymore well could you confirm that determine whether you you wish them to be replaced or not so that are you well are you asking are you asking for us not to replace those lights that are in the in the ground if if that's the case no i'm not what i'm asking is can you confirm if those lights are working or not and then you you have that information then ready at hand so you can determine whether you want to replace it or if there's anything this board needs to do okay about that lighting we just want to make sure that we give you everything that you need for being able to come back to us from march to be able to make a decision for you okay so we'll get you some different sizes and uh different colors and then i will confirm that the lights are either working or not working that are in the ground great thank you um hang on i need it you gotta uh sorry yes i just wanted to clarify that the memo uh it didn't come from the uh planning board it's from the design review board and it's a recommendation they're only uh an advisory board okay so i make a motion that we uh continue zva case 2605 44 boston coast bridge march 10th which is safety we can say eight o'clock so there's no way i don't want to give it any i mean it's probably going to be nine o'clock by the time we get to them
all right uh miss jenis hi mr hirsch hi miss paul mr perry mr white hi so you are continued to uh eight clock on uh march 10th okay thank you thank you what if doug asks for a continuous again what if doug asks for a continuous again just those first two cases are going to take us yeah that'll take us an hour unless unless they fit i suppose if it doesn't then we can play and talk yeah and then i say anyone who wants this job more than i'm more than happy to give it up to them so you want you want to have that conversation um just you want that conversation yeah absolutely um so uh do we have uh we have some updates from the building commissioner um just that um i think all of you have been aware that we've had a fishing uh incidents with uh zba decisions and we have put it on the website and on all our disclaimers for our notifications that you pay a one-time fee for your application there are no other fees that are associated with any decision um a fishing scam is people have contacted applicants and said that they owe money up to five thousand dollars um post decision and to wire the money to a bank in california so if anyone's listening do not it's a one-time fee do not wire any money to anybody it's it's a false claim unfortunately one individual did uh succumb to this we had another individual that uh called anita called the office and informed them not to proceed that was a scam so that's the biggest thing that's going on so um and um we're going to research the uh digitized to the left stamp um confirmation on our future decisions that we received and the registry dtappy so thank you for both those updates um so when i signed the decisions i just attach my signature in acrobat but then i flatten it and it literally is just it looks it looks the same and conceptually is the same as a as me signing a wet stamp and scanning it and emailing them a pdf so that's not to say it's it's different than docu-sign because when anita opens it it doesn't show up as my signature it just shows up as embedded in the document not like a docu-sign signature so obviously if i come down and to sign and sign each decision in person i can easily do that my office is in town so it's not that big a deal for like real estate closings when the registry needs ask for a wet signature they want an actual signature which we do it can be done exactly the same as a copy of a wet signature correct yours it will look no different than that so i think we're just gonna have to wait for further guidance yeah this signature that got denied was actually from adam it was from mine and that it was an applicant but it was last year and they never had gone to the registry and then they went got it so it's a little different format than yours okay so and i use docu-sign which does have a signature on it but it also shows time stamp and everything that goes along with that which you would figure would be more be better than what i'm doing way more compliant than than what is what they're recommending but you know um but yeah i'm not aware of any other matters that we haven't already discussed does anyone have a motion move to adjourn second second wait no i tried to move to adjourn and somebody else said and then i tried to second and someone else said it i'm not anxious hi roll miss janice hi hi miss paul hi mr perry hi mr white hi we are adjourned thank you
speak later absolutely yeah i probably should have asked you that okay um all right so uh before we go on to general public comment i want to take advantage of the fact that we have town council here um before she has to leave uh i maybe i'll let i'll let mr hirsch articulate the question that came up about signing of decisions or maybe the building commissioner we had a an issue that came up about the way we were signing decisions with respect to the registry of deeds and we just don't know you know anything about this we got the town clerk looking into it but it was a problem i don't really understand now that i understand the problem but can anyone describe it briefly uh an applicant took their decision to the registry of deeds and they denied accepting the decision because it had a docu-sign signature from the chair on it instead of the west yeah and we have been doing the docu-sign for a period of time and had no issues up to this point and our town clerk look into it and um and it is overall accepted practice but we'd like to give verification to town council as to the legidity of the docu-sign to what stand yeah we we also have experienced some inconsistency with the registry on on that aspect um i think during covid there were some special rules that were put in place that because we couldn't necessarily all get together or were supposed to be keeping our distance from each other um that there were some relaxation of the rules um but my understanding is that most registries will accept a digital or electronic what they prefer a wet signature but that they will take um maybe not docu-sign but they will take some sort of a digital stamp but i can certainly ask our real estate folks who do much more work with them i'm assuming it's middlesex uh the county registry of deeds that's getting some issues i can certainly follow up with them and ask what what the practice is but i know we get some inconsistent results as well which we could go but i don't think i'm going to go start writing a decision you can cut to all the meetings yeah from now on my pleasure from now on yes now on
there you go you can stay thank you folks you'll find out that it's not actually that's not funny especially after that first thank you night night uh before uh is there any general public comment look like it i don't know if there's any anyone online is there for public comment everyone had a chance to review the draft minutes from uh january 13th and january 26th yes yes any comments i actually had a comment to the january 13th um i voted nay on the moving forward with curing veritas sorry i can't hear what you're saying hey did you abstain about hearing veritas i did yeah
