June 9, 2026 – Zoning Board of Appeals – Video & Transcript
June 9, 2026 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Recording in progress.
If the meeting has remote access, one can watch or participate remotely with the meeting link. It can be found in the formal meeting device. We're required by law or allowed by the chair. Persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so at the meeting location in person or via your means. Public comment should be limited to two minutes per person. So with that, is there any general public comment? This is public comment and not related to the specific cases this evening. Hearing none. The next one asks if the board has had a chance to review the draft meeting minutes confirmed May 12, 2026. Yes. Yes. Any comments? No. I'd like to make a motion that the board approve the draft minutes of May 12, 2026. Second. All in favor? Aye. None. So those meeting notes were approved. All right. So with that, we can get going. We're going to start with the 7 p.m. case. This is EBA case 26-15 for 4 Emerson Way in Wayland. This is the application of Judith Blanchard Kennedy for the property located at 4 Emerson Road in a single residence R-20 district. The applicant seeks re-approval of a previously granted variance under former case 24-37 for the proposed expansion of an existing attached barrage. The variance was granted by the board in 2024 and reported to the Registry of Deeds on February 6, 2025. In due to a clerical error, the receipt form incorrectly identifies the approval as a special permit rather than a variance. As a result, the applicant proceeded under the understanding that the approval remained valid under special permit timelines and the applicable variance extension deadline was inadvertently missed. The variance is therefore elapsed, and the applicant now seeks re-approval of the same project previously approved by the board. All supporting materials remain unchanged except for the updated application form and the revised butter list. So do we have anyone here this evening to present this case? I'm Judy. Good evening, Judy. Do you want to come up? And is there a chair for you up there? Do you want me to sit? Of course, sir. Yeah, you don't have to stand. Absolutely, you should sit. You do not need to sit. No, it's after hours, you should absolutely be able to sit down and, um, yeah, just, I think I explained very clearly. You did. I just would like to tell you how I got into the mess. Um, after I got the approval and it went through Cambridge and everything, I talked to some people, some of the people I originally had talked to about this were no longer working in Wayland. Some people I talked to, um, didn't feel qualified to deal with the electrical and the foundation and all that. I couldn't get anybody to, to do it. Okay. And some other people were busy, nobody wanted to do anything. So I kind of got stuck in some other stuff over the summer. And then I came back to the building department, um, in December and said, how long have I got for this? And do I have, I was told two years, is that right? And the answer I got was, yes, I have two years. So now I have some, um, guys who are going to do it, but they can't draw a permit because it's a variance and it's expired, but nothing has changed. It's the same plan. It's everything the same except I got somebody to do it, but they can't because, because the variance has expired and Alina explained that, that the, the original approval I got on the front page, it says special permit, which is two years. And on another page, it says variance, which is one year. So I got the two year explanation and come to get the permit. And it's a one year deal. Well, thankfully I went back and I looked, I wrote the original variant decision, so, um, I reread it just now. Um, I think this is extremely straightforward because the board has already voted to approve this, grant this variance. The facts haven't changed. We have like a clerical error that I don't necessarily know who's responsible for that, but I don't think that matters. I don't think that changes the legal substance of this. So, unless the board disagrees, like I'm inclined to just make a motion, vote, and, and move this along. Yes. Agreed. Okay. Can I ask a question? Do I have to go through the Cambridge thing and, uh, and, uh, that whole routine all over again? Yes. I think, unfortunately, you do have to rerecord this, but I, I don't, I can't speak for the building department, but I'm sure as far as the town is concerned, if they know that you're going through that process, I don't think there's a reason to necessarily hold this up. I don't know if Nathan, you know, building commissioner needs the formal receipt from the registry indicating that you've done that, or if we know that it can sometimes be challenging to get things taken care of at the registry of deeds in like a 20 minute window, right? It could be a multi-day process. Do I have to wait the 30 days again for neighbors and all that stuff? No. In my opinion, no, because the board granted this, the board granted this variance. The facts haven't changed. No. Isn't there still an appeals area? That's still. So, I don't, well, let me ask you this question, I think we are just re-voting on the original application. I know we have a new application for us, but like, the facts haven't changed. So, I think the appeals period is 20 days, and I am not quite sure, since it has a new case number, and it needs to be recorded, I believe there might be a 20. Nathan, can you weigh in here? I would do it just to be safe. I can. Mr. Chair, everyone, yes, this is a new case. It does need to get registered again with the registry of deeds, and actually there is another 20-day appeal period, but the recipient can proceed at their own risk. And because it was previously approved, I do not see any problems with proceeding. So, unfortunately, you have to go back, Judith, back to the registry, but yes, we're okay to move forward. Well, I need to get new paperwork from you to send in, and get the town clerk to send in all that. Well, yes, but I think the paperwork from us is, we don't have to recreate the entire decision. I believe we can create a literally, like a one-paragraph decision that will take a day to write. That probably references the... And just references the original text. I don't, we do not need to recreate this entire process. Okay. So, as far as you're concerned, but I still have to go through the 20 days and the... Unfortunately, the 20-day period, I think we are legally bound. I don't, I don't have the authority to waive that. I wish that I did, but I don't... I do know that the notices went out to all my neighbors, because a couple of them said so. And nobody's objected, but... No, the appeal... It doesn't matter. Yeah, the appeal period, unfortunately, is mandatory. I don't, I don't, I can't guarantee this, but I really doubt you're going to have any trouble. But I just, I don't think we can waive that. I wish we could, but I really don't believe we can. We can't give you the advice to waive it or not, because there's a deal for you. And as the building commissioner said, you could, you could go and register it at your own risk, but that's, that's something for you to weigh. But I, I'm supposed to do it. Yeah. Okay. So, you know. Yeah. And that means that my contractors can't get a building permit until that's all done again? You talk to the... No, you, Judith, you can make application with the building department. We will, we will take in your application. You can proceed at your own risk. And like I said, I don't believe that you're going to have a problem. You don't have any opposition from any of your neighbors actually has support when you were heard last time. So you can move forward on this project. And I don't see a problem with that. So I get, I have to go, I go through the process, which I will do. But can my contractors who I've already given a deposit to, can they get a permit just to begin unless, without having to go get the thing back from Cambridge? Yeah. What, what Nathan is saying is as far as he's concerned, yes, there is the only potential danger is if for some reason, someone of your abutters decides to appeal. It just can, it can delay that process. But I, I doubt that it's going to happen. I can't guarantee that. But they didn't, they didn't, they didn't object before. And nothing has changed. So there's no reason to think that they will object this time. So that's what, that's what Nathan is saying. That's why we have to say you have to proceed at your own risk. I see. That's, that's the reason why. The only risk is that for some reason, someone can decide to object who didn't object before. I, I, I doubt that highly. You had a very, you had a very easy, straightforward case that made an enormous amount of sense. So it's not as though you were asking for something that was extremely egregious or very unusual. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So I should go see you guys. Yes.
That's not welcome. I want to, we haven't done anything yet. We have to do so. I know. We have to get this done. Technically we have to re-approve. Technically we have to re-approve this. So, um, I would make a motion that the board, um, re-approve the, uh, inadvertently lapsed variance for, for Emerson Road. Second. Okay. I think as long as I, I, I guess I would amend that motion and say that, um, the underlying conditions and documentation, documentation has not changed. And the project is, the project needs to be, you know, constructed in conformance with all the terms of the original variance. Correct. Yes. Yeah. Um, all right. So all in favor, uh, I opposed none. So typically we have like a 14 day process to write this, but I, I'd ask if Anita would be able to create this document sooner. I think it doesn't even, I would recommend that it be as simple as possible. I wouldn't recreate the variance. I would just simply have a one, one or two lines that decision that just references the original document and just gives you a brief narrative about the, you can even take this narrative that is in the meeting house there. So, okay. Yeah. So we're gonna, we're doing everything we can to get you through this as fast as possible, but I think we still have that 20 day process that we do have to go through. But I'm pretty sure that, that, that the building commissioner said, your team can go in, they can get the application going. They could probably work for their materials. Yeah. Yeah. All that is happening. Yeah. That would be huge. Yeah. It saves like a month and a half at least. Well, we're, we're sorry you're in this situation, but we're happy to sort of happy to make it go away.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman. Yes. May I make one suggestion that on the, the decisions for a special permit are variants, that the timeline be put in there for how long it is valid. So we can not have this situation arise again. So it's, it's, it's, it's put it in the text, um, for, for the, uh, written, uh, document. So, uh, we don't have this again. Okay. I think that's a, that's an excellent suggestion for sure. Okay. So if I may just clarify, that'd be one year. For a variant. For a variant. And then they can come back for an extension for six months. Anything. That's right. That timeframes. Right. Okay. That's going up and down. Okay. And special. Special permit is two years. Three years.
You're awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.
All right. So we can go on to the next case. This is the, uh, the 710 case. This is the continuation of DBA case 2609 from 35 Snake Fork Road. This is the application of Rama and Surin Savan Robby for property at 35 Snake Fork Road, but within the single residence R 30 district. The applicant seeks a special permit under the way that Wayland Zoning Bar Lab and renovate and expand the existing single-family building, including the rear addition of the construction of the second floor. The proposed project would increase the lot coverage to approximately 14 to 23%, exceeding the 20% of the maximum-long coverage. The existing dwelling is on a pre-existing non-conforming lot with respect to the minimum lot area and fronted requirements. So do we have anyone here to present this online? I see someone online. All right. Yeah. If you could, he's already on. All right. Good evening. If you could introduce yourself and tell us, um, what you have updated since the last time we spoke. Hello.
How's everyone doing? How's everyone doing? My name is the owner. Good. Good. My name is the owner. I'm representing the owner for 35 Snake Fork Road. So from the last meeting, I updated the plan with the average grade and make sure I adjusted the height of the building so that we would have no issues with the height. Uh, we definitely don't want to be over 35. So from the average grade, we're now at 33 feet, uh, seven inches. To do that, we adjusted the slopes of the roof. So we lowered that, that down, uh, given, uh, a smaller slope would decrease the height. Uh, and then from the last meeting, I was also in the neighborhood. I walked around, uh, in the, in the neighborhood, kind of speak with, uh, speaking with as many neighbors as I could. Uh, I was able to speak with five neighbors from, from the neighborhood. All I showed them the project, none of them had any issues, uh, with the proposed project. Uh, and in that regard, I was also able to get two letters of, uh, support from, from the neighbors.
Okay. Yeah. Looking at my notes, two comments we had last time. Um, one was for me referencing the fact that we have a height violation because we didn't have the average grade calculated. And I believe, um, one of the board members, I think it was Mr. Curry, wanted confirmation that you had addressed. Uh, you had at least shared the plans with your neighbors and sort of made, uh, made an effort to get them acclimated to the project and, and given them an idea about what to expect. So I, I appreciate that you've been able to move forward on both those things. I'm looking at the drawings now and I see the average grade has been updated and the height, the product is below the height limit. And I think that documentation is, it looks correct to me. And I appreciate that you clouded it. So we know what to look for on the drawing. So thank you for that.
Comments you wanted to, uh, bring to our attention.
No, other than that, everything remains the same. Uh, yeah, it was just, uh, those were the, the main concerns. We definitely didn't want to be, uh, at any height violation or anything like that. So we made sure to address those changes and also address the neighbors. Uh, so I was able to walk around, uh, and try to speak with as, as many as, uh, as I could that, they thought I was selling something. So it wasn't always easy. So, uh, so yeah, I was able to do that and I, and I got some feedback too. And, uh, every, everyone likes the project. It seems like it should, shouldn't be an issue with the neighborhood.
Any questions from the board?
Is this a, um, a two or a three bay garage? So it's a two bay, two bay garage. Uh, so that was one of the, the, the things that, uh, was one of the first comments, uh, we were trying to first from the first meeting, actually, uh, originally we had three small doors there, uh, and after speaking with you and kind of take, really taking a look at the plans, the two doors and maintaining, uh, it just makes more sense maintaining it to two car. Yeah, thank you. It looks like you have, um, some, uh, some, I guess, comments from your neighbors that have been sent some of you. It looks like the neighbor at 15 Snakebrook Road has expressed some support for the project as well as the neighbor at 12 Snakebrook Road. Yes, uh, those two neighbors were, that I spoke with and they were totally fine with it and they were happy to do support letters. So that was, that was great. Um, I forgot which one of the neighbors that was an older gentleman and he really liked the project and he was actually asking if it was going to be going up for sale. He wanted to buy it for his daughter, but this is going to be for the owner. So, um, is there anyone here this evening that, um, beside the applicant that has any material information they want to present on this? No, and it does. There's no one online, correct? Correct. Okay. Well, I know this is this product has been continued, uh, twice now, so I appreciate the, the updates that you've made. Um, any other comments from the board before we close the public portion of the hearing, you move to deliberation. All right. So, um, we'll close the public comment period. Um, so I'm satisfied with this, with the updates to this application. I know we had, we had pushed on some concerns about the size of the house relative to the overall neighborhood, but I think on reflection, looking at some of the other houses nearby that are just as large as this, I don't think there's a concern on scale. I think the issue with the height violation that's been addressed and I think there's been some, some outreach to the neighbors and we have two letters of support and we don't have any, we don't have any opposition. So it's a, I think it's a relatively straightforward special permit because there's no new non-conformities being created. It's just extensions of the existing ones. So any other comments from the board? Yeah, I generally agree. I mean, I think, um, we gave him some feedback at the last meeting. Um, he took that feedback and, you know, did what, what we requested. Um, I still, you know, I do think it's, it's a large house for the neighborhood, but the neighbors have been informed and they didn't, they, you know, they seem supportive. So I don't think it's, um, yeah, I, I would, uh, you know, go with the neighbors, with what the neighbors, uh, have inclined and, uh, yeah, agree to move forward with the doctor.