when it's when we were deciding whether or not we should the appeal was timely and whether we should hear it everybody voted to move forward to hear it so we have to correct any other comments so i would make a motion to january 26 2026 and to approve an amendment to the meeting minutes for january 13th based on the edit discussed tonight seconded all favor all right hi hi well we have to do miss jenis hi mr harsh hi miss paul mr white hi all right so we are set um with that we can actually get into our first case of the evening this is the 705 continuation of gba case 25-30 for 43 plain road this is the application of ipa development company llc by evonne varian for the property at 43 plain road this is in the single residence our third zoning district the applicant seeks a special permit variance or other applicable zoning relief to demolish the existing structure and will start to replacement dwelling blocks pre-existing not conforming in respect to the minimum lot coverage and this is a continuation of this case so do we have anyone here tonight to present good evening this is jerry i'm on game hey good evening how are you can everybody hear me all right yes okay i just want to make there's a little bit of an echo on my one so i'm going to make it reciprocated but um yeah it's a little it's a little choppy it's a little choppy you can try that again is it better that's a little better yeah i think you guys okay okay okay i'll do that that i can do that i'm good at uh nice to be before you again my name is attorney andrew delori uh i have uh my father attorney paul delori here with me off camera as well as uh the applicants ivan therion and rick capucci from ipa development our combination i think on zoom and uh potentially in person uh i'm also supposed to have the architect uh cheyenne wrangle joining me uh on the zoom tonight as well if we have any questions i will confirm that um we are before the board tonight under sections 198 201 and 203 requesting a special permit uh pursuant to 198 401.1.2 to expand the existing non-conforming single-family house that's presently located at 43 plain road uh we were before the board in november of 2025 and have been continued to this date i'll get into that more in a minute 43 plain road is located in the r30 district it's presently non-conforming due to the lot size and the side yard setback on one side of the house uh if you were facing the house the right side is non-conforming at this point um i do note that the frontage also appears to be non-conforming but uh i according to the code uh it predates uh there's a 1953 date in the code that if the frontage was in place uh as of that date that it is it is conforming so uh the frontage is not changing but i i i also think that it's it's not conforming under the code uh but the frontage is remaining the same regardless i did just want to point uh that out um as i said we originally appeared before the board in november um there was uh proposed originally as a large expansion of this single-family house uh there was a large contingent of neighbors who'd appeared uh on that uh evening i wanted to discuss custom things related to the project uh the main uh points of emphasis that we understood from the neighbors and the board were there were concerns related to the scope of the house the scope and the size uh the stormwater runoff visibility and safety uh related to uh the location of the structure and also the board had asked for just some technical things like uh the layout of the attic and uh stuff like that so um i do want to start if i can if i can share the screen if that's all right since i have the ability to do that i'm gonna try to do okay great okay so you're with me now yes okay so i am starting this was our original proposal at 43 plain road uh large three three bay car garage this was a large house approximately 5500 square feet and this is the new proposal here on the right uh this is uh 3800 square feet so it's a significant reduction uh in the in the square footage uh so uh we were originally one of the items that we were before the board originally was for the lot coverage requirement so this house is presently if you if you increase the lot coverage greater than above the 20 threshold obviously it triggers a special permit uh the original iteration of this house which is on the the left here did so um i am happy to report to the board tonight that the current iteration of the house uh the footprint is significantly smaller and now the house on the right uh now falls under that 20 threshold and that special permit is now moot in in my reading of it so the the new project is already more conforming than the original proposal uh in for purposes of the lot uh law coverage it's a seven percent reduction from what was proposed originally now down to 16.4 uh percent uh i'm just gonna i'm gonna maximize this if this is all right just so we can just focus with this one for now um okay why did that happen to me hold on a second sorry sorry okay um another thing i want to focus on is uh the square footage obviously has greatly decreased uh the original proposal was 107 uh 107 percent um 100 173 increase of the existing square footage of the house uh it has now uh been reduced by 103 and it's now a 70 percent increase so significant reduction in the gross floor area as well uh and also i want to show the board the plot plan and some of the efforts that my clients made here um so what you'll see is this is the original the original plan here let me just maximize it um what so you can see our existing this is the existing foundation here what was originally proposed was this was going to be a large addition here to uh the left and you know what i understood from the neighbors was that the intersection of plain road and glenn road here is is a high traffic intersection there was concerns about visibility here related specifically to the location of the house so one of the things that my clients did is now this is just pull this one up this is now our current uh this is the current proposed plot plan now here and what you'll see is um this addition now has been pulled this is over 10 feet from glenn road where it was originally and additionally this has been pulled back seven feet here so you know this delta of space which has been created here in the reduction of the footprint of the house was done with the intent to you know not only reduce the square footage but also to help increase visibility if that was if that was a potential complaint there um one other thing i do want to go over quickly was there was a in a butter um there's a butter to the rear here and uh there's a butter on glenn road here uh and he had raised concern uh where the lock slopes from front to back uh he had raised concerns about stormwater runoff onto his lot and i just the applicant has now presented a site plan i just wanted to show the board there's two cultec uh 150 gallon chambers here so there's two chambers in each one of these total four chambers here um for the roof runoff so any stormwater runoff now will run into these chambers and will be discharged into the street to help alleviate any water um running backwards to the back there so uh we're just overwhelmed let me just click out here so
question with respect to the site plan where is the uh where is the septic system on site plan oh do i have that uh the septic is existing so no no i i know i know that it is i'm just curious it's going to the rear it's in the rear it's in the rear okay yeah i mean it would happen it would have to be in the rear yes well i so i don't see it on the site plan no it's not on the site plan uh we we probably do need that shown on the site plan just because if i look at the site image it's pretty wooded in the back so the site if the septic is in the back it's it's kind of in the woods we should we should get this we probably should get the site plan updated to at least show that
noted noted um so yeah overall um that's the that's the big changes that have been done here um you know my i just want to you know emphasize that my client did that first meeting in november we were aware that the neighbors were there we were aware that they had concerns what we did on that night was we took the phone numbers of everybody who was in attendance my clients created like a group chat amongst all the all the people that were in attendance and any revisions of these plans have been shared to these neighbors uh throughout the months as we've been working through this revision and i'm not aware of any feedback that that we've received from the neighbors in addition um i just wanted the board to know that you know my my clients did make a concerted effort to hear the neighbors and work with them to try to present a project that excuse me no no excuse me stop talking please uh can you please pull back up the site plan yeah i can do that yes thank you
can you see me yeah can you just zoom in please it's a straight line that's that's not the site plan that we have oh you want this okay you want the other one i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry too many plans yeah the site plan the the updated site plan i think is the revised january 5th bottom right corner let's do something separate well that's that doesn't match what that is
has the deck in another location and there's no flat line on the back all right i i i might have just pulled up the wrong plan just give me one second yes i if if i presented it it's it's just an error on my end if i presented something that's outside of the package i'm just i'm trying to be i'm trying to be of assistance by sharing the screen it's i it's just it's just an error on my end so we have we have two site plans in the packet we have the plot plan which is dated december 8th and then we have the site plan which shows the contour lines which the date on the print is january 5th bottom right right corner i said of december 4th no i have december 9th then revise january january 5th yeah okay there's two dates on so missing on here number one is we don't have distances to the outlines and what you were saying is that we're missing the location of well it's confusing as i said because there's two there's two site drawings one of them shows the contours and call tech drainage and the other one is the certified plot plan that shows the zoning setbacks the zoning setbacks are indicated on the december 8th plan and the call tech is indicated on the january 5th plan and that's what the that's what the applicant presented these don't match those don't match the those don't match the documents in the share file those two prints they add them as do not match what i have so the additional application if you go on additional application 1208 and you click on that it should be all in one so there should be the plot plan and the revised plan so revise materials yes revise the application and then 1209 if you click on that document there should be third page to be revised site plan yeah that's what i haven't seen so that's exactly what i got so did you so look there's there's two different things here okay that's the one that i'm looking at so this is from date stamp january 8th yeah that's not the most recent one it says yeah it says december 4th that says december right so that's from that's an older one i get i'm assuming it was revised but then that says december 8th i understand that but then if you go back it says revised so go to uh right so i don't know the summer 4th to most recent one which is january 8th here's a lot of plot plans i i understand which is this let's keep going yeah i assume it's the most recent one yeah and that's consistent with what the applicant presented i mean this is what what happens when last minute revisions are done it was jimmy the last one was i know we just got one friday the fire where's the stamp jimmy yeah so i so one of the challenges we're having right is that in the completed application the new the newest completed application the site plan is different from the updated site plan that you submitted that's why this is so confusing because the board has two separate packages of information and they have different site plans so it's making this harder it's making this harder than it needs to be to review at this point what does the board want to do with this because we're we're just wasting time time on this so i guess i i i want to understand like the board cannot understand which is the final site plan and i recognize sorry sorry which is which application material is correct because we have your completed application file it has site plans that do not match the most recent site plans that you seem to have submitted separately and they don't seem to match what was approved by the board of house so there's continues to be a paperwork problem with this project that i don't i don't know how to sort out mr care i think it seems appropriate to to reflect the continuance while we continue i i apologize that this happens i you know i i'm i'm doing it's a lot it's a lot of plans i'm overwhelmed as well but i i apologize that this continues to happen clean slate it with the applicant yeah i mean it's getting everything fresh so like when we meet next time yeah i i think it i think it makes it just be better for the applicant and better for us yeah just because like i i mean you've spent a lot of time revising this and i i want to respect that you've got an updated set of architectural plans that is radically different and i think does exactly what you said um so i just want to make sure we give this thing a fair proper hearing and we don't have information that is mismatched and we don't have either people on the board or the neighbors sort of referencing site plans that may be slightly different than your final intended site plan understood so i think it makes sense to again to to look for our continuance um hang on let me just what is our next meeting uh it should be march 10 right march 10th march 10th um i guess i'd make a motion to continue uh uh cba case 25 30 43 plain road to march 10th at 7 p.m second we'll call miss jenis hi mr hirsch hi miss paul sorry uh mr wright hi so you are continued to um march 10th at 7 p.m and you don't have another appeal in front of you so you can literally leave me first okay thank you all about paul paul need the gun so we did 7 p.m okay yes i'd rather get it sorted out properly and as i said make sure that you have a chance to present all the information exactly as you want it and in that also being called you know the neighbors also see the same information so what does receive i wonder uh how does the applicant receive comments i guess um yes let me ask you sorry just a quick question um the board receives letters from the neighbors do you do you also receive those i i have not been receiving those items if they're being submitted to the board though okay we usually don't share them unless the applicant asks for that okay i can share it yeah i just want i think it makes sense that like we do share it because if if the board has those comments i think it makes sense for you to also have those comments of course we're trying to have a we're trying to have a productive session we're trying to be good neighbors so if there's if there's feedback to be had we'd like to receive it and and you know do what we can with it of course yeah no absolutely i think that'd be great so yes if you could please please please forward that information off that would be great thank you all right so we're going to move on to the next case um this is the continuation of case uh cva case 25-35 for 8 parkridge road this is the application of api development company for the property located at 8 parkridge road in the single residence are 20 districts the applicant seeks a special permit variance or other applicable zoning relief to demolish the existing structure and in respect of replacement drawing a lot is pre-existing non-informing in respect to a lot area requirements so is this a separate is this a typo in the in the notice or is instead of ipa this is api no that is that is not a that is not a typo that is correct okay i just want to be sure okay all right and i'm assuming you're going to be presenting uh information on this case as well i am i am thank you thank you again uh members of the board again andrew delori i have my father again just for the record i have my father attorney 12 with me here off camera as always my clients ivy ferrion and uh rick capucci are in the audience i believe the architect is also on the zoom if we have any questions um the applicant again is is before the board 198201 198203 requesting a special permit pursuant to 19840112 to again expand pre-existing non-conforming single family uh presently located at 8 parkridge road 8 parkridge road located in the r20 district and presently non-conforming due to lot size and side yard setback again as to the frontage uh appears to be non-conforming as the frontage on its face but it predates the uh date in the zoning code and as thus is in my opinion is conforming under section 706.1 um in this instance the applicant originally appeared before the zba in december again with a larger uh expansion of uh the home and will be presented tonight uh there was some neighbors in attendance again my clients uh you know had to have been in discussions uh with those neighbors uh and we did have some comments from the board again uh focused on uh the scope and size of the home we also had a long discussion about the location and where the house may sit on the lot uh also particularly related to where the garage was located and uh another simple simple request to again show the attic plan um so i'm going to try to share the screen again here see if i have better success this time around and before before you do i just want to be sure you received um did you receive the memos from the planning board on this project