I just want to thank Mr. Campos for, for going around and talking to your neighbors and, and really, like kind of extending yourself out there, even though they think you're trying to solve something. So, you know, it's not always an easy thing to do is to just walk up to a house and try to explain what's going on or so on and so forth. So I really commend you for being able to do that. Um, and the fact that you got support, I agree. I think the house is a little large, but overall, I think with the fact that you got support, I think it's, I think it's, um, uh, it shows that I think everyone's willing to support you on that. So, um, so, yeah. So I think, I think the board agrees that we can make a finding that, uh, the proposed change is not, uh, substantially more detrimental to the existing and performing house to the neighborhood and satisfied that made that. Right. I think a motion under, uh, section two or 3.1, that, um, that, um, we grant a special permit, uh, for, uh, to be in case 2609 at 35 Snakebrook Road, because I think the applicant has shown to the satisfaction of the board that the building structure, um, or use of the application is made. It's not against the public interest. It doesn't derivate from the character of the neighborhood in which the building occurs and is not detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibrations, smoke, gas, beams, order, dust, or other objectionable features. And that the use of the building or structure is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangers to the public health or safety. And then as, as the, as a couple of conditions, uh, uh, for this permit, um, I'd stipulate the project has to be constructed in substantial conformity with the updated drawings that are dated revision two, May 22nd, 2026. And the applicant has to, uh, obtain approvals from any other boards as maybe a required seconded new discussion or Nope. I, I neglected to name the panel, which is the five members that are here this evening, Mr. Perry, Mr. Hirsch, uh, Ms. Janice, Ms. Paul, Mr. White. Um, so with that, uh, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? None? Uh, all right. So this, this special permit is granted. As we heard from the first case, there's a 20-day appeal period and then there's 14 days for us to write the decision. And then once it's completed, there's a 20-day appeal period. And then to that point, you can take your decision, report it, the regular period of deeds, and then take the next steps that would be to apply for the building permit. All right. So the 20, oh, sorry. No, go ahead. 14 and 20. Oh, 14 then 20. Perfect. That, that was my question. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Good luck. First of all, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Right. And, uh, my clock says it's 729, so we can't technically start the 730 application yet. It's going to work for 35 seconds. Yep. I guess it's 730. All right. Let's do it. 36 seconds. All right. This is the next case. This is the 730 case. This is in CBA case 26-12 for 22 Stonebridge Road. This is the application of Robert Haskins for the possibility of the 22nd of the road. And the assembly of residents are appointed with the applicant seeks a variance and or other zoning for a retroactive approval of an accessibility structure located between the principal dwelling and the street. The structure was previously approved under a building and a building for an issue by the town, which was later determined by the building department to have been approved in the era. So, um, we have to present this case this evening. Hi. Good evening. My name's Rob Haskins. I'm the owner of 22 Stonebridge. Good evening. This is pretty complicated. So, can you, uh, can you shed any light on this? That's, uh, that pun was intended, obviously. But, um, on exactly what's happening here with this, I've read the description and I, I, I understand that, but, uh, this is a little. So I renovated. Yeah, let me give you some light. Thank you, sir. Um, we renovated our home. Um, and in the process, we demolished our old shed and put a new one in. Um, I was working with Mike at the building department. Um, I actually come before the ZBA for this project, uh, only to find out at the meeting that I didn't need to go through the ZBA. Uh, so I was working with Mike, who's no longer with the town at the building department. Um, I grabbed, uh, the application for a shed, made all of the, um, you know, met all the requirements that were on there, uh, put the shed on my, my certified plot plan and everything else. Um, and I was told that that was approved. Um, someone, uh, that lives close to me, I guess, uh, came to the building department and, um, made a complaint that my shed was in between, um, my home and the road. Um, I don't know who that is. I would like to know who that is. I'd also like to know what the town and ZBA is position on, you know, once this is resolved, how does that get communicated to the town? Um, but, um, I was indirectly contacted, uh, by the town, uh, to let me know that my, um, shed was not in compliance. Um, then it happened again. I came down to the building department, uh, worked with Nate and I forget the other gentleman's name. I think he's new. Uh, they were helpful. Um, and they said, listen, we need to approach the ZBA to get this approved retroactively. Um, so I do know there is precedent in town. Um, I've seen several sheds in front of homes in between the roads throughout the town. Um, you know, in my mind, I haven't approved shed. Um, but you know, I, I, I wanna, you know, get this squared away so that there's no issues moving forward. Um, that's really all I have. Okay. And I guess a quick question for you. We have, we have this, uh, and you can't hold this up and you can't necessarily see it. We have a site plant here that shows the shed and it looks like it is. It looks like it's to the east of your house.
Correct. Okay. So my, my house is so old that the front entrance of the house used to be on old Connecticut path. So then the Lavins, you know, bought and developed their property over there. And then my driveway moved to Stonebridge, which they then made the main entrance on the house on the back of the house. So, you know, my shed is not in between the front entrance of my home. It's to the side of my home, but it is between my home and the road, if that makes sense. I guess let me, let me, I know the building commissioner is online and I have several questions. Um, but I'm looking at the plot plan. I don't understand what the nature of the zoning violation would be. The shed seems to be within all the setbacks. The shed is definitely, uh, yeah, I think it's 200 square feet. I think that's the maximum you're allowed. And the setbacks are, more than what the town asked for. Um, I've also planted, I've also planted a lot of, um, sure. Like it is in between the road. Um, but you know, it's, it's very like right now when everything's filled in, it's very hard to see, you can't even see that it's there. I I'm on almost, I'm on, I'm like, uh, an acre and a half. Yeah. So, um, Mr. Commissioner, can you give us any, uh, any, uh, guidance here on, um, what the relief would, would be? I'm, I'm struggling to see what it would be. Yeah. Well, the address for the dwelling is 22 Stonebridge is not old Connecticut path. So in our bylaw, it says that a shed, it cannot be placed in the front yard without a special permit or variance from the zoning board of appeals. So based on that information, uh, I believe that the shed is into the front of the house, uh, and was placed there and was approved in air by the former commissioner. So, um, in, in front yards before, uh, and we, so I guess the problem we, yes, but the problem we have is that the certified plot plan shows Stonebridge road and it shows the shed not in the front yard. I mean, I'm with, I'm not looking at, I mean, I'm not the only, I'm looking at this drawing and that's what this drawing shows. So if this is like a certified drawing and this is what we're approving, there would be no approval required. I mean, I'm not trying to oversimplify this, but like, and I, is there another drawing that's not, is, is this drawing incorrect? Is this drawing shows the shed in the side yard? Basing that on, on the site plan or? So I'm going off the address of the house and where the, where the, where the entry is. Where is the entry on the site plan? I see a porch, um, and a garage. It looks like to me, I'm looking at it on Google maps here and tell me if I'm wrong. It looks like it's like over here. The front door? Front door looks like it's, looks like it's. No, the front, I, it's hard for me to see what you're pointing at, but it, it, I'm, I think it's 28 Stonebridge, which is next to me. The entrance to my house faces 28 Stonebridge. So you come off of Stonebridge, let's just say you're coming from Lavins, you make a left, you come up my driveway, you pull in front of the house, the entrance is on the left. There should be a garage and a new front porch. The entrance to the house is that new front porch. The proposed addition side is your front door. I'm sorry. I'm just having trouble hearing you. Would you mind repeating that? The proposed addition on this map is where your front door is. Can you see, uh, I just don't have any reference for what, I, I, sorry. I think that's, this is his front door. The deck is in the rear? Yeah, the deck is in the rear of the house. So this is the back of the house. This is the front. Yeah, that's, yep, you're correct. That I'm looking at here. It looks like it's right here is the driveway. That's correct, sir. Where's old Connecticut? The house is not on old Connecticut. It used to be on old Connecticut. Now the driveway is off Stonebridge. I was trying to explain why the house is oddly has an entrance that's facing the neighbor instead of a main road. Nathan, can you, can you look at the, uh, the same site plan that we are looking at? I, I did previously look at the, uh, the site plan, uh, upon review of the project. Um, and so the, the new, so he had a major addition put onto the house. So when you go up to driveway, the, the new entrance is, or the entrance to the dwelling is on the, uh, the right hand side. The front does not have an entrance, but this, the entrance is, uh, to the driveway that leads out to Stonebridge. Hey, but I, you know, but I'm looking at the, looking at where the shed, the shed is on the east side of the property and it is on a section of the property that abuts two other properties. So there's the, and unless I'm, unless this drawing is incorrect, the shed is, the shed is in the back or it's in the side. It appears to be in the back. It appears to be in the rear. And or side, depending on the rear and the side. So yeah, which is not in the front at all. So we have a one of those sheds that were in the side yard inching forward at the house, which is not the case here at all. And then side yards and rear yards.
So how, how, how old was the original shed? It was very old. I mean, the floor was rotted out and the doors had fallen off. I mean, it was, it was, it was getting to be non-usable. So if this shed is built on the same foundation, basically a footprint as the earlier shed? No, no, no, no. It was moved from where the old shed was because I'm going to,
my kids are, I'm going to grasp that so that they can play sports there. Okay. So I guess the question, the question that the board has to answer is, if the shed is as shown on the plan that is submitted with the application, there is no, there is no violation. I don't see a violation there. So Nathan, is it possible that the shed is not where it is shown on this plan? The shed is, is parallel to Stonebridge. And when I looked at the site plan, I didn't determine that that area was the side of the house. So you're saying the shed is not where it's shown on the plan that we have before tonight? There, there was, there was two sheds. There was a shed, um, towards old con that was removed. And then this new shed was put between the house and, uh, Stonebridge. Right. So then, so that's the problem we have is the drawing that is attached to the application is not correct. That's not what we're seeing. What we're seeing, we're seeing shows a shed that's fully compliant in the side yard. Yeah. And it appears to be a button, two properties, as Tom mentioned before, one that says now are formerly Stonebridge Realty Trust. Yes. And then below that or south of that, one that says now are formerly OCP Realty Trust. Yeah. So that, so that is not the plan that was, that has the signature from the building department on it. The building department has a plot plan. I'm sorry. I need it. Do we have the actual drawing? Do we have the actual drawing? Well, I, I reached out to the applicant to, uh, confirm that this is the plot plan that, uh, where the shed is located. So now I'm a little confused. So if I may, um, so that the correct plot plan is not what you guys are having, uh, what you're looking at the, no engineer drew the shed in. Okay. I bought the shed online. And then when I was going for my building department, I was told by the building department that I could draw in the shed, make sure that the setbacks were met and things like that. I'll be very direct with everyone. Um, I feel as though my shed is already approved. Um, and that this is somewhat of a formality. I came back to the building department because people were coming and saying my shed was, you know, my, you know, whatever. Um, and I, I said, listen, I'll go through this, but you know, I need you to move all the documents from the building department to the ZBA. So, um, if you're looking at the plot plan, um, that is the, which I think you're looking at that the shed is not in the correct location. It is in between Stonebridge and the side of my house. And it abuts up again, against where my driveway is. Not, not very close, but 10, 15 feet. We have proper documentation and that's what we're trying to confirm on where that drawing in spot is, which is fine. You want to draw in a spot on it. If it's accurate, that's all that matters is that if it's accurate, my mind, you know what I mean? Like if it's in the right location, then we actually can go off of proper documentation. So why don't, um, this is not the, this is not the plot plan that's, um, with the building, um, with the building permit application that I reviewed. Uh, there's the hand drawn shed in, um, that faces Stonebridge and is with the building application in the file. So we get the proper documentation. Uh, yeah, I think we do. Um, so, uh, And if I may, uh, uh, Nina may, she may be able to pull the, uh, the file out of the department. And if you want to wait a couple minutes, great. I'd love to not, I'd love to not rather that'd be better for the applicant. Yeah. Um, so, um, can someone point to me in the, in the zoning bylaw where it physically says the shed cannot be located? I was just, I don't have my annotated ZBA hand by law with me. I love that. I'm looking through, I'm looking through this and I can't find that I know. Language anywhere. Well, it wasn't there. Nathan, what section is the, our shed's in? I do, I do remember seeing some of that because we've had this conversation multiple times, um, over by the mansion beach side. Yep. Um, of course I've forgotten.
Nathan, do you happen to know where that language is? 703.1. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Nathan. It specifically doesn't highlight the, it says a backyard may contain, there's no verbiage that says of, of for shed may be authorized in a front yard, but it gives you the permission as a ZBA to approve a shed with, uh, circumstances to allow it in the front yard. And that's in the, uh, what? 703.1 is like where it states accessory buildings or structures. Um, I think that's what he's talking about. Yeah, but that just says that you can, that it can be in the backyard and it can be closer. It can go all the way up to 10 feet of a property line if you want to grant that a special permit. Right. But it doesn't say you can't put it in any other place. I think this is what we've struggled with before. Yeah. We have here. I remember that as well. Yeah.
So Nathan, are you aware of any other, any other component of the bylaw that regulates this? Because I, I, I read this and I, I don't, I don't agree that. This has been standard operating procedures since I've been with the building department and, uh, um, Mr. Larson, previous commissioner, uh, would adhere to this also as far as, uh, no sheds in the front yard unless a special permit is, uh, obtained. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just trying to front me. I think I understand why. Why we had that? Yeah.
So Anita was able to go and, uh, pull out the file. So, so me. Okay. Yeah. There's the new location. Got it. And this, what we had before. So I'm still with the setbacks. Yep. I go back. All right. So we've got, we have the document with, uh, we have the document with this, this jet.
So the photo on Google is too old. Oh, wow. That's huge. Interesting. Yes. And you know what? If the front door is really on the side, this would be a side yard structure. And, and there are, I guess it would be, there are also trees and stuff in the front of the property that's all right in front of it. You've got the setback line there and it's inside of the setback. Yeah. So that would be, that would work. Um,
but I agree with Nathan that it has been the practice that it sheds knocking in the front yard. And I think that one time when we had to deviate from that was a property that was up in North Wayland that was in a water, water protected area. Do you remember? I never got it. And so we had, I remember debating that at this point. And I think we did grant that a special permit, but I remember looking at that time, we, we, we just, we took the direction from the building commissioner. Right. Yeah. So 703.2 also, um, lower down in the paragraph, it does reference a garage either attached in the single family, two family attached dwelling may be located beside the dwelling, provide there's a yard between the garage. So, um, that's the other language that's written. So there's no definitive. Yeah. But there's nothing in the bylaw. There's not even a section about front yards. There's nothing in the bylaw that says you can't have an accessory structure in the front yard that I can see. The bylaw talks about side yards and rear yards. It does not talk about front. So I don't, but it does not reference front yard for a location of a shed. Awesome. So it assumes that it's prohibited. It has been, it has been the practice in the past to not have them in the front yard. They could kind of inch there, but if they were on the side, practice doesn't necessarily mean that that's the side yard in the front of the house was different than it fits in your front lawn. Um, so this is the way this appears on this, this plot plan. Um, it's over to the side. All right. Well, I guess in the absence, I mean, there is nothing. I I'm, I'm comfortable that the general language of section seven gives the board the latitude to grant special permits. Yes. For, for these things. Yeah. Uh, perhaps it's the, perhaps it's the safer, the safer. Does it have to be a variance or a special permit? It would be a special permit because it's not, that's what I would agree that something in that there was a, there was a, well, the, the notifications is variance and or a special permit. It's to cover us. That's all. Yeah. I, we do have, uh, public that would like to also make comments. I am, I understand what we get there. Well, we gotta, we gotta, we gotta, we gotta, we gotta, we gotta, we gotta actually try to path to make sure we have a legal, there's a legal pathway to discuss the, the case in my opinion. I agree. Yeah. I mean, we're mainly saying it to remind myself. Yeah. Um, there's just one more section. I want to double check, um, accessor restrictions. We can see you're, you're bringing, this case is bringing us into sections of the file that we don't usually have to consult. I'm trying to think of the other, there were two or three years ago over Red Mansion Beach. There was like one or two that we only did. Yeah. I remember, but that was a space constraint issue. It was, but we proceeded at the direction of the previous building commissioner who insisted that the bylaw did not authorize this. Yeah. But I remember then struggling with this because it, no, it was weird language then. That's weird that that is the case. Well, if we only had updated everything when we were updating stuff.