i am in the possession of two i think the most recent ones from january if there if there's a more recent one than that i'm not in possession but i do have two from the planning director yeah okay i just wanted to be sure you had that okay yes i i am in receipt of those thank you so we're looking at this one 121 yeah uh so again yeah okay on eight parkridge road um i'm gonna reverse the time on the right here this is where we started uh on the right here um you know larger house uh again three-car garage uh located on the right here uh to the left this is this is the new iteration smaller footprint um one of the key components of this which we discussed with the board of that original hearing was the board had we had a long discussion about uh using a portion of the existing structure which the original proposal here on the right uh was not doing its best job to utilize the existing structure my clients made an effort to uh front the house on the street kind of bring it into uniformity uh with the rest of the neighborhood but we had a discussion uh about you know difficulties that that may cause with other scenarios for them so um what my client did was instead we reversed the location of the garage this garage is is uh located upon uh the existing foundation of where the house is um let me just show you now so this is where we started originally here on parkridge road and uh as you can see this is the this was the existing dwelling here which is you we're trying to use a small portion of it originally there's also a detached garage over here which is which will be raised um this is the this is the new layout okay so uh this is the new proposed existing garage which uses uh the existing foundation uh with an expansion uh here to the to the right um again decrease from the between the two proposals we're discussing a decrease um this was again a 20 percent uh law coverage special permit the the reduction in the house has allowed uh this to come down to 13 and a half percent so again that's now moot uh and and informing uh there's a square footage reduction here as well um and uh you know overall uh my clients had the board remembers my client had constructed a project across the street um trying to bring similar success to the to the neighborhood with a project that complements it in the same way uh my class so my client did try to present the project here that uh you know is more uniformity with what the neighbors uh seem to have to have desired um so i do just want to open i'm a little concerned based on my last presentation about the plans that are in front of the board now um i'm hoping that we're all we're all looking at the same plans that um but this is the uh this is our our reduced footprint here uh i just want to show you quickly here's our attic layout that had been discussed it's an unfinished attic uh and then this is just our general uh layout layout of the property here so um the applicant if if things are in order uh the applicant would uh obviously invite the comment of the board and then uh if the board were so inclined would uh request the favorable grants of a special permit under uh 198401.1.2 thank you okay thank you um so i'm glad you asked the question about materials because there also seems to be a little bit of confusion with the materials here um it looks like something was submitted with some incorrect dates so can maybe we could get some guidance from the building commissioner or um the building staff on this question it's it's really confusing to look through the materials we have correct so we received upon uh a architectural plan uh with the date january 8 which was a revision to the previous architectural plan which will then we have a plan for the applicant not accept this since there have been revision made through prior plans the same date so we received a new central plan dated january 21st but then the clock plan was submitted with the old plan of january 8 revision month and it's dated january 19 so the new site plan should be generally uh the new architectural plan should be january 21st anina um what is the what is the uh the stamp the date stamp on it from the building commissioners from your office february 9th
i think the one that you received is still the one with the wrong date january 8 that's the one that you picked up that has the revision so you don't have the january 21st because they were dropped off on monday i believe okay so it was a late submission as well as the memo came after perfect and there's no site plan on the last version there's no and there's no site plan okay we dropped off without the site plan and without a you know being able to see everything look at the student record sitting here but we're still missing a site plan can you just you can't see some places that means i don't even have any is there another revised version besides this for the application they dropped off the architectural plan wise but no version of this and no site plan so we're missing so it looks like we're missing a site plan for the current architectural set is that does that can does that run here special set dated january 21st 2026 which is the most recent does not have a site plan all right so as much as i hate to do this i think we may need to continue this until we can get uh i guess a site plan that matches the architectural plans and we need a new form that matches as well all right it needs to be revised the application needs to be revised so i'm trying i'm just trying i'm trying to simplify this so if it's just if it's just a site plan that we need to get to match the architectural plan the dwelling change in size dwelling change in size which means all of the information so the application needs to be updated needs to be updated now you may approach and state your name please okay that's my name um the application was like as the last application we like i explained to her we did not change anything on the plans we just put some information about the height like but in the memo that i sent was explained you have different plans here different plans you have different numbers that go along with those plans for like death death that's the same plan the only thing we when i sent the plans here the only thing i mentioned to her we include was uh some information about the attic we did not change anything and the size of the size of the house on the drawing anything so you didn't know this not no no from from uh december 30 no no he was saying for november for the old one not on that one the only thing we had some more information include that to be like about the height that was like wasn't complete and i wrote a memo memorandum that uh i gave to her to uh sent you and explain that wasn't changed anything on the structure of the house on the size it's only it was only explain like uh some other information about like showing the attic that's unfinished the base that was unfinished just include some more information but all that information should be on your place yeah that is on this plan yeah but didn't change the application and that was i i explained to her yeah we asked for a memo because there were so many changes okay so you asked for the memo to reflect the current set then so you don't know what would change okay that makes that that makes sense all right so it sounds like i'm sorry planning speaker thank you yes yes and we have the memo here um it summarizes change uh refinement of the building massing clarification the building height and adage configuration no increase in habit of the floor area the interior layout adjustments so i'm reading this look the only thing we're missing i just want to be clear on this is just simply a site plan that matches this in the package the uh that's a good point well we have staff comments from the board of health um i have to spare you for a second um as the board of health gave a conceptual approval for this already so uh now it was based on a was based on a plot plan from november 15th so this makes it a little complicated but sometimes if they have a new plot plan they need to be able to go off the there should be an easy approval but they need to go back and get another yeah just may need to get i the board of health has already approved this we just may need to get have them issue us a new memo that replaces the uh this plot plan with the newer one and since the newer one is smaller i have no reason to suspect they won't just be able to create this quickly i'm trying to streamline this so we can um we can actually get to this this case um but what it sounds like again is i think we're going to need a continuance on this just to make sure we have the paperwork 100 uh squared away on this understood yeah i would make a motion that we continue zba case 25-35 for eight parkridge road to march 10th at 7 05 pm so we'll make sure that you are again first and second on that second um so if i will call miss janice hi mr harsh hi miss paul all right mr white i so you are officially extended to that time and we'll see if we can get this uh squared away thank you all have a very nice thank you sexual all right um thank you thank you thank you all right so we we can move on to our next case this is uh zba case 2603 for 228 bleeds and lane um the applicant doug ravine on behalf of the wayland stone and tennis club is requesting a special permit for the property at 228 district the applicant is seeking renewal of the special permit for an additional five years to increase the non-member membership from 200 to 225. the meeting will be opened and the request will continue this continue this to the march 10th 2026 community um good evening good evening how are you i'm good good to be here there is um a neighbor here as well yeah i'd love to
so you need a continuance yes um we had and we sent out a letter that i dropped in the mailboxes of the surrounding neighbors on gleason and autumn um they also sent a letter to us and about a week or so two of my fellow board members uh hosted a zoom meeting of which i believe eight or so of the neighbors attended and voiced some of their objections specifically to the requested increase in membership um so we as a board are going to take that feedback and actually have a discussion in about 15 minutes um and then we'd like to talk again to the neighbors uh prior to finalizing our question i think it's very commendable great so like so if we put you on for march 10th 7 15 yeah that should be plenty of time okay all right so excuse me if you had a question if you could come up and introduce yourself to the screen and address my name is uh mark somerville i live at 238 gleason lane i've lived there for the last 24 years i have the longest property line uh to the wayland swimming tennis club it goes the entire length of the eastern portion of the swimming tennis club so the closest area to west um and i just want to say that things have gotten louder uh there and people have been playing tennis there up to 10 10 p.m uh and i believe they're supposed to uh stop playing at around 8 or 9 p.m so there have been more noise uh more cars uh and things have been louder now uh it's my understanding that there's a request uh to have 25 more fam which means that it's going to be over 100 people and it's going to be over 50 cars uh that are going to start coming uh into the neighborhood in that area and the neighbors are very impacted by it i heard the individual who just stepped up say that he's been in contact with the neighbors i've had no contact whatsoever i have the longest property line uh to wayland's swimming tennis club and they've had no contact with me when this was proposed there was no outreach at least not to me and i know some of my neighbors indicated to me the same thing through a letter uh and they've indicated that there was some problems contacting uh the people who are running the swimming tennis club i've been a good neighbor over 24 years i've never come here to oppose uh anything that the swimming tennis club has uh i wanted to do this is the first time and uh so i would object to any continuance here uh if there's been conversations with neighbors i haven't been included and the neighbors who uh wrote me the letter i'm not sure if they have either maybe they have i'm not uh but this is going to be a problem for us we all have been good neighbors we've uh tolerated a lot uh we should have the right to quiet enjoyment of our property and um that's what we're asking for uh this really
has gone kind of under the radar with a lot of the neighbors and uh so if there's some other conferencing or conversations that are going to be done i wasn't aware of that so you know it's difficult to take time after you go to work and come to these meetings and um you know i made an effort and i'm sure other people uh made an effort also uh so i would ask you to reject the request uh because it's going to be burdensome for the neighborhood uh it's going to be an excessive amount of cars uh and it's going to be over uh 100 more people who are going to be attending so thank you very much thank you i can i can put you at ease in the sense that um request to continue is only so we can have another hearing on the case and the neighbors could have a chance to come and present so our vote for our motion to continue the request to continue this is not to approve the that's being asked of us it's just to continue the debate to another meeting so um if we continue this you'll have a chance to speak it also puts a burden on the department you know accept a request i don't think we get have can reject a an application yeah i don't think legally we can just reject the application so like if we voted to not if we voted to not continue this i don't i don't think we can actually do that i think we have to vote to continue we have to pick a date and a time and that has to get publicly noticed notified and then everybody who is an interested party can come to that next meeting but i i think it would be i think it would be impossible for us to deny and just say we don't want to and it is an option to do this via zoom if you can't come in that's the effect it is it is an option if you if you would like it that way you don't have to come in person just so that way you are aware yeah i was aware i am kind of curious uh mr living um how were the neighbors notified do you know yeah i was trying to look up all of the edges addresses of where i dropped we had a letter that was under the signatory of our board president who is patrick murkbox and dropped the letter we have a link hold on let me just we have a list of abutters i had to get a certified list from the town building so i worked from that list and then we also have a list of neighbors and abutters that are entitled to neighbor membership so we also hit those addresses so we really tried to capture everybody and then there's a woman who's the neighborhood liaison on our who has i am told reached out to the neighbors separately on more than a couple of occasions and through her i think they set up that zoom meeting she also is an immediate abutter of the property possible to be able to reach out to definitely yeah because i know that there'll be another meeting the town also notifies the abutter within like you know so within here and we publish it in the metro west uh we have two days one is one week before the meeting and the other one is two i got the notification from uh that's one of the reasons why i'm here but i also got a notification from two neighbors
so i think that we need to vote on the continuance yes and yeah so i guess i'd make a motion that we continue zba case 2603 for 228 weasel lane to march 10th at 7 15. second in call miss jennis mr hirsch hi miss paul hi miss perry mr white hi so full disclosure we we have to pick the times that are close to the start of our meeting the as you saw tonight we had two cases that are we are going to hear before the case for the swimming tennis club and there are a lot of people that are opposed to those two residential projects so it's likely that when you start that case at seven it's going to take us at least a half an hour to get through the first one and at least a half an hour to get through the second one so now it's also possible that one of those two doesn't show up and we're stuck so as much as i say oh you should come at eight and enjoy your time at home it's a good idea to come close to 7 15 but bring in distraction because it's possible that we won't start until 8 15. i understand thank you very much but the game boy are mute yeah