That's a problem. We should throw this out and come up with a fresh one because it's been, it's been cross edited so many times. It's inconsistent with itself. Um, all right. Well, before I get, before we move on, do you have any other, um, anything else to say about, about your application? Besides the fact that you, you've, you brought us a pretty complex legal case. Uh, no, sir. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. So I guess while we're still continuing to do some research, we may as well hear from, from somebody else. So do we have any, any members of the public here to talk about this case? Yeah, please come forward. Yeah, can you come up with your name and address? I'm Kevin Allery from 38 Stonebridge Road. Rob, we've never met, um, but I'm familiar with your property, um, to the west of you by one lot. Can I take a look at that plot plan that was brought out? Oh, probably that one. Yeah. I don't want the inaccurate ones. Yeah. That's that. That's color coded. So this is a hand-drawn shed with a surveyor stamp on it and it's dated November 4th, 2024. I don't think the surveyor probably survey located this. Surveyor doesn't have to, an official surveyor doesn't have to do that. Yes, he does to certify that it's in compliance with zoning. It's the, if you see there, the distances on the lines, it'll tell you how far away it is. And then you'll have to check it once, you know, once it's on. Yeah. I mean, I suppose what, what I think what, what you're saying is that, I mean, that's the legal draw document that we have that shows that that is inside the, the stamped, uh, setback line. We don't have a document that confirms that that it's built there. But this is called the proposed stormwater plan. Yeah. But you can see on there, the setback lines indicated. Right. From the proposed stormwater plan, not from an as-built survey. Oh, no, we don't have an as-built survey of the shed. That's what I just said. Like, I don't know, I don't, we don't have a document that says the shed is where it is on that red colored box right there on that plant. So how can you all shed, do all shed applications require a new survey? Sir, please, please don't interrupt. Okay. How can the ZBA make a decision on dimensional standards if it's not survey located and implotted with a current stamp on it? But for the building commissioner to confirm the location at site when closing out the permit, but the building commissioner is not a survey area. I mean, we, I mean, as far as I am aware, the, uh, the requirements for out-built, uh, ad-built foundations, I thought those were for primary structures and accessory structures that encroach on setbacks. I'm not aware that it's required for accessory structure inside the setbacks, but I understand the question you're asking. This has a foundation. Yeah. This building has a foundation. It's not just wood on dirt. Um, it's just, I kind of want, you know, because I live up the street, I go by here a couple times a day. No, it's a, it's a valid question. I, the board cannot answer whether or not that drawing is accurate and that it is actually located where that shows it is. Right. Because it's a stormwater plan, not a survey plan. So, uh, you're being asked to approve, to approve a stormwater plan with a shed hand drawn on it. I didn't say we were going to approve anything. Well, you can see you're up in consideration. Uh, yeah, but we also don't have all the documents we need to make the, to make this. And it's also, it's in my mind, it's, it's questionable that there is even a violation here because I don't believe the bylaw says anything about prohibiting the accessory structures in the front yards. At least the bylaw that I I'm reading, I can't find anything in here that says an accessory structure is prohibited from the front yard. But it doesn't say it's allowed either. There's, yeah, by that logic, you know, the whole bylaw, I'll come under that. But, you know, yeah, exactly. Are you in opposition of the location of where this has been placed? It's very close to the road and you can't tell from driving by. In addition to that, he has lights on it, on the street side of it, on the back side of the shed that I guess the front of the shed faces his front door or driveway. The backside faces the street and he's got lights on it. I agree. That's not correct. I'm sorry. Oh, sir, please. You can have a moment to speak, but please do not interrupt. Yes. I don't know if it's good. I believe I saw lights on it. I don't pay attention to it. I try to help my neighbors, you know, in times, but it just looks very, very close to the sidewalk line. The road is curvilinear at this point. So you can't really tell accurately because it's not a straight shot to say, okay, yeah, it's 20 feet away or 30 feet away because you're going around a curve. And it just drew my attention to it that it was a shed in the front yard very close to the street. Some time ago, I had a brief discussion with Jeff Larson years ago, not on this property, but others. And he said, no, absolutely. Shed's not in the front yard. They belong in the backyard. So that's why I questioned it again and just look very close to the front yard. And then I started looking through the zoning board of appeals or the building department file and there's no as built plan. It wasn't staked out. So it's like, oh, what's going on? Yeah. So it's a valid point. Again, we only that's the only drawing we have, and it shows that it's inside the setback line. But your point is, that's just a drawing. We don't have a comp. We don't have confirmation that that's where it actually is located. Who created this? Valid question. Yeah. It's not, it's not, it's not a drawing. It's not a drawing. If that was presented to us as a new case for an approval, we wouldn't be able to act on that because it's not, it's not an actual document. You're right. You know, it's not like this document, which is like a stamped site plan. Yeah. But that's proposed. It doesn't show the, doesn't show the CBA. Yeah. But the CBA, what we as a zoning board always approve proposed projects. We don't approve projects after they're completed. So we always have proposed site plans, like, because the actual as built site plan is completed after the completion of the foundation, which would be post CBA action. Okay. So it's not unusual because we're being asked for a retroactive approval. Right. For a variance. Well, we can't grant, we wouldn't grant a variance for this because the site, the site doesn't meet the legal standards for a variance. So. Oh, I thought the notice was for a variance. It says variance and or a special permit. Sorry. This would most likely be a special permit. It couldn't be a variance. Yeah. Yeah. This was, that's my question. Seeks a variance and or other zoning relief. So. So it doesn't say special permit. It says other zoning relief. Okay. So the documentation would get updated. They often get misappropriated and then fixed. Okay. So it doesn't qualify for a variance, but it may qualify for a special permit. Right. It would qualify for a special permit under a section 203. But no, it would not meet the state statute for a variance. Okay. I think that's it. I just wanted clarification on the documentation. It didn't seem correct with hand sketches and then, you know, proposed shed and then it goes in, it seems like it's just close to the street and I'm sorry, Rob, uh, it doesn't have lights on. I thought it did have lights when it first went in. So anyway, through the chair, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Have you signed in? Yes, I did. Beautiful. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes. Yes. Okay. So when we receive an application for a shed, we do not require a engineered, surveyed site plan or an as built of a shed that has been proposed or installed. We do, we require a site plan, something that represents the property and something that's fairly accurate. And you are allowed to install a shed up to 10 feet from your property line. So we, we allow a lot, a lot of homeowners pull the permits for sheds and we allow them to hand draw in. We do a site inspection. Now it's, as sometimes, uh, very difficult to make an accurate determination of where the property line is. It's a, it's a line in infinity that, you know, you have to make a judgment on. A lot of times, uh, the sheds are not that close to property lines. Sometimes they are, um, in my tenure, I have had no issues with any other sheds that have been installed, uh, on properties. And, um, so I believe that this shed in the front yard or this, this location, I'm going to say front yard and we'll say a location, uh, clearly meets the 10 foot buffer. And, um, I don't see that as a problem, uh, with a setback and I would not require a engineer site plan to determine its location.
Well, the only question I, the only point that I want to make though, is that, um, I think that 10 foot offset is limited by the zoning by lot to the rear yard only. I think that's 15 feet inside. And I think it has to, it would have, if it's in the front, it would have to comply with the front yard setback, which is, um, 30 feet. Or is this another 20? Yeah. 30 feet. Yeah.
And, and according to this plan, uh, that was, was supplied with the building permit. Um, it appears that the shed is, is inside the setback area.
When you say inside, you mean intrudes into the setback or is inside of the setback? Inside the setback. Um, so I don't believe, I don't believe it's intrusive. Okay. I have two questions for the applicant. Number one, uh, just to go back to, uh, the question of lighting. And I know you wanted to be able to explain that. I would like to give you that opportunity. And number two, how did you figure out your location of where you created your, uh, foundation? And how was that figured out for your location?
Thank you. There, the, the shed does not have electricity. During Christmas, there was a wreath on it. Um, you know, that was for the season. That was the only lights that were on it. Uh, there's no internal lights. There's no external lights. There's no electricity in the shed. Um, there was not a ton of thought as to, I mean, I, I wanted it in that section of my lawn because, um, you know, I have my back deck and I, I don't want to look at the shed when I go up, when I look out the back. Um, I looked through all of the regulations that were provided to me by the building department. I not only measured from, you know, making sure that those requirements were met, but I also put the shed, you know, I can't remember. I don't have, I don't know exactly how many feedback is, but I know that I left an additional amount to make sure that it meets, you know, what is required. Um, so that there were no questions. Um, and you can use measurements to be able to ensure that you're within that expectation of what you drew on the proposed plan that you provided to be able to put in your, your foundation. You did double check to make sure the dimensions were accurate to make sure that you were inside of those setbacks. Yes, sir. Okay. You received a building permit for that shed foundation based on that document. Right. Correct. I was making sure that there was an actual measurement that was taken by resetting that foundation. I guess it's confirmed through, if it's a proper foundation, I guess the building permit confirms the location anyways with a, with a foundation no matter what. Correct. But in this case, they, we heard from the commissioner that they wouldn't because it's an accessory structure and it was not as commonplace to do that. There's a little, it's a little atypical. Um, but, uh, and it's a poured foundation for concrete. No, there's no concrete crushed stone. Crushed stone. Wait a second. Hold on. No, it's not, it's not a concrete foundation. There may be. Putings. No, I think, I think, I think there's some, there's some, there's, uh, concrete, uh, like, like cinder blocks, cinder blocks, sir. Okay. Yeah, it's not, it's not, there's not a, there's not a, uh, a dugout, you know, like my garage. There's, there's nothing like that. I just wanted to kind of get clarification on that. It did cause me a good chunk of change to put that, you know, to get that, you know, to place that shed. Sure it did.
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Um, so on, this is on the original building application for the, uh, addition to the house. And this was added, this shed was added on, uh, at the, um, on the description of the, the job, proposed job, uh, at the end. So, uh, Nina can show you the, uh, building application and it does indicate that there's a shed on there. Um, public comments. Would you like to make another statement? Um, yeah. In general, uh, in general, uh, I looked at the file, Kevin O'Leary, 38 Silberge Road. Um, I reviewed the file when I saw the shed going in and there was no shed on the building permit application. Um, and I brought it to, I think, either Nate or Mike's attention came back a month or two later and it had been penciled on there as an addendum to the building permit application. So it doesn't appear to me that the shed in its current location was permitted. Well, part of the permit set, it was added in after I brought it to their attention.
So something doesn't seem right with it in its current location. Um, it's not clear to me. I don't have a lot of time to go through the documents and see everything, but that was clear that it had been hand sketched on the building plan application after my initial inquiry. And I don't believe it was ever survey located or staked to comply with setbacks. There's no as bill plan. This thing is out there floating along the side of the road. Nobody knows if it's in compliance or not with the front yard detention.
Um, if you don't mind, Mr. Commissioner, um, are sheds and accessory units, you know, shed size or so required to have survey drawings and be staked and what's the other thing? As bill located. As bill located on plans. No. Thank you.
Any other public comment? I propose the public comment has been to deliberation on this. I think it's advisable to seek, uh, legal guidance on this case because it's not clear to me. Like I'm not, we're not getting much. There's, there's too many questions on this. To that. And I, I want to be fair. I want to be fair to the applicants. I, I don't want us to make a, I want to be fair to the applicant and I want to be fair to the neighbors. I don't want us to make a decision on this. That is somehow has an unknown legal flaw in it that gets overturned on appeal and we've sort of exacerbated the situation that the applicant is in because he granted a building permit to build the shed. And now it's kind of being called into question. And I don't want to err in, in looking at this. Um, I'm comfortable that we could easily approve this as a special permit. Um, I question whether that's even necessary because I can't find any language in the body that says it's not, you even need a permit, a special permit to put a shed in the front yard. Um, so I'd like to get clarification on that, that there's not some case law that we're not aware of that needs to inform the interpretation of the bylaw. And second, I want to get legal clarification, um, on the applicability of a, uh, accessory structures, um, I think also, I think also it'll give us some time for the building department to confirm some details. Yeah. Yeah. That is compelling to think about. I mean, you know, I want, I want to make sure that, you know, I, I am, I am sympathetic towards the applicant for sure, considering, you know, I came down and I can't, I got a permit, I'm good to go. You know, I am now being told this, like I am a hundred percent sympathetic towards that, but at the same time, like, you know, um, we have to make sure that everything is accounted for appropriately. And I agree with you that I think counsel on this would be beneficial. So we're going to look for continuation. Yeah. So I want to, I, so again, I want to, I want to address the, I want to address the applicant. So you're, um, as, as Mr. Hurst mentioned, and as I'm sure other people on the board feel, we're extremely sympathetic to the situation that you're in. I just want to make sure that, that we grant you the legally correct relief so that this is, this is done, completed in, in, in the path and is closed. And I'm just fearful that the information we have is sort of 85%. 85%. And I, I really, I really want to get that the last 15% clarified so that we can be legally precise with this. Because I think you got, unfortunately, some, some in, I, I get, I'm guessing some incorrect advice or maybe some incomplete advice. Initially, and I want to make sure we find a way to remedy that. Remedy that, and I want to make sure we find a way to remedy that, remedy that legally correctly. So what I'd ask is, um, with your permission, if we could continue this to next month here, next month's hearing, that would allow us to gather, um, any additional documentation we have and just sort of reconfirm with legal counsel, the, the right relief mechanism for this situation. And we're doing, we're doing, we're doing this to make sure that the benefit is for both sides to make sure that you're, um, fully protected and, and not having to come back again, kind of scenario, like say a year or two or whatever from now, or having potential. So that's, that's the reason why. Which I understand and appreciate, I, I guess my question is, is that the, the board is generally sympathetic to my request for a special permit. So, I mean, the, the, I, I don't see anything in 7301 or 7302 that says I, you know, it doesn't prevent me from where I place my shed. I will respond to Kevin's comment earlier. Um, this, this wasn't, this, this shed was not placed in the building department's hands after the fact. I think that's what I heard. Um, this was, I went down to the building department. I got all the information I needed. I asked how to go through the process and I executed that perfectly. Um, I, I, I, I understand. Um, so do we need to, he's online, but do we actually need to have him sign something for a continuance? Can you do that like remotely? Uh, not at this point. Um, because if it's a variant, even if it, if it's a variance, we still have some plan. Um, let me check. It won't be a nice. For a special permit, we wouldn't know. Okay. We're already in deliberation. We're not taking any more comments. Thank you. Except for the next hearing, right? Yeah. Yeah. For this. Yeah. Yeah. For this. Um. All right. So, um, no, no. Okay. All right. So when is, uh, just before I make the motion of confirmation that the next hearing is, um, July 14th. I just want to make sure everyone, everyone who's here is, everyone who's here is available. Yes. Uh, I don't know if there are probably full of us. Uh. Um. Mr. Chair, if I may, um, if everyone's available for the next meeting, um, I just ask that this be put on first, uh, on the agenda because, uh, the Sherman's bridge, will be on next meeting, that may take some substantial time to discuss uh potentially you want to put you're saying put this be put this first and then put this first and and we uh we will uh reach out to town council and get a termination on the vagueness of our wonderful zoning bylaw that would be great all right so uh with that i'd like to make a motion that we continue zba case uh 26-12 for 22 stonebridge road to july 14th at um 7 p.m all in favor aye opposed none all right so uh you will be first on the agenda at our next hearing and we will make sure that we get all the information all people's names
what the guys we're not there's no one's remote no one's remote sorry okay sorry i got you yeah i was just making sure i just want to make sure we're doing it right all right so with that but he's getting to us yeah with that you're all set and um we'll gather the information we need and we're ready to tackle this uh our next journey so thank you uh one question one question if you'll mind will i be able to review this additional information that's being discovered in regards to my case before the meeting i don't see why i don't see why not unless for some reason we don't get something until the day of the meeting we're not gonna hold it back it gets sent to us and then and it's public so the answer should is yes and the only reason you wouldn't is if it's delayed to us so how how would i access that um calling the building department and we've asked for materials to be provided a full week before our hearings okay so july 7th reach out to the building department and ask if there's information that's come in call on the first you know july 1st yeah so anina will um once the information is given to the board then anina will email you the information that they receive uh while in advance of the meeting thank you thank you okay so we just need a quick
all right so we're going to just take a two or three minute pause here um before we move on to this recording stopped okay uh so we move on to our next case recording in progress this is the 745 uh hearing for zwa case 26-13 8 carpenter road this is the application of steve garofalo by colt realty llc for the property property property carpenter road and assume the residents are 40 district the existing dwelling is a pre-existing non-conforming structure with respect to front yard setback requirements the applicant seats is left of a ferment under other zoning relief with respect to addition along the existing non-conforming setback line with no increase in existing non-conforming was supposed additionally through the porch and attached two-car garage on the first floor and an after bedroom on the second floor so um assuming that is the two of you so if you could come up introduce yourselves and uh tell us about your project okay i'm steve garofalo my wife elizabeth's here and i think veto from cornerstone is on with us here so thank you um thank you for having us um we got put a permit in place for an application we received the denial letter which goes over with we took this test um regarding the front setback for existing non-conforming and then the um 40 percent over 20 percent um increase in area due to the violence informity so so yeah we got this denial order and then um i know someone else was saying it's tough talking to neighbors but i would there's 10 neighbors on the um abutters list and i went to all 10 neighbors talked to them about it i showed them a picture of the crazy dilapicated house that we bought that's been making for 35 years oh my goodness oh wow this is india we're a great guy and um we we like challenges um the neighbors were all happy that we weren't going to tear it down and build a mcmansion like it was the one next door but anyway um i showed them um copy of the plan telling them that they're also going to get something later on uh in the mail for the septic system because we are near a wetland and um i also showed them a copy of you know what it what it's going to look like when it's done which is basically um there's a house number three cabinet that kind of looks like this cost a lot of money to do but we're adding this two car garage and the fortune front so we're trying to make it not be an ugly duckling so we got the um support and i i read this to them before they signed it i said we have assigned neighbors of eight carpenter road whalen have reviewed the um the renovation and addition plans with owner steve garofalo and support this project so uh i gave a coffee of this two and ns you guys should have that you need to see the originals right here would you mind passing that around and your elevations around yeah that'd be awesome thank you sorry just just that and this too uh we you can have that part i don't know we're missing the elevation one all right okay i'll give you these two points um thank you um thank you sorry yeah so i'm not sure what else to say but um you have any questions i'd be happy to answer them yes one one question i do have i believe these are 12 ones yeah these elevations it looks like the you're not you're you're aligning with the existing ridge of the right you're not right i'm not going anymore increasing the um non-conformity than what it already is yeah we made sure that we did that we would like to go further out but i i don't want everything i don't want to go closer to the street so the elevation is not changing right okay here these are just just a different copies on this but they're they're they're the same it's the same information i mean it's a minimal which you guys have some other fancy stuff on just one more get it