the um can i make a suggestion too you could at home you could also watch you could you could you know sign in to watch and see the progress of the meeting and then gauge how much time you need to arrive oh that's true yes if you sign in on zoom and at eight o'clock we're still talking about the first case you know there's no reason to rush down no i'd rather come in and watch the exciting okay didn't earn a show thank you so thank you we voted on that okay so we are moving on to our next case this is a zba case 2604 135 commonwealth road this is the application of richard thomas for the property at 135 commonwealth road located in the single residence r20 zoning district the applicant seeks a special permit variance or other applicable zoning excuse me to construct a garage the proposed addition would reduce the side yard setback from 20.7 feet to 8.7 feet and the applicant is therefore requesting requesting relief the lot is pre-existing non-conforming with respect to the minimum lock area on one side the setback er setback requirements so good evening you can come up and give us your name and address and tell us about your project yes thank you thank you my name is richard thomas i'm the owner of the property at 135 commonwealth and which is the house end of 2023 and that's when i moved to wayland it's my first time here very nice meeting all of you so um there is no existing garage in the property and i want to get a garage built there so i work with an architect and uh and and a land surveyor and uh based on um based on the location of the septic tank and the leech field the only place where i can build a garage that's going to be a one car garage is um is where it's been presented in the in the plan and it's it's along the uh left side of the house if you were to be facing the house and it's going to be on an existing driveway so there is no new impervious land and um and yes and and so the um because of the location i mean because of the septic uh field and septic tank and the leech field is the only place i can do it and so that brings the the required setback is 15 feet but um this would bring it down to eight feet um seven inches and so that's why i'm looking for relief and uh my immediate neighbors um three of them so two of them are residential properties i reached out to the uh to the landlords and they expressed their support um the third property is uh the one that's actually right next to the garage is is a commercial property i i did reach out to them by email they they acknowledged the receipt of the email but i haven't um heard from them yet i don't know if they're on zoom right now but um as such um i haven't had any um you know none of the neighbors have had any have had any problems with this plan as of yet here i am looking for relief thank you did you receive a copy of town planner yeah so i read the memo from the town planner and the town planner is incorrect this is a straightforward special permit application the town planner was suggesting that this is a variance because you can't distort the garage so before we go any further i want to ask the building commissioner who is also the chief zoning enforcement officer um if he's read this planning board memo he either agrees with me or agrees with the town planner i'm not trying to put you on the spot as your commissioner but this is an extremely confusing memo from the town planner because like if what the town planner says is correct like i would say virtually every application we have would be unallowed under a special permit okay i just want to i want to i'm going to be sure i'm not i'm not missing something yes okay he didn't apply saying that he has a hardship he just wants to go to the garage so correct i mean the application is for a special permit the town planner has written us a memo saying that like this is you can't approve this i don't understand because this is this is like any other special permit application we have for a non-pre-existing non-performing lot asking for a side yard you've done this before okay i just like we've done this before under a special permit i don't know why we would need a variance for this he's got a different view on things and i don't know why but um but i i do i do think it's important because this is the second time we've received this memo that i think is is not legally correct so i think it's important that we have we bring the town planner to the next zoning meeting and we have him articulate his concern because i don't i would like to not receive i'd like the zoning board not to receive another memo like this that i think is factually important that it goes does the board agree i agree 100 percent miss janice do you have a any insight no i was actually trying to look at look up the memo i'd read it before but i did not print it so um i think if there's a question either there's a communication with him before the meeting or requesting that he come to the meeting that's true he doesn't necessarily have to come to the meeting you could give us like you could give us some clarification but um yeah so under 401.1.2 is is and i'll read it verbatim pre-existing non-conforming building structures or uses may be changed extended or altered by a special permit issued by the cva pursuant to the provisions of 198.201 and 198.203 of the sony by one so okay it's straightforward straightforward yeah i i would agree all right so now that we have that out um i actually i've reviewed this material i think this is a very complete application i was here true i yeah i was just gonna before we before we go into that so i just want to get that out of the way i didn't want i didn't want the applicant to be concerned that we're gonna veer off into a different direction here so before we go into any deliberations uh is there anybody online it doesn't look like it i think i only see the three oh someone has raised their hand hang on for one second so i think so yeah carrie mccormick so good evening mr mccormick you had a you had a question uh yes good evening i'm not sure how to uh put on the video oh sorry okay
but i am unmuted so you can hear me okay yes we can yes okay great so so i'm carrie mccormick director of development crosspoint associates we own the shopping center next door with the star starbucks and um various uh retail um tenants so we were we were able to connect with um um richard earlier today uh i'm just getting up to speed on it i'm curious if there are going to be any trees that are going to be cut down along the property line because i think it is good to have some level of buffer for both of us um sorry the question was am i going to add trees is that the question no no no well i think there's a tree tree buffer yes yes yes yes there are multiple trees along the boundary are you planning to remove any of them no no not at all there's going to be on the existing driveway so none of the trees in fact i would love to add more arborvited trees and get more that's the plan uh so mr mccormick any other questions or no no that was the main question we're just we just got the plans today so we're looking at them uh circulating to the team okay anything for or against i apologize uh question to me yes mr mccormick uh no nothing at this time okay i guess any questions from the board i make a comment on the dwelling but this line has been substantially uh rehabbed uh several years ago um a gentleman from natick um quite the eyesore and uh he um he brought it back to life and made it a very beautiful uh historic building that really puts in that neighborhood and i think that the architectural drawings that uh proposed matches the flat roof matches the the the um the structure the addition on on the right side of this um so it is in uh keeping with the character of the uh of the existing dwelling and roof lines so i i think it's a good fit for the neighborhood
thank you location materials like the drawings are great everything is labeled it's so in order to um we need to um we need to make a finding under 401.1.2 that um oh you had a question yeah i did so i'm just looking at the plans because i didn't i didn't get these um in physical form and i have a question is there is the garage a one-story structure yes okay so the drawings that we have are these more of a um um uh courtesy it says a i'm seeing a proposed second floor plan oh no no so that's the whole existing and proposed plan of the entire building and nothing else is going to be changed the the architect felt it to be complete to to have a full package of every floor for both pre and post and so nothing else is going to be changed yes it's just a courtesy yes okay okay thanks okay then i got it all right so i mean the under 401.1.2 we've got to make a finding that this isn't substantially more detrimental um i think it's very clear that it's not i think uh especially the the way the garage has been designed to sort of complement the flat roof of the of the addition on the left side of the structure and sort of continuing the same fenestration and materials i think this is uh any other comments okay i'd make a motion under uh section 203.1 um that the proposed structure for the application for which the application is being made it's not against public interest it doesn't derivate from the character of the neighborhood in which the use building structure occurs and it's not more detrimental or it's not detrimental or offensive because of noise vibration smoke gas fumes odor dust for any other objectionable features and if the proposed use building or structure is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the inhabitants of the town where there are being dangerous to the public health or safety and that we should approve a special permit under that section um propose that we add two conditions to that that the project is constructed in accordance with the plans and application materials that have been submitted and the applicant needs to um obtain obtain any other approvals that may be required to get it in front of class so we're going to do this by roll call vote miss jennis hi mr harsh hi miss paul hi mr parry hi mr white aye you were approved so we have a there's a two-week period to write the decision and then there's a mandatory 20-day appeals period and then after that you can pick up the signed decision and file it with registry deeds and you're off to the next step which is to get the permit fantastic so thank you thank you thank you thank you all right so um we just have one more case tonight this is zba case 2605 for 44 boston close roads this is the applicant applicant uh signorama of ulster on behalf of the property owner wayland plaza llc seeking a special permit for the property at 44 boston post road located in the business aid district to install an additional building sign of 38.5 square feet non-illuminated and to obtain retroactive retroactive approval for a standalone sign of 27 square feet the applicant is requesting relief for both the number of signs and total square footage so um do we have uh anyone here to present this good evening my name is mike can you hear me yes we can oh great uh i'm the owner of signorama worcester uh on behalf of the uh the business there at uh on post road uh first i want to i want to start by apologizing for um not pulling the permit on the face that we replaced on the standalone sign when we were filing the paperwork for this uh this building sign uh it was my impression that it was uh it was a rebrand and not actually a business takeover so uh i just wanted to get that out of the way appreciate that thank you
this is a uh these are channel letters uh we have proposed two locations uh as options here one would be on that funny funny shaped roof that is just above the entrance uh the other would be on the brick where it used to have uh i believe it said post road liquors uh on individual letters so uh following the same theme as what was there before okay and um you were saying that the sign the sign is not illuminated correct it it is not illuminated no um have you received a copy of the uh design review board um memo or no i have the uh the paperwork here for this meeting but i do not have the memo from the design review board i'm just going through the stack here in my folder so we received a memo from actually from the planning board it seems a little odd because it it it says that the sign it says that the sign you're requesting is illuminated but i think it's not well it certainly could be it could be illuminated but i was under the impression that that was just simply not going to be an option so we we forfeited yeah and our materials to be fair saying not illuminated so i'm not quite sure well actually this memo is from anina so anina can you can can you give us a uh shed a little light on um yes i think during the design report they presented plans with um a sign that was illuminated and they made them the applicant aware that this is actually not allowed so they answered to this memo and they made it run and they also submitted two options because i think there there has been discussion whether it is possible for them to put it on the roof if that's like structurally uh safe or if they should go with the second option and um so that's how we got this mission got it okay thank you
so i guess one of the one question is is is is your intent to pose a sign that doesn't match the font and branding of the sign you're asking us to approve on a retroactively approve on the road
the sign on the road is is as it sits now we we and we put those faces in uh in the late fall somewhere around that time uh but the but the sign on the building here in the two options is as it is shown this is liquor hub's font uh at all their locations the one that's on the building or the one that's on the sign out front the one that's on the building when they do the channel letters on the building they what they go with this font so the one on the road is already there yeah so they're so they're asking us to retroactively approve the one on the road that wasn't approved and they're asking us to approve this new one and which we can do because under the file we can approve signs that exceed the total square they're also if i'm getting this right to choose between option one and option two yes as part of that i would agree i mean i have i have a very strong opinion about that i don't know um in my opinion option two a solid idea i don't understand how those dimensional letters would actually work on the mansard reform i also think it's extremely attractive compared to option uh two which that is where the previous sign was located yeah i mean i was literally thinking the same thing but the uh i'm actually in agreement with all of you on that uh this was originally proposed on the on the roof but um as this progressed i i have the cut the our client has leaned more towards the brick so we quickly inserted that as a as another option