so are you relocating the driver uh it is moving a little more over to the right you're looking at it from the front of the house it looks like you don't have to remove any trees to make that change right what's what's there now in these pitches is what's there at least right here you guys want to look at it the garage is basically being located kind of forward of the porch that's in the back right right yeah yeah okay with where the garage is now it's that structure's going to the right through your driveway through your driveway going over your leaching field uh no that's just the part of the um slope okay we designed the leaching field so the driveway would just miss it we made sure to keep it out of it thank you i have any questions actually i don't think there's any anyone else in the board does anyone else here in the public to talk about this case the wife would like to support if we generally she can speak her yourself that's a smart man right there so we'll close that close the public portion of this and move to deliberation um unlike the other cases this evening this is extremely straightforward yes i think this is a simple uh application of a special permit um i i've been i drove by the house i looked at i looked at the other person that is also other houses in the neighborhood i think this proposed addition is it's gonna be a nice addition to the neighborhood out again it changes anything relative to the scale of the other houses it seems completely appropriate so i think we can easily uh think of finding under 401 1.1 that this 401.1.2 that this is not at all of a deterrent to the existing neighborhood and the fact that it just extends the same existing non-juvantity across the front i agree with that also all the signatures from the neighbors uh stress ourselves versus we need to we need to have this gentleman be an advocate for the way other applicants should approach this task because it really isn't that difficult no it's very commendable for what you guys are doing with with the neighbors and stop making sure everyone's involved and like you know just the awareness is is just very neighborhood
i'm sure they are
so it's been vacant for 35 years is it wow well there's a neighbor across the street that's been there for 50 years and they said that that house has been vacant for at least 35 years shoes some moments is there's is there a serious structural damage it was a you know hoarder's house it took three and a half 30 uh dumpsters to clean without but it's pretty solid it's been different yeah someone's from paying their taxes the question right all right well as i said i i think under 401.1.2 the board can find that this is not substantially detrimental so um i'd make a motion under two or three point one that the zba grant a special permit for case 2613 and eight carlin road with the applicants very clearly shown that um the application that's being made is not against the public interest it doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which the building structure or use occurs and is not um detrimental or offensive because of noise vibration that's so gas fluids or dust or other objection features and that such use building or structure is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town their property or dangers to the public health or safety um in addition to that uh it meeting that standard i i put the same two conditions that we attach to every special firm firm and approval one is that it be constructed in substantial conformity to the plans that have been submitted to the board and the applicants got um obtain approvals from any other boards as may be required second again just to cover ourselves the panel is the five of us that are here tonight esther perry mr hirsch this genesis paul mr white um so now that that's out of the way he can again uh move to vote on this so all in favor aye aye opposed none so we have a 14-day process of a like the decision for the special permit and then there's a mandatory 20-day seal period and after that point you can pick up a copy of the approved permit file it with the registry of deeds and then you can go and fold it together yeah thank you that's all like with your project thank you yes you're going to need that luck with a 35 year old for the day to go appreciate it okay so with that we can move on to our last case which is the 8pm hearing um for zba case 26-14 for three jaeger way this is the application of uh via goffler ramans sorry if i took through that name um for the property located in three legal lane legal residents are 60 the applicant seeks the examiner answer and or other zoning relief to construct an eight-foot privacy fence along the property line adjacent to the bariton campus in order to mitigate impacts from campus improvements and to provide increased privacy and security for the residential property do we have anyone here to present this case uh i'm here subaya gopal raman and uh my attorney dina brown is on zoom as well uh and heena if you don't mind if you could elevate her
have they been elevated yes she has okay hello good evening last but not least uh my name is brown from the law firm of blitzer and blitzer and i'm representing the applicant mr gopal raman um we are seeking a variance um from the height restriction under section 198-7021 um to install a fence that is eight feet in height rather than six feet in height across the rear portion um and side portion of the lot um our lot at three yeager way abuts um the adjacent veritas christian academy campus which i'm sure everyone is familiar with all the work that is being done there now with the school um in the fields and the uh pickleball and tennis courts and all of that my client it would just like to install this fence so that he can maintain privacy um especially with students not cutting through the yard to get to the other street um so that they can um mitigate the impacts from the improvements have privacy and security for the residential property um he's proposing um a to install a cedar fence um but would like to reserve the option that as to whether it may be white vinyl or another vinyl instead simply for the fact that it's 595.5 feet of fencing that he's installing and still waiting to get the quotes on that um going to the topography here the lot that uh veritas christian academy is on is at a much higher um elevation than the applicant slot and we submitted a plan um that shows elevations on it if you have if you have that it has a red marking on it and it explains the difference um between the heights the for instance the wall that's being constructed on the veritas christian academy there are certain points where the elevations there are 19 feet and so the difference between that property and my client's property is approximately 14 15 feet in height um and so it's just really important that this is installed uh to protect their privacy and noise and other issues that might happen i'm sorry my dogs are barking now okay no we don't even the minute i get on the phone uh when we've received the um the abutters letters already 13 which we have two letters from the abutters who are in favor of the project one is on uh eight yeager way i believe and the other one is um on 20 we actually have a total of four at this point adam muscari luke shadlow david jabbs mary beth hagen and mayhul gandhi so the uh the developers owners of the veritas christian academy are in support of this uh the installation of this fence they understand the importance of it the question i have is is the proposal to construct the fence directly on the property line it's six inches away from the property line perfect that's it's it could be one inch for the property line it depends on the skill of the contractor involved and their tolerance for a risk right i mean my firm has built buildings on the property line can be done never but six inches i think is acceptable but um okay well that was that was my question there i just wanted to be sure you you because the challenge with putting it right on the property line technically is that uh the footings well depending on how the fence is done it's conceivable that the footing is wider than the fence post and it theoretically would intrude if you were to bite it right on the property rents the fact that you're six inches off seems reasonable thank you so i i guess i'm looking at um the kind of the standards for 40a really and i'm sure you are aware of this for um a variance that the circumstances of the topography is being one condition the second condition being like a literal enforcement would create a kind of substantial hardship so now i'm assuming that that is the that's another component of the argument here and three that that we can that the desirable leave can be relief can be granted without any detriment to the public good um which i i think here you know i think is relatively straightforward because this is a this is a lot line on the interior you're not sort of constructing a fence or asking for a variance for a fence that kind of faces a public way or a public building or something like that um there's part of the fence that actually faces yeager way a small section of it it looks like yeah a very small section of it it's compelling extremely fine just for terminology wise is this actually a variance or is this a special apartment it's the height it's a height variance technically i was actually looking well i was looking in the code and perhaps the the building commissioner can highlight this where in the code is the requirement about the fence height it's 702 702.1 all right thank you the fence is the walls up to six feet in height from existing national ground level okay so it's at the very bottom of the paragraph on the right you can see the words two six feet right above the bowl that i know 2.1 you said yes yeah the bottom
and walls up to six feet in height from the natural okay yeah i just wanted to be sure if to as we as we go through this to make sure that like we reference the exact component of the bylaw that we're looking to create the variance from yes that that is i know it wasn't on the application that is the section that we were referring to at the start of this yeah okay yes before we before we keep going i want to see if is there anyone online or a couple of comments on this no okay and then obviously there is someone here uh in the audience if you could come up and uh give us your name and address that would be great name is stopper bell i live in framingham at three root drive but i spend most of my week at six loker drive i'm head of school at baritas christian academy and i'm simply here to lend support to mr kolpal raman's project and as his attorney said that we are in favor of it uh we've had one of our board members who's met with him several times uh along with other neighbors abutting neighbors um to discuss a lot of different facets but this is something that as a school we just wanted to express our support for this as well so thank you yeah just to and we've expressed that commitment in other places to work well with our neighbors but i just wanted to make that clear so thank you for being here tonight yeah great great well thank you for showing up thank you would you mind just signing in i did sign in there you were so perfect anything you guys need from me no
appreciate what you guys are doing once again thank you thank you
okay so we do have someone who is yeah and what is her name can you hear me um my name is mary beth can you hear me sure it's um mary beth hagen i live at eight yeager way i just wanted to add that um there was a variance granted along um three yeager way with um route 27 for an eight foot fence so um we're in favor it for similar reasons of um providing privacy um from traffic thank you okay thank you that's great i don't have any other questions for the applicant is anyone else on the board no um all right so with that let's close the public hearing portion of this and kind of move on to to delivery for this um i think this is a extremely compelling case i i'm satisfied that if the fence is located six inches from the property line i think it gives us appropriate construction tolerances to to enable this or to enable the outfit to proceed without any incurring any additional risk on their part um i think on under under mass general law 40a section 10 which is where the varying statute comes from it doesn't come from the bylaw um we've got to satisfy well the applicant's got to satisfy to the board that there's three conditions here that would really mean that like varying from this requirement on height only um is necessary because there's some very unique topography soil condition or shape of the property i think that we all are aware of this site having you know not only drip driving by it but also the previous uh cycling process that we we sort of were pulled into um i think it's very clear that it's it's a it's a varied amount of topography between this this the applicant's property and the adjoining property so i think it easily satisfies point one i also think that literally um the literal enforcement of the bylaw which is that like the fence could only be six feet tall and it it could be in the same location uh creates a hardship for the applicant i think that's that's pretty clear i think they've demonstrated that i also think um to um this genesis point that we actually have you know representative example of another variance in height for a foot fence uh also on the street i think absolutely uh in my mind satisfies this this point too and i i think point three that if we grant the relief we're not going to do and we're not going to create any kind of substantial detriment today to the public good by by doing this or we're going to derogate from the intent of the section of the bylaw talking about two foot section of fence it's not two feet is not going to make a visual difference to the length of the fence you see here i think from the public's perception but i think from the applicant's perception that that that two feet is critical so i'm satisfied that that we the board can easily grant um a variance for this because i think the the varying the height requirement in 702.1 for a fence um easily meets these three statutes under the state that now i am looking online and i know i'm being rebooked by the location of that but there's currently cedar fencing that now which is cleaner it may be beneficial to have cedar fencing for the new to kind of keep a dead seer that's already there from an aesthetics perspective um i know that the applicant was looking for both options but you know i so i will suggest that there is a cost value to this and if there is cedar fencing along the lines that's that's great but they did ask for the opportunity to switch to something else that i believe we can understand to be a cross savings because it was stated that there's basically 595 and a half feet no i guess i get that i get that so that we're looking at the height as opposed to the height and the location as opposed to yeah i think the variance i i would agree with mr hirsch that the cedar fences would be more attractive would better um i mean it would look it would look better for the applicants in you know probably more because the fences on on his property would probably increase his property value the cedar fence versus the the vinyl and it would all be beneficial for the probably be beneficial for the well the only concern i have is that they're requesting relief from 72.1 for the height i don't think we can can i don't think we can condition a variance legally because we've made the determination that it meets the three criteria for variance there isn't a fourth one that talks about aesthetics unfortunately so um and it's not the same standard as for one point one point two which is a derogation of the character it doesn't say that it says without detriment to the public good um i think it's legally legally questionable that that we could say that the cedar fence versus the another material would be a a detriment okay so i agree that it works it's going to work a little different i think it's going to work a little differently um and i was trying to keep a similar styling for the neighborhood oh it would look i would agree with you right and i think the other fence is wood i think it's painted if i'm not mistaken no it's it's it's uh it's uh this is raw this is raw it would look better but um i don't think we can i don't think that we're into the business of aesthetics we can't tell the apple yeah yeah yeah and it is not in the very new statute the critical part for them is the height and the length so that they have protection they say as i mentioned for intrusion from or accidental intrusion by neighbors children whatever and primarily for the safety of their home and their family right which makes sense yeah i mean i'm not contunding that part or at all so i think it's very straightforward okay i see it as very straightforward
um i guess with that the the panel for this case is the five of us here mr perry mr bursh miss janice this paul white um i would make a motion that we need that the zba grants a variance from section 702.1 uh with respect to the height of defense uh for zba case 26-14 to 3 yeager way second any discussion there are no conditions that we attach to this because i think we've already debated the fact that it meets three criteria right i'm not aware that you would condition the variance well if it were used six inches you could do a time condition on it we've done that in the past the um you could condition it on sighting as adam was just saying or starters said that it be within the so they said in other words the this we could attach this the same the same two conditions that we attach to a special permit that it has the fence has to be constructed in accordance with the documents we have the drawings the drawing the site plan that we have in terms of its location um and how location right i would i would like to we are we are in deliberation but i would like to get clarification from the building commissioner that we're not missing anything on that nathan you are not missing anything on that and um the there's no restrictions on what type of offense uh can be installed and the site has been surveyed and pinned by veritas so the exact location of the fence will be verified from the survey that was done so um if they they will uh make the markings and bounds and make sure that it's uh six inches inside the property line and it should be good all right what did i get i have a second question yes is that is that the footing won't intrude on the six inches or the fence itself because like we were talking about footings and stuff i just wanted to get clarification well it's typically a four by four post or something of that nature so the back edge of that would be at the six inch so uh sentient six inch setback mark so the footing could be on the line potentially you can you can go right up to the to the the property line or i this is more clarification that's all i just was one from a clarification standpoint that's all all right so i i guess then the conditions that i would that i would put on it would be that um the location defense has to conform with the stamp plan the survey plan that we have yes and the second is that the fence will be uh eight feet tall yes other than that i think there's no other conditions needed i just want to consult with my client for one second sure can i just so by i'm going to text you for one second okay sorry fat thumbs
oh remember those yeah the nokia yeah i never had applied for it envy so the plan does not actually show the distance between the fence and the property line i'm comfortable with the six inch specification or limitation but i think if you could explicitly reference the six inches from the property line rather than uh reference the plan i think that might be more helpful all right so i guess so we'll and as the building commissioner was mentioning it would be the fence itself uh the back edge of the post that's six inches from the property line okay so we'll we'll reword those two conditions the condition one that the the back edge of the fence post be located six inches from the property line and the fence be eight feet tall yes okay second second yeah second second all in favor opposed none so we've granted the variant so um this is the same process right a uh so we have a deadline for that one uh yeah so i think for a variant slightly different um so the decision has to be issued uh latest august 16th that's that oh we get you we can do better than august 16th okay um so typically it takes us about two weeks to turn back the decision around to you and then is there it's there it's the same appeal period is this 20 day of the same 20 day of field period okay which i i don't think you're going to run into any issues because you've already approached everyone who had it who would have anything to say about stuff um and then after that this is uh this will be all set i appreciate uh reaching out to your neighbors and and requesting the support of this of course and i'm really appreciative of the prompt consideration and the effort that's gone into the review thank you again thank you very much thank you thank you have a good night bye all right so also um are there any board comments or concerns besides the fact we have to plan uh dinner for sure we have a scheduling we have a scheduling thought okay okay so is there anything else any other business no are there any updates from the building commissioner uh sorry i couldn't be in uh in person tonight i had a little uh graduation celebration to go to uh and couldn't make it there in time um i wonder graduation celebration between that we had something we had some funky cases tonight thank you um no everything else is good uh getting ready for vacation also leaving friday so i'll be out for a week so um looking forward to that so uh no updates everything else uh is going well and nina's doing a great job um fantastic job thank you everyone have a motion move to adjourn second all in favor aye you're adjourned recording stopped
If the meeting has remote access, one can watch or participate remotely with the meeting link. It can be found in the formal meeting device. We're required by law or allowed by the chair. Persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so at the meeting location in person or via your means. Public comment should be limited to two minutes per person. So with that, is there any general public comment? This is public comment and not related to the specific cases this evening. Hearing none. The next one asks if the board has had a chance to review the draft meeting minutes confirmed May 12, 2026. Yes. Yes. Any comments? No. I'd like to make a motion that the board approve the draft minutes of May 12, 2026. Second. All in favor? Aye. None. So those meeting notes were approved. All right. So with that, we can get going. We're going to start with the 7 p.m. case. This is EBA case 26-15 for 4 Emerson Way in Wayland. This is the application of Judith Blanchard Kennedy for the property located at 4 Emerson Road in a single residence R-20 district. The applicant seeks re-approval of a previously granted variance under former case 24-37 for the proposed expansion of an existing attached barrage. The variance was granted by the board in 2024 and reported to the Registry of Deeds on February 6, 2025. In due to a clerical error, the receipt form incorrectly identifies the approval as a special permit rather than a variance. As a result, the applicant proceeded under the understanding that the approval remained valid under special permit timelines and the applicable variance extension deadline was inadvertently missed. The variance is therefore elapsed, and the applicant now seeks re-approval of the same project previously approved by the board. All supporting materials remain unchanged except for the updated application form and the revised butter list. So do we have anyone here this evening to present this case? I'm Judy. Good evening, Judy. Do you want to come up? And is there a chair for you up there? Do you want me to sit? Of course, sir. Yeah, you don't have to stand. Absolutely, you should sit. You do not need to sit. No, it's after hours, you should absolutely be able to sit down and, um, yeah, just, I think I explained very clearly. You did. I just would like to tell you how I got into the mess. Um, after I got the approval and it went through Cambridge and everything, I talked to some people, some of the people I originally had talked to about this were no longer working in Wayland. Some people I talked to, um, didn't feel qualified to deal with the electrical and the foundation and all that. I couldn't get anybody to, to do it. Okay. And some other people were busy, nobody wanted to do anything. So I kind of got stuck in some other stuff over the summer. And then I came back to the building department, um, in December and said, how long have I got for this? And do I have, I was told two years, is that right? And the answer I got was, yes, I have two years. So now I have some, um, guys who are going to do it, but they can't draw a permit because it's a variance and it's expired, but nothing has changed. It's the same plan. It's everything the same except I got somebody to do it, but they can't because, because the variance has expired and Alina explained that, that the, the original approval I got on the front page, it says special permit, which is two years. And on another page, it says variance, which is one year. So I got the two year explanation and come to get the permit. And it's a one year deal. Well, thankfully I went back and I looked, I wrote the original variant decision, so, um, I reread it just now. Um, I think this is extremely straightforward because the board has already voted to approve this, grant this variance. The facts haven't changed. We have like a clerical error that I don't necessarily know who's responsible for that, but I don't think that matters. I don't think that changes the legal substance of this. So, unless the board disagrees, like I'm inclined to just make a motion, vote, and, and move this along. Yes. Agreed. Okay. Can I ask a question? Do I have to go through the Cambridge thing and, uh, and, uh, that whole routine all over again? Yes. I think, unfortunately, you do have to rerecord this, but I, I don't, I can't speak for the building department, but I'm sure as far as the town is concerned, if they know that you're going through that process, I don't think there's a reason to necessarily hold this up. I don't know if Nathan, you know, building commissioner needs the formal receipt from the registry indicating that you've done that, or if we know that it can sometimes be challenging to get things taken care of at the registry of deeds in like a 20 minute window, right? It could be a multi-day process. Do I have to wait the 30 days again for neighbors and all that stuff? No. In my opinion, no, because the board granted this, the board granted this variance. The facts haven't changed. No. Isn't there still an appeals area? That's still. So, I don't, well, let me ask you this question, I think we are just re-voting on the original application. I know we have a new application for us, but like, the facts haven't changed. So, I think the appeals period is 20 days, and I am not quite sure, since it has a new case number, and it needs to be recorded, I believe there might be a 20. Nathan, can you weigh in here? I would do it just to be safe. I can. Mr. Chair, everyone, yes, this is a new case. It does need to get registered again with the registry of deeds, and actually there is another 20-day appeal period, but the recipient can proceed at their own risk. And because it was previously approved, I do not see any problems with proceeding. So, unfortunately, you have to go back, Judith, back to the registry, but yes, we're okay to move forward. Well, I need to get new paperwork from you to send in, and get the town clerk to send in all that. Well, yes, but I think the paperwork from us is, we don't have to recreate the entire decision. I believe we can create a literally, like a one-paragraph decision that will take a day to write. That probably references the... And just references the original text. I don't, we do not need to recreate this entire process. Okay. So, as far as you're concerned, but I still have to go through the 20 days and the... Unfortunately, the 20-day period, I think we are legally bound. I don't, I don't have the authority to waive that. I wish that I did, but I don't... I do know that the notices went out to all my neighbors, because a couple of them said so. And nobody's objected, but... No, the appeal... It doesn't matter. Yeah, the appeal period, unfortunately, is mandatory. I don't, I don't, I can't guarantee this, but I really doubt you're going to have any trouble. But I just, I don't think we can waive that. I wish we could, but I really don't believe we can. We can't give you the advice to waive it or not, because there's a deal for you. And as the building commissioner said, you could, you could go and register it at your own risk, but that's, that's something for you to weigh. But I, I'm supposed to do it. Yeah. Okay. So, you know. Yeah. And that means that my contractors can't get a building permit until that's all done again? You talk to the... No, you, Judith, you can make application with the building department. We will, we will take in your application. You can proceed at your own risk. And like I said, I don't believe that you're going to have a problem. You don't have any opposition from any of your neighbors actually has support when you were heard last time. So you can move forward on this project. And I don't see a problem with that. So I get, I have to go, I go through the process, which I will do. But can my contractors who I've already given a deposit to, can they get a permit just to begin unless, without having to go get the thing back from Cambridge? Yeah. What, what Nathan is saying is as far as he's concerned, yes, there is the only potential danger is if for some reason, someone of your abutters decides to appeal. It just can, it can delay that process. But I, I doubt that it's going to happen. I can't guarantee that. But they didn't, they didn't, they didn't object before. And nothing has changed. So there's no reason to think that they will object this time. So that's what, that's what Nathan is saying. That's why we have to say you have to proceed at your own risk. I see. That's, that's the reason why. The only risk is that for some reason, someone can decide to object who didn't object before. I, I, I doubt that highly. You had a very, you had a very easy, straightforward case that made an enormous amount of sense. So it's not as though you were asking for something that was extremely egregious or very unusual. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So I should go see you guys. Yes.
That's not welcome. I want to, we haven't done anything yet. We have to do so. I know. We have to get this done. Technically we have to re-approve. Technically we have to re-approve this. So, um, I would make a motion that the board, um, re-approve the, uh, inadvertently lapsed variance for, for Emerson Road. Second. Okay. I think as long as I, I, I guess I would amend that motion and say that, um, the underlying conditions and documentation, documentation has not changed. And the project is, the project needs to be, you know, constructed in conformance with all the terms of the original variance. Correct. Yes. Yeah. Um, all right. So all in favor, uh, I opposed none. So typically we have like a 14 day process to write this, but I, I'd ask if Anita would be able to create this document sooner. I think it doesn't even, I would recommend that it be as simple as possible. I wouldn't recreate the variance. I would just simply have a one, one or two lines that decision that just references the original document and just gives you a brief narrative about the, you can even take this narrative that is in the meeting house there. So, okay. Yeah. So we're gonna, we're doing everything we can to get you through this as fast as possible, but I think we still have that 20 day process that we do have to go through. But I'm pretty sure that, that, that the building commissioner said, your team can go in, they can get the application going. They could probably work for their materials. Yeah. Yeah. All that is happening. Yeah. That would be huge. Yeah. It saves like a month and a half at least. Well, we're, we're sorry you're in this situation, but we're happy to sort of happy to make it go away.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman. Yes. May I make one suggestion that on the, the decisions for a special permit are variants, that the timeline be put in there for how long it is valid. So we can not have this situation arise again. So it's, it's, it's, it's put it in the text, um, for, for the, uh, written, uh, document. So, uh, we don't have this again. Okay. I think that's a, that's an excellent suggestion for sure. Okay. So if I may just clarify, that'd be one year. For a variant. For a variant. And then they can come back for an extension for six months. Anything. That's right. That timeframes. Right. Okay. That's going up and down. Okay. And special. Special permit is two years. Three years.
You're awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.
All right. So we can go on to the next case. This is the, uh, the 710 case. This is the continuation of DBA case 2609 from 35 Snake Fork Road. This is the application of Rama and Surin Savan Robby for property at 35 Snake Fork Road, but within the single residence R 30 district. The applicant seeks a special permit under the way that Wayland Zoning Bar Lab and renovate and expand the existing single-family building, including the rear addition of the construction of the second floor. The proposed project would increase the lot coverage to approximately 14 to 23%, exceeding the 20% of the maximum-long coverage. The existing dwelling is on a pre-existing non-conforming lot with respect to the minimum lot area and fronted requirements. So do we have anyone here to present this online? I see someone online. All right. Yeah. If you could, he's already on. All right. Good evening. If you could introduce yourself and tell us, um, what you have updated since the last time we spoke. Hello.
How's everyone doing? How's everyone doing? My name is the owner. Good. Good. My name is the owner. I'm representing the owner for 35 Snake Fork Road. So from the last meeting, I updated the plan with the average grade and make sure I adjusted the height of the building so that we would have no issues with the height. Uh, we definitely don't want to be over 35. So from the average grade, we're now at 33 feet, uh, seven inches. To do that, we adjusted the slopes of the roof. So we lowered that, that down, uh, given, uh, a smaller slope would decrease the height. Uh, and then from the last meeting, I was also in the neighborhood. I walked around, uh, in the, in the neighborhood, kind of speak with, uh, speaking with as many neighbors as I could. Uh, I was able to speak with five neighbors from, from the neighborhood. All I showed them the project, none of them had any issues, uh, with the proposed project. Uh, and in that regard, I was also able to get two letters of, uh, support from, from the neighbors.
Okay. Yeah. Looking at my notes, two comments we had last time. Um, one was for me referencing the fact that we have a height violation because we didn't have the average grade calculated. And I believe, um, one of the board members, I think it was Mr. Curry, wanted confirmation that you had addressed. Uh, you had at least shared the plans with your neighbors and sort of made, uh, made an effort to get them acclimated to the project and, and given them an idea about what to expect. So I, I appreciate that you've been able to move forward on both those things. I'm looking at the drawings now and I see the average grade has been updated and the height, the product is below the height limit. And I think that documentation is, it looks correct to me. And I appreciate that you clouded it. So we know what to look for on the drawing. So thank you for that.
Comments you wanted to, uh, bring to our attention.
No, other than that, everything remains the same. Uh, yeah, it was just, uh, those were the, the main concerns. We definitely didn't want to be, uh, at any height violation or anything like that. So we made sure to address those changes and also address the neighbors. Uh, so I was able to walk around, uh, and try to speak with as, as many as, uh, as I could that, they thought I was selling something. So it wasn't always easy. So, uh, so yeah, I was able to do that and I, and I got some feedback too. And, uh, every, everyone likes the project. It seems like it should, shouldn't be an issue with the neighborhood.
Any questions from the board?
Is this a, um, a two or a three bay garage? So it's a two bay, two bay garage. Uh, so that was one of the, the, the things that, uh, was one of the first comments, uh, we were trying to first from the first meeting, actually, uh, originally we had three small doors there, uh, and after speaking with you and kind of take, really taking a look at the plans, the two doors and maintaining, uh, it just makes more sense maintaining it to two car. Yeah, thank you. It looks like you have, um, some, uh, some, I guess, comments from your neighbors that have been sent some of you. It looks like the neighbor at 15 Snakebrook Road has expressed some support for the project as well as the neighbor at 12 Snakebrook Road. Yes, uh, those two neighbors were, that I spoke with and they were totally fine with it and they were happy to do support letters. So that was, that was great. Um, I forgot which one of the neighbors that was an older gentleman and he really liked the project and he was actually asking if it was going to be going up for sale. He wanted to buy it for his daughter, but this is going to be for the owner. So, um, is there anyone here this evening that, um, beside the applicant that has any material information they want to present on this? No, and it does. There's no one online, correct? Correct. Okay. Well, I know this is this product has been continued, uh, twice now, so I appreciate the, the updates that you've made. Um, any other comments from the board before we close the public portion of the hearing, you move to deliberation. All right. So, um, we'll close the public comment period. Um, so I'm satisfied with this, with the updates to this application. I know we had, we had pushed on some concerns about the size of the house relative to the overall neighborhood, but I think on reflection, looking at some of the other houses nearby that are just as large as this, I don't think there's a concern on scale. I think the issue with the height violation that's been addressed and I think there's been some, some outreach to the neighbors and we have two letters of support and we don't have any, we don't have any opposition. So it's a, I think it's a relatively straightforward special permit because there's no new non-conformities being created. It's just extensions of the existing ones. So any other comments from the board? Yeah, I generally agree. I mean, I think, um, we gave him some feedback at the last meeting. Um, he took that feedback and, you know, did what, what we requested. Um, I still, you know, I do think it's, it's a large house for the neighborhood, but the neighbors have been informed and they didn't, they, you know, they seem supportive. So I don't think it's, um, yeah, I, I would, uh, you know, go with the neighbors, with what the neighbors, uh, have inclined and, uh, yeah, agree to move forward with the doctor.
I just want to thank Mr. Campos for, for going around and talking to your neighbors and, and really, like kind of extending yourself out there, even though they think you're trying to solve something. So, you know, it's not always an easy thing to do is to just walk up to a house and try to explain what's going on or so on and so forth. So I really commend you for being able to do that. Um, and the fact that you got support, I agree. I think the house is a little large, but overall, I think with the fact that you got support, I think it's, I think it's, um, uh, it shows that I think everyone's willing to support you on that. So, um, so, yeah. So I think, I think the board agrees that we can make a finding that, uh, the proposed change is not, uh, substantially more detrimental to the existing and performing house to the neighborhood and satisfied that made that. Right. I think a motion under, uh, section two or 3.1, that, um, that, um, we grant a special permit, uh, for, uh, to be in case 2609 at 35 Snakebrook Road, because I think the applicant has shown to the satisfaction of the board that the building structure, um, or use of the application is made. It's not against the public interest. It doesn't derivate from the character of the neighborhood in which the building occurs and is not detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibrations, smoke, gas, beams, order, dust, or other objectionable features. And that the use of the building or structure is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangers to the public health or safety. And then as, as the, as a couple of conditions, uh, uh, for this permit, um, I'd stipulate the project has to be constructed in substantial conformity with the updated drawings that are dated revision two, May 22nd, 2026. And the applicant has to, uh, obtain approvals from any other boards as maybe a required seconded new discussion or Nope. I, I neglected to name the panel, which is the five members that are here this evening, Mr. Perry, Mr. Hirsch, uh, Ms. Janice, Ms. Paul, Mr. White. Um, so with that, uh, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? None? Uh, all right. So this, this special permit is granted. As we heard from the first case, there's a 20-day appeal period and then there's 14 days for us to write the decision. And then once it's completed, there's a 20-day appeal period. And then to that point, you can take your decision, report it, the regular period of deeds, and then take the next steps that would be to apply for the building permit. All right. So the 20, oh, sorry. No, go ahead. 14 and 20. Oh, 14 then 20. Perfect. That, that was my question. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Good luck. First of all, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Right. And, uh, my clock says it's 729, so we can't technically start the 730 application yet. It's going to work for 35 seconds. Yep. I guess it's 730. All right. Let's do it. 36 seconds. All right. This is the next case. This is the 730 case. This is in CBA case 26-12 for 22 Stonebridge Road. This is the application of Robert Haskins for the possibility of the 22nd of the road. And the assembly of residents are appointed with the applicant seeks a variance and or other zoning for a retroactive approval of an accessibility structure located between the principal dwelling and the street. The structure was previously approved under a building and a building for an issue by the town, which was later determined by the building department to have been approved in the era. So, um, we have to present this case this evening. Hi. Good evening. My name's Rob Haskins. I'm the owner of 22 Stonebridge. Good evening. This is pretty complicated. So, can you, uh, can you shed any light on this? That's, uh, that pun was intended, obviously. But, um, on exactly what's happening here with this, I've read the description and I, I, I understand that, but, uh, this is a little. So I renovated. Yeah, let me give you some light. Thank you, sir. Um, we renovated our home. Um, and in the process, we demolished our old shed and put a new one in. Um, I was working with Mike at the building department. Um, I actually come before the ZBA for this project, uh, only to find out at the meeting that I didn't need to go through the ZBA. Uh, so I was working with Mike, who's no longer with the town at the building department. Um, I grabbed, uh, the application for a shed, made all of the, um, you know, met all the requirements that were on there, uh, put the shed on my, my certified plot plan and everything else. Um, and I was told that that was approved. Um, someone, uh, that lives close to me, I guess, uh, came to the building department and, um, made a complaint that my shed was in between, um, my home and the road. Um, I don't know who that is. I would like to know who that is. I'd also like to know what the town and ZBA is position on, you know, once this is resolved, how does that get communicated to the town? Um, but, um, I was indirectly contacted, uh, by the town, uh, to let me know that my, um, shed was not in compliance. Um, then it happened again. I came down to the building department, uh, worked with Nate and I forget the other gentleman's name. I think he's new. Uh, they were helpful. Um, and they said, listen, we need to approach the ZBA to get this approved retroactively. Um, so I do know there is precedent in town. Um, I've seen several sheds in front of homes in between the roads throughout the town. Um, you know, in my mind, I haven't approved shed. Um, but you know, I, I, I wanna, you know, get this squared away so that there's no issues moving forward. Um, that's really all I have. Okay. And I guess a quick question for you. We have, we have this, uh, and you can't hold this up and you can't necessarily see it. We have a site plant here that shows the shed and it looks like it is. It looks like it's to the east of your house.