you have a question yes i do the sign that is on the lawn that they're asking for a retroactive approval was there a sign already there that said post road liquors in that yes this is that that sign is the same cabinet that was there that said post road liquors it's just a new face inserted in in the cabinet okay and is there any illumination in that sign um i have not been there in the evening i do not think there is i know that the uh they asked me about it um and i told them i need to to look into that i i don't think that it is illuminated i didn't know if there was any wiring that's already out there for the i don't i think that if i if i remember there is up lights uh from uh from down in the in the uh the vegetation okay and the lighting that's on the building is it is it more that um it's the color that is so brilliant so yes it's um it's it's not illuminated it's just it's just a red vinyl that's their their um their color uh for their liquor hub stores so it looks very vibrant but in reality it's it's just a standard red vinyl rising wise and to scale wise is this this yes if you're asking if it is to scale it is to scale it is to scale and it's two feet high two feet yes the letters the letters themselves are are two feet tall oh so it's really 48 inches worth of signage well if you if you if you stacked it um on the on the brick option it comes out to about four feet yeah four feet high sorry the the dimensions are showing what's on the roof because each letter is actually two feet but uh on the when you have liquor and then you have hub below it it comes out to four feet just over with the spacing what's the current size of the wettering that's on there currently um i didn't measure it we took it off it was all broken and and sunbeet so um i'd have to try to find some pictures to figure out what was there before but it was in a it was in a weird shape it was like a half circle for post the post road portion and then liquor kind of came up like a like a flat or smiley sort of shape it covered it covered a lot of that wall oh it looks like i mean we're looking at the the old google uh photo and they look substantially smaller okay like substantially smaller but i also think it's it's because the original letters on the building were silver or gray it looks a lot more subtle um i i in my opinion i i think the proposed sign is is too large and i i think i i don't know that i think what's particularly attractive on the building i think the the sign that was there previously is a lot more in keeping with uh maybe not so distinguished architecture of the building but i i think it's a little too much signage on that building base in my opinion on the rest of the board feels but i i have a question are you open changing the color and potential size of the option two well their interest is primarily to have the sign on the building um i would i would hope that we can meet halfway by changing the color to make it blend more with the wall and keep the size the same if that's possible like a silver would be a you know a silver color or gray would be a lot more suitable less less uh stop sign less flash uh i think we want to see any we want to see we want to see some additional options would yeah would this be possible to create uh additional renderings of different size options and colors that could be amenable to both you the board would that be something that you'd be open to creating you mean continuing it to next month potential yes yeah yeah i think we have to continue it to next month um so give you a chance to put together an alternate um an alternate idea but i i'd like to see one where the letters are smaller i i still think the letters are too large you know this is only 30 feet from the other side okay would you be amenable to continuing to uh uh the march 10th hearing sure any other comments from the board on this before we is having multiple options that we you know we could choose one well i mean i mean we were told we were told by the planning board to reject this application so i'm trying to i'm trying to find a way to sort of find a minute to find a middle ground yeah just when he comes back this idea of having multiple options and us choosing an option during the meeting is that we can do that if you choose to yeah yeah uh one additional piece that one additional piece can you just get confirmation for us whether or not uh there is any uh lightage around the street sign and that way we have a solid answer on that since we're going to be continuing anyways you're asking me to get confirmation on the lighting for the for the street sign and to confirm whether or not oh yes yeah there there is no lighting inside that sign the only lights are are vegetation lights that shine up on the sign that's that's i don't even know that those are even working anymore well could you confirm that determine whether you you wish them to be replaced or not so that are you well are you asking are you asking for us not to replace those lights that are in the in the ground if if that's the case no i'm not what i'm asking is can you confirm if those lights are working or not and then you you have that information then ready at hand so you can determine whether you want to replace it or if there's anything this board needs to do okay about that lighting we just want to make sure that we give you everything that you need for being able to come back to us from march to be able to make a decision for you okay so we'll get you some different sizes and uh different colors and then i will confirm that the lights are either working or not working that are in the ground great thank you um hang on i need it you gotta uh sorry yes i just wanted to clarify that the memo uh it didn't come from the uh planning board it's from the design review board and it's a recommendation they're only uh an advisory board okay so i make a motion that we uh continue zva case 2605 44 boston coast bridge march 10th which is safety we can say eight o'clock so there's no way i don't want to give it any i mean it's probably going to be nine o'clock by the time we get to them
all right uh miss jenis hi mr hirsch hi miss paul mr perry mr white hi so you are continued to uh eight clock on uh march 10th okay thank you thank you what if doug asks for a continuous again what if doug asks for a continuous again just those first two cases are going to take us yeah that'll take us an hour unless unless they fit i suppose if it doesn't then we can play and talk yeah and then i say anyone who wants this job more than i'm more than happy to give it up to them so you want you want to have that conversation um just you want that conversation yeah absolutely um so uh do we have uh we have some updates from the building commissioner um just that um i think all of you have been aware that we've had a fishing uh incidents with uh zba decisions and we have put it on the website and on all our disclaimers for our notifications that you pay a one-time fee for your application there are no other fees that are associated with any decision um a fishing scam is people have contacted applicants and said that they owe money up to five thousand dollars um post decision and to wire the money to a bank in california so if anyone's listening do not it's a one-time fee do not wire any money to anybody it's it's a false claim unfortunately one individual did uh succumb to this we had another individual that uh called anita called the office and informed them not to proceed that was a scam so that's the biggest thing that's going on so um and um we're going to research the uh digitized to the left stamp um confirmation on our future decisions that we received and the registry dtappy so thank you for both those updates um so when i signed the decisions i just attach my signature in acrobat but then i flatten it and it literally is just it looks it looks the same and conceptually is the same as a as me signing a wet stamp and scanning it and emailing them a pdf so that's not to say it's it's different than docu-sign because when anita opens it it doesn't show up as my signature it just shows up as embedded in the document not like a docu-sign signature so obviously if i come down and to sign and sign each decision in person i can easily do that my office is in town so it's not that big a deal for like real estate closings when the registry needs ask for a wet signature they want an actual signature which we do it can be done exactly the same as a copy of a wet signature correct yours it will look no different than that so i think we're just gonna have to wait for further guidance yeah this signature that got denied was actually from adam it was from mine and that it was an applicant but it was last year and they never had gone to the registry and then they went got it so it's a little different format than yours okay so and i use docu-sign which does have a signature on it but it also shows time stamp and everything that goes along with that which you would figure would be more be better than what i'm doing way more compliant than than what is what they're recommending but you know um but yeah i'm not aware of any other matters that we haven't already discussed does anyone have a motion move to adjourn second second wait no i tried to move to adjourn and somebody else said and then i tried to second and someone else said it i'm not anxious hi roll miss janice hi hi miss paul hi mr perry hi mr white hi we are adjourned thank you