Correct. Okay. So my, my house is so old that the front entrance of the house used to be on old Connecticut path. So then the Lavins, you know, bought and developed their property over there. And then my driveway moved to Stonebridge, which they then made the main entrance on the house on the back of the house. So, you know, my shed is not in between the front entrance of my home. It's to the side of my home, but it is between my home and the road, if that makes sense. I guess let me, let me, I know the building commissioner is online and I have several questions. Um, but I'm looking at the plot plan. I don't understand what the nature of the zoning violation would be. The shed seems to be within all the setbacks. The shed is definitely, uh, yeah, I think it's 200 square feet. I think that's the maximum you're allowed. And the setbacks are, more than what the town asked for. Um, I've also planted, I've also planted a lot of, um, sure. Like it is in between the road. Um, but you know, it's, it's very like right now when everything's filled in, it's very hard to see, you can't even see that it's there. I I'm on almost, I'm on, I'm like, uh, an acre and a half. Yeah. So, um, Mr. Commissioner, can you give us any, uh, any, uh, guidance here on, um, what the relief would, would be? I'm, I'm struggling to see what it would be. Yeah. Well, the address for the dwelling is 22 Stonebridge is not old Connecticut path. So in our bylaw, it says that a shed, it cannot be placed in the front yard without a special permit or variance from the zoning board of appeals. So based on that information, uh, I believe that the shed is into the front of the house, uh, and was placed there and was approved in air by the former commissioner. So, um, in, in front yards before, uh, and we, so I guess the problem we, yes, but the problem we have is that the certified plot plan shows Stonebridge road and it shows the shed not in the front yard. I mean, I'm with, I'm not looking at, I mean, I'm not the only, I'm looking at this drawing and that's what this drawing shows. So if this is like a certified drawing and this is what we're approving, there would be no approval required. I mean, I'm not trying to oversimplify this, but like, and I, is there another drawing that's not, is, is this drawing incorrect? Is this drawing shows the shed in the side yard? Basing that on, on the site plan or? So I'm going off the address of the house and where the, where the, where the entry is. Where is the entry on the site plan? I see a porch, um, and a garage. It looks like to me, I'm looking at it on Google maps here and tell me if I'm wrong. It looks like it's like over here. The front door? Front door looks like it's, looks like it's. No, the front, I, it's hard for me to see what you're pointing at, but it, it, I'm, I think it's 28 Stonebridge, which is next to me. The entrance to my house faces 28 Stonebridge. So you come off of Stonebridge, let's just say you're coming from Lavins, you make a left, you come up my driveway, you pull in front of the house, the entrance is on the left. There should be a garage and a new front porch. The entrance to the house is that new front porch. The proposed addition side is your front door. I'm sorry. I'm just having trouble hearing you. Would you mind repeating that? The proposed addition on this map is where your front door is. Can you see, uh, I just don't have any reference for what, I, I, sorry. I think that's, this is his front door. The deck is in the rear? Yeah, the deck is in the rear of the house. So this is the back of the house. This is the front. Yeah, that's, yep, you're correct. That I'm looking at here. It looks like it's right here is the driveway. That's correct, sir. Where's old Connecticut? The house is not on old Connecticut. It used to be on old Connecticut. Now the driveway is off Stonebridge. I was trying to explain why the house is oddly has an entrance that's facing the neighbor instead of a main road. Nathan, can you, can you look at the, uh, the same site plan that we are looking at? I, I did previously look at the, uh, the site plan, uh, upon review of the project. Um, and so the, the new, so he had a major addition put onto the house. So when you go up to driveway, the, the new entrance is, or the entrance to the dwelling is on the, uh, the right hand side. The front does not have an entrance, but this, the entrance is, uh, to the driveway that leads out to Stonebridge. Hey, but I, you know, but I'm looking at the, looking at where the shed, the shed is on the east side of the property and it is on a section of the property that abuts two other properties. So there's the, and unless I'm, unless this drawing is incorrect, the shed is, the shed is in the back or it's in the side. It appears to be in the back. It appears to be in the rear. And or side, depending on the rear and the side. So yeah, which is not in the front at all. So we have a one of those sheds that were in the side yard inching forward at the house, which is not the case here at all. And then side yards and rear yards.
So how, how, how old was the original shed? It was very old. I mean, the floor was rotted out and the doors had fallen off. I mean, it was, it was, it was getting to be non-usable. So if this shed is built on the same foundation, basically a footprint as the earlier shed? No, no, no, no. It was moved from where the old shed was because I'm going to,
my kids are, I'm going to grasp that so that they can play sports there. Okay. So I guess the question, the question that the board has to answer is, if the shed is as shown on the plan that is submitted with the application, there is no, there is no violation. I don't see a violation there. So Nathan, is it possible that the shed is not where it is shown on this plan? The shed is, is parallel to Stonebridge. And when I looked at the site plan, I didn't determine that that area was the side of the house. So you're saying the shed is not where it's shown on the plan that we have before tonight? There, there was, there was two sheds. There was a shed, um, towards old con that was removed. And then this new shed was put between the house and, uh, Stonebridge. Right. So then, so that's the problem we have is the drawing that is attached to the application is not correct. That's not what we're seeing. What we're seeing, we're seeing shows a shed that's fully compliant in the side yard. Yeah. And it appears to be a button, two properties, as Tom mentioned before, one that says now are formerly Stonebridge Realty Trust. Yes. And then below that or south of that, one that says now are formerly OCP Realty Trust. Yeah. So that, so that is not the plan that was, that has the signature from the building department on it. The building department has a plot plan. I'm sorry. I need it. Do we have the actual drawing? Do we have the actual drawing? Well, I, I reached out to the applicant to, uh, confirm that this is the plot plan that, uh, where the shed is located. So now I'm a little confused. So if I may, um, so that the correct plot plan is not what you guys are having, uh, what you're looking at the, no engineer drew the shed in. Okay. I bought the shed online. And then when I was going for my building department, I was told by the building department that I could draw in the shed, make sure that the setbacks were met and things like that. I'll be very direct with everyone. Um, I feel as though my shed is already approved. Um, and that this is somewhat of a formality. I came back to the building department because people were coming and saying my shed was, you know, my, you know, whatever. Um, and I, I said, listen, I'll go through this, but you know, I need you to move all the documents from the building department to the ZBA. So, um, if you're looking at the plot plan, um, that is the, which I think you're looking at that the shed is not in the correct location. It is in between Stonebridge and the side of my house. And it abuts up again, against where my driveway is. Not, not very close, but 10, 15 feet. We have proper documentation and that's what we're trying to confirm on where that drawing in spot is, which is fine. You want to draw in a spot on it. If it's accurate, that's all that matters is that if it's accurate, my mind, you know what I mean? Like if it's in the right location, then we actually can go off of proper documentation. So why don't, um, this is not the, this is not the plot plan that's, um, with the building, um, with the building permit application that I reviewed. Uh, there's the hand drawn shed in, um, that faces Stonebridge and is with the building application in the file. So we get the proper documentation. Uh, yeah, I think we do. Um, so, uh, And if I may, uh, uh, Nina may, she may be able to pull the, uh, the file out of the department. And if you want to wait a couple minutes, great. I'd love to not, I'd love to not rather that'd be better for the applicant. Yeah. Um, so, um, can someone point to me in the, in the zoning bylaw where it physically says the shed cannot be located? I was just, I don't have my annotated ZBA hand by law with me. I love that. I'm looking through, I'm looking through this and I can't find that I know. Language anywhere. Well, it wasn't there. Nathan, what section is the, our shed's in? I do, I do remember seeing some of that because we've had this conversation multiple times, um, over by the mansion beach side. Yep. Um, of course I've forgotten.
Nathan, do you happen to know where that language is? 703.1. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Nathan. It specifically doesn't highlight the, it says a backyard may contain, there's no verbiage that says of, of for shed may be authorized in a front yard, but it gives you the permission as a ZBA to approve a shed with, uh, circumstances to allow it in the front yard. And that's in the, uh, what? 703.1 is like where it states accessory buildings or structures. Um, I think that's what he's talking about. Yeah, but that just says that you can, that it can be in the backyard and it can be closer. It can go all the way up to 10 feet of a property line if you want to grant that a special permit. Right. But it doesn't say you can't put it in any other place. I think this is what we've struggled with before. Yeah. We have here. I remember that as well. Yeah.
So Nathan, are you aware of any other, any other component of the bylaw that regulates this? Because I, I, I read this and I, I don't, I don't agree that. This has been standard operating procedures since I've been with the building department and, uh, um, Mr. Larson, previous commissioner, uh, would adhere to this also as far as, uh, no sheds in the front yard unless a special permit is, uh, obtained. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just trying to front me. I think I understand why. Why we had that? Yeah.
So Anita was able to go and, uh, pull out the file. So, so me. Okay. Yeah. There's the new location. Got it. And this, what we had before. So I'm still with the setbacks. Yep. I go back. All right. So we've got, we have the document with, uh, we have the document with this, this jet.
So the photo on Google is too old. Oh, wow. That's huge. Interesting. Yes. And you know what? If the front door is really on the side, this would be a side yard structure. And, and there are, I guess it would be, there are also trees and stuff in the front of the property that's all right in front of it. You've got the setback line there and it's inside of the setback. Yeah. So that would be, that would work. Um,
but I agree with Nathan that it has been the practice that it sheds knocking in the front yard. And I think that one time when we had to deviate from that was a property that was up in North Wayland that was in a water, water protected area. Do you remember? I never got it. And so we had, I remember debating that at this point. And I think we did grant that a special permit, but I remember looking at that time, we, we, we just, we took the direction from the building commissioner. Right. Yeah. So 703.2 also, um, lower down in the paragraph, it does reference a garage either attached in the single family, two family attached dwelling may be located beside the dwelling, provide there's a yard between the garage. So, um, that's the other language that's written. So there's no definitive. Yeah. But there's nothing in the bylaw. There's not even a section about front yards. There's nothing in the bylaw that says you can't have an accessory structure in the front yard that I can see. The bylaw talks about side yards and rear yards. It does not talk about front. So I don't, but it does not reference front yard for a location of a shed. Awesome. So it assumes that it's prohibited. It has been, it has been the practice in the past to not have them in the front yard. They could kind of inch there, but if they were on the side, practice doesn't necessarily mean that that's the side yard in the front of the house was different than it fits in your front lawn. Um, so this is the way this appears on this, this plot plan. Um, it's over to the side. All right. Well, I guess in the absence, I mean, there is nothing. I I'm, I'm comfortable that the general language of section seven gives the board the latitude to grant special permits. Yes. For, for these things. Yeah. Uh, perhaps it's the, perhaps it's the safer, the safer. Does it have to be a variance or a special permit? It would be a special permit because it's not, that's what I would agree that something in that there was a, there was a, well, the, the notifications is variance and or a special permit. It's to cover us. That's all. Yeah. I, we do have, uh, public that would like to also make comments. I am, I understand what we get there. Well, we gotta, we gotta, we gotta, we gotta, we gotta, we gotta, we gotta actually try to path to make sure we have a legal, there's a legal pathway to discuss the, the case in my opinion. I agree. Yeah. I mean, we're mainly saying it to remind myself. Yeah. Um, there's just one more section. I want to double check, um, accessor restrictions. We can see you're, you're bringing, this case is bringing us into sections of the file that we don't usually have to consult. I'm trying to think of the other, there were two or three years ago over Red Mansion Beach. There was like one or two that we only did. Yeah. I remember, but that was a space constraint issue. It was, but we proceeded at the direction of the previous building commissioner who insisted that the bylaw did not authorize this. Yeah. But I remember then struggling with this because it, no, it was weird language then. That's weird that that is the case. Well, if we only had updated everything when we were updating stuff.
That's a problem. We should throw this out and come up with a fresh one because it's been, it's been cross edited so many times. It's inconsistent with itself. Um, all right. Well, before I get, before we move on, do you have any other, um, anything else to say about, about your application? Besides the fact that you, you've, you brought us a pretty complex legal case. Uh, no, sir. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. So I guess while we're still continuing to do some research, we may as well hear from, from somebody else. So do we have any, any members of the public here to talk about this case? Yeah, please come forward. Yeah, can you come up with your name and address? I'm Kevin Allery from 38 Stonebridge Road. Rob, we've never met, um, but I'm familiar with your property, um, to the west of you by one lot. Can I take a look at that plot plan that was brought out? Oh, probably that one. Yeah. I don't want the inaccurate ones. Yeah. That's that. That's color coded. So this is a hand-drawn shed with a surveyor stamp on it and it's dated November 4th, 2024. I don't think the surveyor probably survey located this. Surveyor doesn't have to, an official surveyor doesn't have to do that. Yes, he does to certify that it's in compliance with zoning. It's the, if you see there, the distances on the lines, it'll tell you how far away it is. And then you'll have to check it once, you know, once it's on. Yeah. I mean, I suppose what, what I think what, what you're saying is that, I mean, that's the legal draw document that we have that shows that that is inside the, the stamped, uh, setback line. We don't have a document that confirms that that it's built there. But this is called the proposed stormwater plan. Yeah. But you can see on there, the setback lines indicated. Right. From the proposed stormwater plan, not from an as-built survey. Oh, no, we don't have an as-built survey of the shed. That's what I just said. Like, I don't know, I don't, we don't have a document that says the shed is where it is on that red colored box right there on that plant. So how can you all shed, do all shed applications require a new survey? Sir, please, please don't interrupt. Okay. How can the ZBA make a decision on dimensional standards if it's not survey located and implotted with a current stamp on it? But for the building commissioner to confirm the location at site when closing out the permit, but the building commissioner is not a survey area. I mean, we, I mean, as far as I am aware, the, uh, the requirements for out-built, uh, ad-built foundations, I thought those were for primary structures and accessory structures that encroach on setbacks. I'm not aware that it's required for accessory structure inside the setbacks, but I understand the question you're asking. This has a foundation. Yeah. This building has a foundation. It's not just wood on dirt. Um, it's just, I kind of want, you know, because I live up the street, I go by here a couple times a day. No, it's a, it's a valid question. I, the board cannot answer whether or not that drawing is accurate and that it is actually located where that shows it is. Right. Because it's a stormwater plan, not a survey plan. So, uh, you're being asked to approve, to approve a stormwater plan with a shed hand drawn on it. I didn't say we were going to approve anything. Well, you can see you're up in consideration. Uh, yeah, but we also don't have all the documents we need to make the, to make this. And it's also, it's in my mind, it's, it's questionable that there is even a violation here because I don't believe the bylaw says anything about prohibiting the accessory structures in the front yards. At least the bylaw that I I'm reading, I can't find anything in here that says an accessory structure is prohibited from the front yard. But it doesn't say it's allowed either. There's, yeah, by that logic, you know, the whole bylaw, I'll come under that. But, you know, yeah, exactly. Are you in opposition of the location of where this has been placed? It's very close to the road and you can't tell from driving by. In addition to that, he has lights on it, on the street side of it, on the back side of the shed that I guess the front of the shed faces his front door or driveway. The backside faces the street and he's got lights on it. I agree. That's not correct. I'm sorry. Oh, sir, please. You can have a moment to speak, but please do not interrupt. Yes. I don't know if it's good. I believe I saw lights on it. I don't pay attention to it. I try to help my neighbors, you know, in times, but it just looks very, very close to the sidewalk line. The road is curvilinear at this point. So you can't really tell accurately because it's not a straight shot to say, okay, yeah, it's 20 feet away or 30 feet away because you're going around a curve. And it just drew my attention to it that it was a shed in the front yard very close to the street. Some time ago, I had a brief discussion with Jeff Larson years ago, not on this property, but others. And he said, no, absolutely. Shed's not in the front yard. They belong in the backyard. So that's why I questioned it again and just look very close to the front yard. And then I started looking through the zoning board of appeals or the building department file and there's no as built plan. It wasn't staked out. So it's like, oh, what's going on? Yeah. So it's a valid point. Again, we only that's the only drawing we have, and it shows that it's inside the setback line. But your point is, that's just a drawing. We don't have a comp. We don't have confirmation that that's where it actually is located. Who created this? Valid question. Yeah. It's not, it's not, it's not a drawing. It's not a drawing. If that was presented to us as a new case for an approval, we wouldn't be able to act on that because it's not, it's not an actual document. You're right. You know, it's not like this document, which is like a stamped site plan. Yeah. But that's proposed. It doesn't show the, doesn't show the CBA. Yeah. But the CBA, what we as a zoning board always approve proposed projects. We don't approve projects after they're completed. So we always have proposed site plans, like, because the actual as built site plan is completed after the completion of the foundation, which would be post CBA action. Okay. So it's not unusual because we're being asked for a retroactive approval. Right. For a variance. Well, we can't grant, we wouldn't grant a variance for this because the site, the site doesn't meet the legal standards for a variance. So. Oh, I thought the notice was for a variance. It says variance and or a special permit. Sorry. This would most likely be a special permit. It couldn't be a variance. Yeah. Yeah. This was, that's my question. Seeks a variance and or other zoning relief. So. So it doesn't say special permit. It says other zoning relief. Okay. So the documentation would get updated. They often get misappropriated and then fixed. Okay. So it doesn't qualify for a variance, but it may qualify for a special permit. Right. It would qualify for a special permit under a section 203. But no, it would not meet the state statute for a variance. Okay. I think that's it. I just wanted clarification on the documentation. It didn't seem correct with hand sketches and then, you know, proposed shed and then it goes in, it seems like it's just close to the street and I'm sorry, Rob, uh, it doesn't have lights on. I thought it did have lights when it first went in. So anyway, through the chair, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Have you signed in? Yes, I did. Beautiful. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes. Yes. Okay. So when we receive an application for a shed, we do not require a engineered, surveyed site plan or an as built of a shed that has been proposed or installed. We do, we require a site plan, something that represents the property and something that's fairly accurate. And you are allowed to install a shed up to 10 feet from your property line. So we, we allow a lot, a lot of homeowners pull the permits for sheds and we allow them to hand draw in. We do a site inspection. Now it's, as sometimes, uh, very difficult to make an accurate determination of where the property line is. It's a, it's a line in infinity that, you know, you have to make a judgment on. A lot of times, uh, the sheds are not that close to property lines. Sometimes they are, um, in my tenure, I have had no issues with any other sheds that have been installed, uh, on properties. And, um, so I believe that this shed in the front yard or this, this location, I'm going to say front yard and we'll say a location, uh, clearly meets the 10 foot buffer. And, um, I don't see that as a problem, uh, with a setback and I would not require a engineer site plan to determine its location.
Well, the only question I, the only point that I want to make though, is that, um, I think that 10 foot offset is limited by the zoning by lot to the rear yard only. I think that's 15 feet inside. And I think it has to, it would have, if it's in the front, it would have to comply with the front yard setback, which is, um, 30 feet. Or is this another 20? Yeah. 30 feet. Yeah.
And, and according to this plan, uh, that was, was supplied with the building permit. Um, it appears that the shed is, is inside the setback area.
When you say inside, you mean intrudes into the setback or is inside of the setback? Inside the setback. Um, so I don't believe, I don't believe it's intrusive. Okay. I have two questions for the applicant. Number one, uh, just to go back to, uh, the question of lighting. And I know you wanted to be able to explain that. I would like to give you that opportunity. And number two, how did you figure out your location of where you created your, uh, foundation? And how was that figured out for your location?
Thank you. There, the, the shed does not have electricity. During Christmas, there was a wreath on it. Um, you know, that was for the season. That was the only lights that were on it. Uh, there's no internal lights. There's no external lights. There's no electricity in the shed. Um, there was not a ton of thought as to, I mean, I, I wanted it in that section of my lawn because, um, you know, I have my back deck and I, I don't want to look at the shed when I go up, when I look out the back. Um, I looked through all of the regulations that were provided to me by the building department. I not only measured from, you know, making sure that those requirements were met, but I also put the shed, you know, I can't remember. I don't have, I don't know exactly how many feedback is, but I know that I left an additional amount to make sure that it meets, you know, what is required. Um, so that there were no questions. Um, and you can use measurements to be able to ensure that you're within that expectation of what you drew on the proposed plan that you provided to be able to put in your, your foundation. You did double check to make sure the dimensions were accurate to make sure that you were inside of those setbacks. Yes, sir. Okay. You received a building permit for that shed foundation based on that document. Right. Correct. I was making sure that there was an actual measurement that was taken by resetting that foundation. I guess it's confirmed through, if it's a proper foundation, I guess the building permit confirms the location anyways with a, with a foundation no matter what. Correct. But in this case, they, we heard from the commissioner that they wouldn't because it's an accessory structure and it was not as commonplace to do that. There's a little, it's a little atypical. Um, but, uh, and it's a poured foundation for concrete. No, there's no concrete crushed stone. Crushed stone. Wait a second. Hold on. No, it's not, it's not a concrete foundation. There may be. Putings. No, I think, I think, I think there's some, there's some, there's, uh, concrete, uh, like, like cinder blocks, cinder blocks, sir. Okay. Yeah, it's not, it's not, there's not a, there's not a, uh, a dugout, you know, like my garage. There's, there's nothing like that. I just wanted to kind of get clarification on that. It did cause me a good chunk of change to put that, you know, to get that, you know, to place that shed. Sure it did.
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Um, so on, this is on the original building application for the, uh, addition to the house. And this was added, this shed was added on, uh, at the, um, on the description of the, the job, proposed job, uh, at the end. So, uh, Nina can show you the, uh, building application and it does indicate that there's a shed on there. Um, public comments. Would you like to make another statement? Um, yeah. In general, uh, in general, uh, I looked at the file, Kevin O'Leary, 38 Silberge Road. Um, I reviewed the file when I saw the shed going in and there was no shed on the building permit application. Um, and I brought it to, I think, either Nate or Mike's attention came back a month or two later and it had been penciled on there as an addendum to the building permit application. So it doesn't appear to me that the shed in its current location was permitted. Well, part of the permit set, it was added in after I brought it to their attention.
So something doesn't seem right with it in its current location. Um, it's not clear to me. I don't have a lot of time to go through the documents and see everything, but that was clear that it had been hand sketched on the building plan application after my initial inquiry. And I don't believe it was ever survey located or staked to comply with setbacks. There's no as bill plan. This thing is out there floating along the side of the road. Nobody knows if it's in compliance or not with the front yard detention.
Um, if you don't mind, Mr. Commissioner, um, are sheds and accessory units, you know, shed size or so required to have survey drawings and be staked and what's the other thing? As bill located. As bill located on plans. No. Thank you.
Any other public comment? I propose the public comment has been to deliberation on this. I think it's advisable to seek, uh, legal guidance on this case because it's not clear to me. Like I'm not, we're not getting much. There's, there's too many questions on this. To that. And I, I want to be fair. I want to be fair to the applicants. I, I don't want us to make a, I want to be fair to the applicant and I want to be fair to the neighbors. I don't want us to make a decision on this. That is somehow has an unknown legal flaw in it that gets overturned on appeal and we've sort of exacerbated the situation that the applicant is in because he granted a building permit to build the shed. And now it's kind of being called into question. And I don't want to err in, in looking at this. Um, I'm comfortable that we could easily approve this as a special permit. Um, I question whether that's even necessary because I can't find any language in the body that says it's not, you even need a permit, a special permit to put a shed in the front yard. Um, so I'd like to get clarification on that, that there's not some case law that we're not aware of that needs to inform the interpretation of the bylaw. And second, I want to get legal clarification, um, on the applicability of a, uh, accessory structures, um, I think also, I think also it'll give us some time for the building department to confirm some details. Yeah. Yeah. That is compelling to think about. I mean, you know, I want, I want to make sure that, you know, I, I am, I am sympathetic towards the applicant for sure, considering, you know, I came down and I can't, I got a permit, I'm good to go. You know, I am now being told this, like I am a hundred percent sympathetic towards that, but at the same time, like, you know, um, we have to make sure that everything is accounted for appropriately. And I agree with you that I think counsel on this would be beneficial. So we're going to look for continuation. Yeah. So I want to, I, so again, I want to, I want to address the, I want to address the applicant. So you're, um, as, as Mr. Hurst mentioned, and as I'm sure other people on the board feel, we're extremely sympathetic to the situation that you're in. I just want to make sure that, that we grant you the legally correct relief so that this is, this is done, completed in, in, in the path and is closed. And I'm just fearful that the information we have is sort of 85%. 85%. And I, I really, I really want to get that the last 15% clarified so that we can be legally precise with this. Because I think you got, unfortunately, some, some in, I, I get, I'm guessing some incorrect advice or maybe some incomplete advice. Initially, and I want to make sure we find a way to remedy that. Remedy that, and I want to make sure we find a way to remedy that, remedy that legally correctly. So what I'd ask is, um, with your permission, if we could continue this to next month here, next month's hearing, that would allow us to gather, um, any additional documentation we have and just sort of reconfirm with legal counsel, the, the right relief mechanism for this situation. And we're doing, we're doing, we're doing this to make sure that the benefit is for both sides to make sure that you're, um, fully protected and, and not having to come back again, kind of scenario, like say a year or two or whatever from now, or having potential. So that's, that's the reason why. Which I understand and appreciate, I, I guess my question is, is that the, the board is generally sympathetic to my request for a special permit. So, I mean, the, the, I, I don't see anything in 7301 or 7302 that says I, you know, it doesn't prevent me from where I place my shed. I will respond to Kevin's comment earlier. Um, this, this wasn't, this, this shed was not placed in the building department's hands after the fact. I think that's what I heard. Um, this was, I went down to the building department. I got all the information I needed. I asked how to go through the process and I executed that perfectly. Um, I, I, I, I understand. Um, so do we need to, he's online, but do we actually need to have him sign something for a continuance? Can you do that like remotely? Uh, not at this point. Um, because if it's a variant, even if it, if it's a variance, we still have some plan. Um, let me check. It won't be a nice. For a special permit, we wouldn't know. Okay. We're already in deliberation. We're not taking any more comments. Thank you. Except for the next hearing, right? Yeah. Yeah. For this. Yeah. Yeah. For this. Um. All right. So, um, no, no. Okay. All right. So when is, uh, just before I make the motion of confirmation that the next hearing is, um, July 14th. I just want to make sure everyone, everyone who's here is, everyone who's here is available. Yes. Uh, I don't know if there are probably full of us. Uh. Um. Mr. Chair, if I may, um, if everyone's available for the next meeting, um, I just ask that this be put on first, uh, on the agenda because, uh, the Sherman's bridge, will be on next meeting, that may take some substantial time to discuss uh potentially you want to put you're saying put this be put this first and then put this first and and we uh we will uh reach out to town council and get a termination on the vagueness of our wonderful zoning bylaw that would be great all right so uh with that i'd like to make a motion that we continue zba case uh 26-12 for 22 stonebridge road to july 14th at um 7 p.m all in favor aye opposed none all right so uh you will be first on the agenda at our next hearing and we will make sure that we get all the information all people's names
what the guys we're not there's no one's remote no one's remote sorry okay sorry i got you yeah i was just making sure i just want to make sure we're doing it right all right so with that but he's getting to us yeah with that you're all set and um we'll gather the information we need and we're ready to tackle this uh our next journey so thank you uh one question one question if you'll mind will i be able to review this additional information that's being discovered in regards to my case before the meeting i don't see why i don't see why not unless for some reason we don't get something until the day of the meeting we're not gonna hold it back it gets sent to us and then and it's public so the answer should is yes and the only reason you wouldn't is if it's delayed to us so how how would i access that um calling the building department and we've asked for materials to be provided a full week before our hearings okay so july 7th reach out to the building department and ask if there's information that's come in call on the first you know july 1st yeah so anina will um once the information is given to the board then anina will email you the information that they receive uh while in advance of the meeting thank you thank you okay so we just need a quick
all right so we're going to just take a two or three minute pause here um before we move on to this recording stopped okay uh so we move on to our next case recording in progress this is the 745 uh hearing for zwa case 26-13 8 carpenter road this is the application of steve garofalo by colt realty llc for the property property property carpenter road and assume the residents are 40 district the existing dwelling is a pre-existing non-conforming structure with respect to front yard setback requirements the applicant seats is left of a ferment under other zoning relief with respect to addition along the existing non-conforming setback line with no increase in existing non-conforming was supposed additionally through the porch and attached two-car garage on the first floor and an after bedroom on the second floor so um assuming that is the two of you so if you could come up introduce yourselves and uh tell us about your project okay i'm steve garofalo my wife elizabeth's here and i think veto from cornerstone is on with us here so thank you um thank you for having us um we got put a permit in place for an application we received the denial letter which goes over with we took this test um regarding the front setback for existing non-conforming and then the um 40 percent over 20 percent um increase in area due to the violence informity so so yeah we got this denial order and then um i know someone else was saying it's tough talking to neighbors but i would there's 10 neighbors on the um abutters list and i went to all 10 neighbors talked to them about it i showed them a picture of the crazy dilapicated house that we bought that's been making for 35 years oh my goodness oh wow this is india we're a great guy and um we we like challenges um the neighbors were all happy that we weren't going to tear it down and build a mcmansion like it was the one next door but anyway um i showed them um copy of the plan telling them that they're also going to get something later on uh in the mail for the septic system because we are near a wetland and um i also showed them a copy of you know what it what it's going to look like when it's done which is basically um there's a house number three cabinet that kind of looks like this cost a lot of money to do but we're adding this two car garage and the fortune front so we're trying to make it not be an ugly duckling so we got the um support and i i read this to them before they signed it i said we have assigned neighbors of eight carpenter road whalen have reviewed the um the renovation and addition plans with owner steve garofalo and support this project so uh i gave a coffee of this two and ns you guys should have that you need to see the originals right here would you mind passing that around and your elevations around yeah that'd be awesome thank you sorry just just that and this too uh we you can have that part i don't know we're missing the elevation one all right okay i'll give you these two points um thank you um thank you sorry yeah so i'm not sure what else to say but um you have any questions i'd be happy to answer them yes one one question i do have i believe these are 12 ones yeah these elevations it looks like the you're not you're you're aligning with the existing ridge of the right you're not right i'm not going anymore increasing the um non-conformity than what it already is yeah we made sure that we did that we would like to go further out but i i don't want everything i don't want to go closer to the street so the elevation is not changing right okay here these are just just a different copies on this but they're they're they're the same it's the same information i mean it's a minimal which you guys have some other fancy stuff on just one more get it
so are you relocating the driver uh it is moving a little more over to the right you're looking at it from the front of the house it looks like you don't have to remove any trees to make that change right what's what's there now in these pitches is what's there at least right here you guys want to look at it the garage is basically being located kind of forward of the porch that's in the back right right yeah yeah okay with where the garage is now it's that structure's going to the right through your driveway through your driveway going over your leaching field uh no that's just the part of the um slope okay we designed the leaching field so the driveway would just miss it we made sure to keep it out of it thank you i have any questions actually i don't think there's any anyone else in the board does anyone else here in the public to talk about this case the wife would like to support if we generally she can speak her yourself that's a smart man right there so we'll close that close the public portion of this and move to deliberation um unlike the other cases this evening this is extremely straightforward yes i think this is a simple uh application of a special permit um i i've been i drove by the house i looked at i looked at the other person that is also other houses in the neighborhood i think this proposed addition is it's gonna be a nice addition to the neighborhood out again it changes anything relative to the scale of the other houses it seems completely appropriate so i think we can easily uh think of finding under 401 1.1 that this 401.1.2 that this is not at all of a deterrent to the existing neighborhood and the fact that it just extends the same existing non-juvantity across the front i agree with that also all the signatures from the neighbors uh stress ourselves versus we need to we need to have this gentleman be an advocate for the way other applicants should approach this task because it really isn't that difficult no it's very commendable for what you guys are doing with with the neighbors and stop making sure everyone's involved and like you know just the awareness is is just very neighborhood
i'm sure they are
so it's been vacant for 35 years is it wow well there's a neighbor across the street that's been there for 50 years and they said that that house has been vacant for at least 35 years shoes some moments is there's is there a serious structural damage it was a you know hoarder's house it took three and a half 30 uh dumpsters to clean without but it's pretty solid it's been different yeah someone's from paying their taxes the question right all right well as i said i i think under 401.1.2 the board can find that this is not substantially detrimental so um i'd make a motion under two or three point one that the zba grant a special permit for case 2613 and eight carlin road with the applicants very clearly shown that um the application that's being made is not against the public interest it doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which the building structure or use occurs and is not um detrimental or offensive because of noise vibration that's so gas fluids or dust or other objection features and that such use building or structure is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town their property or dangers to the public health or safety um in addition to that uh it meeting that standard i i put the same two conditions that we attach to every special firm firm and approval one is that it be constructed in substantial conformity to the plans that have been submitted to the board and the applicants got um obtain approvals from any other boards as may be required second again just to cover ourselves the panel is the five of us that are here tonight esther perry mr hirsch this genesis paul mr white um so now that that's out of the way he can again uh move to vote on this so all in favor aye aye opposed none so we have a 14-day process of a like the decision for the special permit and then there's a mandatory 20-day seal period and after that point you can pick up a copy of the approved permit file it with the registry of deeds and then you can go and fold it together yeah thank you that's all like with your project thank you yes you're going to need that luck with a 35 year old for the day to go appreciate it okay so with that we can move on to our last case which is the 8pm hearing um for zba case 26-14 for three jaeger way this is the application of uh via goffler ramans sorry if i took through that name um for the property located in three legal lane legal residents are 60 the applicant seeks the examiner answer and or other zoning relief to construct an eight-foot privacy fence along the property line adjacent to the bariton campus in order to mitigate impacts from campus improvements and to provide increased privacy and security for the residential property do we have anyone here to present this case uh i'm here subaya gopal raman and uh my attorney dina brown is on zoom as well uh and heena if you don't mind if you could elevate her
have they been elevated yes she has okay hello good evening last but not least uh my name is brown from the law firm of blitzer and blitzer and i'm representing the applicant mr gopal raman um we are seeking a variance um from the height restriction under section 198-7021 um to install a fence that is eight feet in height rather than six feet in height across the rear portion um and side portion of the lot um our lot at three yeager way abuts um the adjacent veritas christian academy campus which i'm sure everyone is familiar with all the work that is being done there now with the school um in the fields and the uh pickleball and tennis courts and all of that my client it would just like to install this fence so that he can maintain privacy um especially with students not cutting through the yard to get to the other street um so that they can um mitigate the impacts from the improvements have privacy and security for the residential property um he's proposing um a to install a cedar fence um but would like to reserve the option that as to whether it may be white vinyl or another vinyl instead simply for the fact that it's 595.5 feet of fencing that he's installing and still waiting to get the quotes on that um going to the topography here the lot that uh veritas christian academy is on is at a much higher um elevation than the applicant slot and we submitted a plan um that shows elevations on it if you have if you have that it has a red marking on it and it explains the difference um between the heights the for instance the wall that's being constructed on the veritas christian academy there are certain points where the elevations there are 19 feet and so the difference between that property and my client's property is approximately 14 15 feet in height um and so it's just really important that this is installed uh to protect their privacy and noise and other issues that might happen i'm sorry my dogs are barking now okay no we don't even the minute i get on the phone uh when we've received the um the abutters letters already 13 which we have two letters from the abutters who are in favor of the project one is on uh eight yeager way i believe and the other one is um on 20 we actually have a total of four at this point adam muscari luke shadlow david jabbs mary beth hagen and mayhul gandhi so the uh the developers owners of the veritas christian academy are in support of this uh the installation of this fence they understand the importance of it the question i have is is the proposal to construct the fence directly on the property line it's six inches away from the property line perfect that's it's it could be one inch for the property line it depends on the skill of the contractor involved and their tolerance for a risk right i mean my firm has built buildings on the property line can be done never but six inches i think is acceptable but um okay well that was that was my question there i just wanted to be sure you you because the challenge with putting it right on the property line technically is that uh the footings well depending on how the fence is done it's conceivable that the footing is wider than the fence post and it theoretically would intrude if you were to bite it right on the property rents the fact that you're six inches off seems reasonable thank you so i i guess i'm looking at um the kind of the standards for 40a really and i'm sure you are aware of this for um a variance that the circumstances of the topography is being one condition the second condition being like a literal enforcement would create a kind of substantial hardship so now i'm assuming that that is the that's another component of the argument here and three that that we can that the desirable leave can be relief can be granted without any detriment to the public good um which i i think here you know i think is relatively straightforward because this is a this is a lot line on the interior you're not sort of constructing a fence or asking for a variance for a fence that kind of faces a public way or a public building or something like that um there's part of the fence that actually faces yeager way a small section of it it looks like yeah a very small section of it it's compelling extremely fine just for terminology wise is this actually a variance or is this a special apartment it's the height it's a height variance technically i was actually looking well i was looking in the code and perhaps the the building commissioner can highlight this where in the code is the requirement about the fence height it's 702 702.1 all right thank you the fence is the walls up to six feet in height from existing national ground level okay so it's at the very bottom of the paragraph on the right you can see the words two six feet right above the bowl that i know 2.1 you said yes yeah the bottom
and walls up to six feet in height from the natural okay yeah i just wanted to be sure if to as we as we go through this to make sure that like we reference the exact component of the bylaw that we're looking to create the variance from yes that that is i know it wasn't on the application that is the section that we were referring to at the start of this yeah okay yes before we before we keep going i want to see if is there anyone online or a couple of comments on this no okay and then obviously there is someone here uh in the audience if you could come up and uh give us your name and address that would be great name is stopper bell i live in framingham at three root drive but i spend most of my week at six loker drive i'm head of school at baritas christian academy and i'm simply here to lend support to mr kolpal raman's project and as his attorney said that we are in favor of it uh we've had one of our board members who's met with him several times uh along with other neighbors abutting neighbors um to discuss a lot of different facets but this is something that as a school we just wanted to express our support for this as well so thank you yeah just to and we've expressed that commitment in other places to work well with our neighbors but i just wanted to make that clear so thank you for being here tonight yeah great great well thank you for showing up thank you would you mind just signing in i did sign in there you were so perfect anything you guys need from me no
appreciate what you guys are doing once again thank you thank you
okay so we do have someone who is yeah and what is her name can you hear me um my name is mary beth can you hear me sure it's um mary beth hagen i live at eight yeager way i just wanted to add that um there was a variance granted along um three yeager way with um route 27 for an eight foot fence so um we're in favor it for similar reasons of um providing privacy um from traffic thank you okay thank you that's great i don't have any other questions for the applicant is anyone else on the board no um all right so with that let's close the public hearing portion of this and kind of move on to to delivery for this um i think this is a extremely compelling case i i'm satisfied that if the fence is located six inches from the property line i think it gives us appropriate construction tolerances to to enable this or to enable the outfit to proceed without any incurring any additional risk on their part um i think on under under mass general law 40a section 10 which is where the varying statute comes from it doesn't come from the bylaw um we've got to satisfy well the applicant's got to satisfy to the board that there's three conditions here that would really mean that like varying from this requirement on height only um is necessary because there's some very unique topography soil condition or shape of the property i think that we all are aware of this site having you know not only drip driving by it but also the previous uh cycling process that we we sort of were pulled into um i think it's very clear that it's it's a it's a varied amount of topography between this this the applicant's property and the adjoining property so i think it easily satisfies point one i also think that literally um the literal enforcement of the bylaw which is that like the fence could only be six feet tall and it it could be in the same location uh creates a hardship for the applicant i think that's that's pretty clear i think they've demonstrated that i also think um to um this genesis point that we actually have you know representative example of another variance in height for a foot fence uh also on the street i think absolutely uh in my mind satisfies this this point too and i i think point three that if we grant the relief we're not going to do and we're not going to create any kind of substantial detriment today to the public good by by doing this or we're going to derogate from the intent of the section of the bylaw talking about two foot section of fence it's not two feet is not going to make a visual difference to the length of the fence you see here i think from the public's perception but i think from the applicant's perception that that that two feet is critical so i'm satisfied that that we the board can easily grant um a variance for this because i think the the varying the height requirement in 702.1 for a fence um easily meets these three statutes under the state that now i am looking online and i know i'm being rebooked by the location of that but there's currently cedar fencing that now which is cleaner it may be beneficial to have cedar fencing for the new to kind of keep a dead seer that's already there from an aesthetics perspective um i know that the applicant was looking for both options but you know i so i will suggest that there is a cost value to this and if there is cedar fencing along the lines that's that's great but they did ask for the opportunity to switch to something else that i believe we can understand to be a cross savings because it was stated that there's basically 595 and a half feet no i guess i get that i get that so that we're looking at the height as opposed to the height and the location as opposed to yeah i think the variance i i would agree with mr hirsch that the cedar fences would be more attractive would better um i mean it would look it would look better for the applicants in you know probably more because the fences on on his property would probably increase his property value the cedar fence versus the the vinyl and it would all be beneficial for the probably be beneficial for the well the only concern i have is that they're requesting relief from 72.1 for the height i don't think we can can i don't think we can condition a variance legally because we've made the determination that it meets the three criteria for variance there isn't a fourth one that talks about aesthetics unfortunately so um and it's not the same standard as for one point one point two which is a derogation of the character it doesn't say that it says without detriment to the public good um i think it's legally legally questionable that that we could say that the cedar fence versus the another material would be a a detriment okay so i agree that it works it's going to work a little different i think it's going to work a little differently um and i was trying to keep a similar styling for the neighborhood oh it would look i would agree with you right and i think the other fence is wood i think it's painted if i'm not mistaken no it's it's it's uh it's uh this is raw this is raw it would look better but um i don't think we can i don't think that we're into the business of aesthetics we can't tell the apple yeah yeah yeah and it is not in the very new statute the critical part for them is the height and the length so that they have protection they say as i mentioned for intrusion from or accidental intrusion by neighbors children whatever and primarily for the safety of their home and their family right which makes sense yeah i mean i'm not contunding that part or at all so i think it's very straightforward okay i see it as very straightforward
um i guess with that the the panel for this case is the five of us here mr perry mr bursh miss janice this paul white um i would make a motion that we need that the zba grants a variance from section 702.1 uh with respect to the height of defense uh for zba case 26-14 to 3 yeager way second any discussion there are no conditions that we attach to this because i think we've already debated the fact that it meets three criteria right i'm not aware that you would condition the variance well if it were used six inches you could do a time condition on it we've done that in the past the um you could condition it on sighting as adam was just saying or starters said that it be within the so they said in other words the this we could attach this the same the same two conditions that we attach to a special permit that it has the fence has to be constructed in accordance with the documents we have the drawings the drawing the site plan that we have in terms of its location um and how location right i would i would like to we are we are in deliberation but i would like to get clarification from the building commissioner that we're not missing anything on that nathan you are not missing anything on that and um the there's no restrictions on what type of offense uh can be installed and the site has been surveyed and pinned by veritas so the exact location of the fence will be verified from the survey that was done so um if they they will uh make the markings and bounds and make sure that it's uh six inches inside the property line and it should be good all right what did i get i have a second question yes is that is that the footing won't intrude on the six inches or the fence itself because like we were talking about footings and stuff i just wanted to get clarification well it's typically a four by four post or something of that nature so the back edge of that would be at the six inch so uh sentient six inch setback mark so the footing could be on the line potentially you can you can go right up to the to the the property line or i this is more clarification that's all i just was one from a clarification standpoint that's all all right so i i guess then the conditions that i would that i would put on it would be that um the location defense has to conform with the stamp plan the survey plan that we have yes and the second is that the fence will be uh eight feet tall yes other than that i think there's no other conditions needed i just want to consult with my client for one second sure can i just so by i'm going to text you for one second okay sorry fat thumbs
oh remember those yeah the nokia yeah i never had applied for it envy so the plan does not actually show the distance between the fence and the property line i'm comfortable with the six inch specification or limitation but i think if you could explicitly reference the six inches from the property line rather than uh reference the plan i think that might be more helpful all right so i guess so we'll and as the building commissioner was mentioning it would be the fence itself uh the back edge of the post that's six inches from the property line okay so we'll we'll reword those two conditions the condition one that the the back edge of the fence post be located six inches from the property line and the fence be eight feet tall yes okay second second yeah second second all in favor opposed none so we've granted the variant so um this is the same process right a uh so we have a deadline for that one uh yeah so i think for a variant slightly different um so the decision has to be issued uh latest august 16th that's that oh we get you we can do better than august 16th okay um so typically it takes us about two weeks to turn back the decision around to you and then is there it's there it's the same appeal period is this 20 day of the same 20 day of field period okay which i i don't think you're going to run into any issues because you've already approached everyone who had it who would have anything to say about stuff um and then after that this is uh this will be all set i appreciate uh reaching out to your neighbors and and requesting the support of this of course and i'm really appreciative of the prompt consideration and the effort that's gone into the review thank you again thank you very much thank you thank you have a good night bye all right so also um are there any board comments or concerns besides the fact we have to plan uh dinner for sure we have a scheduling we have a scheduling thought okay okay so is there anything else any other business no are there any updates from the building commissioner uh sorry i couldn't be in uh in person tonight i had a little uh graduation celebration to go to uh and couldn't make it there in time um i wonder graduation celebration between that we had something we had some funky cases tonight thank you um no everything else is good uh getting ready for vacation also leaving friday so i'll be out for a week so um looking forward to that so uh no updates everything else uh is going well and nina's doing a great job um fantastic job thank you everyone have a motion move to adjourn second all in favor aye you're adjourned recording stopped