July 14, 2026 – Zoning Board of Appeals – Video & Transcript
July 14, 2026 - Zoning Board of Appeals
Hi, good evening. This is the July 14, 2026 meeting of the Wayland Zoning Board of Appeals. This meeting may be recorded and if recorded, will be made available to the public on WACAM as soon as possible after meeting. The public is always going to be excluded from any executive session. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted in person and via remote access in accordance with applicable law. If this meeting has access, no one person attended by members of the public will be permitted.
That's really not the case this evening. If the meeting does have remote access, one can watch or participate remotely with the meeting link that is found on the agenda.
For 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, either in person or via remote meetings.
Public comment should be limited to two minutes per person.
So with that, I guess I'd open this to see if there is any public comment tonight.
This is general comment, not comment related to any specific cases.
No one in the room. It does not appear like there is anyone online.
So moving on to the second item on the agenda.
Has everyone on the board had a chance to review the meeting minutes from June 9th?
Yes.
Yep.
Any comments?
Nope.
All right.
I would make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from June 9th, 2026.
Second.
So I have to do this by roll call since we're half here and half remote.
Ms. Janice.
Aye.
Ms. Paul.
Aye.
Mr. Hirsch.
Aye.
Mr. Perry.
Aye.
Mr. White.
Aye.
So those meeting minutes are approved.
The application of Robert, Robert Haskins for the property located at 22 Strongbridge Road in a single residence R20 district. The applicant seeks a special permit variance or other zoning relief for retroactive approval of an accessory structure located between the principal dwelling and the street. The structure was previously approved under a building permit issued by the town, which was later determined by the building department to have been approved in error. So before we get going, I had an opportunity to review this case extensively with the building department and with town council. So I don't know if the applicant wants to sort of give us a quick overview of where they are at, and then I can sort of relay the information, or I'm happy to sort of relay the information that I received from town council first.
So you're asking, so I'm the applicant, and I guess I'm not understanding what you're asking of me. So, uh, well, I, then I'll just take this opportunity to let, to let you know. So I do have, I do have a bunch of questions. Um, all right, well, let's start with this one. You can come on, come on up, sign in, and we'll review your questions, and then I'll sort of, we can try to answer those questions, and then some of the information, uh, from town council, they make this easier. So. Okay, I did, I did sign in. Do you want me to sit somewhere else? No, you can, you can sit there, it's fine. So. Sorry, if you don't mind sitting on the front just for a minute. Uh, you want me to sit right here? Yeah.
So, um, my main question was, was, um, you know, wanting to be prepared for the meeting, and I had thought of the, and I was remote last time. Um, my, uh, scope, uh, my impression of what was going to happen at the meeting was much different than, um, you know, sort of my experience. So at the end of the meeting, I remember we had talked, and I, I knew that the board was going to meet with town council. I was unaware that they were meeting with, um, you know, another board in town. Um, but I did email and call, are you a Nina? Yes. Excuse me. Um, and I was hoping to review all that information. So I, I just want to A, confirm that we did speak about that at the last meeting. I didn't see any, you know, minutes from the meeting. I just saw, you know, just sort of an agenda online and I did email you, you email me back. I called you afterwards. I never heard back. You gave me a general response of, um, you know, saying you're not allowed to talk about it. So, um, I am concerned with my ability to, you know, um, react to whatever, you know, the decision is and, and participate without being able to review all that information. So I guess my first question is, is we did talk about me being able to review that before this meeting. Is that correct? Is that correct? That is correct. But we just weren't able to coordinate a meeting time with town council with enough notice to actually be able to put anything together to share with you. And it's, it's nothing that extreme that was discussed or reviewed. So, okay. Do I have the option to review that until we go through all this? Uh, it may not be necessary, but, um, okay. Um, there was a lot of questions last time about the, um, setback of the shed. Um, I don't know if, uh, the building department has brought, um, the, you know, the, the application, which the shed is detailed out on. Um, but I did go out personally, um, and, and remeasure the shed. Um, and the shed is, um, well within the setback limit. Uh, I'm not a engineer or a land surveyor. Um, but, um, you know, the, the, my argument from the last meeting that, you know, I, I took the guidelines from the town and I, I not only, I met those, but I also exceeded those. Um, so I understand that, um, and thank you, uh, for that. Uh, so when, when we reviewed this with, with town council, um, we sort of asked in basically the questions that you relate to us, which is basically, here's the situation. We outlined the entire situation and, uh, we kind of came back to the same, the same point that we left with at our hearing with you last time. And that was that, um, in the absence of a plan from an engineer or is struggling to understand actually how to react to this application, right? Because if you look at the requirements for a special permit, we actually have to, in order to grant one, you would have to have stamped drawing from an engineer that sort of certifies the location of, of a structure or an accessory structure, right? It was one element that we talked about. Uh, the second element that was raised is does the zoning board have the authority to grant relief retroactively to a project without that documentation? And then the third question that was asked, um, actually by, uh, um, an interested party was can an accessory structure be located in any yard or is it limited to being located in the backyard? So I have an answer to all three of those questions. Those were my takeaway questions that I think were surfaced at the last hearing. I, I mean, would you agree that those were the three? My, my comments before were not, that it wasn't limited to just what I was saying. No, absolutely. Okay. Um, I guess maybe taking them out of order. Um, so we, we did receive clarification and guidance that the, uh, the zoning bylaw permits sheds and accessory structures to be located in the front yard, in the side yard, in the rear yard, in any yard that as long as the project meets the setback requirements, uh, it, it is compliant with the bylaw. The bylaw does not prohibit structures or accessory structures and sheds from being located anywhere on a property as long as it's inside of the setback lines, right? There's some further clarification in, uh, in section seven that talks about if it is located in the rear yard, it can be closer than the setback line, but no closer, I believe in 10 feet or something like that, but it does not apply to sheds in the side yard or the front. Those are sort of bound by the regular setback lines of 15 feet, 20 feet or 30 feet, depending on the district that it is in. Uh, that's, that sound guidance backed up by town council and by case law. Uh, so we're comfortable with that the second question about, uh, you know, can the board retroactively grant a special permit in some cases, yes, but there are sort of certain documents we would need to do that. One would be, uh, kind of clarification on what the requested zoning relief would be. And then a B would be a certified plot plan that sort of documents what that zoning relief would be, um, and then the third piece is, can the board actually act regardless of whether it's were actively retroactively or proactively to approve a special permit without a stamped certified site plan? And the answer to that one is we cannot. So based on that, the, the issue that we have is going back to is, is kind of one of zoning enforcement sort of the question was asked, is this project, is this shed compliant or not? Like the only way to determine that is with a site plan, but zoning relief is not necessarily required unless that site plan documents that there is a, there is an issue. So this board can't take any action on your case without having something that documents what is kind of the core underlying question that we're being asked to sort of render a decision on. We, at this, at this point, we can't render a decision on any of this because we don't have graphic evidence, but we don't really have a, a documentation of a zoning violation at this point. So my suggestion would be to withdraw the application without prejudice. And if for some reason in the future, a site plan determines, determines that this shed and it does have a violation, we can then sort of act with that drawing to come up with some sort of corrective action for it. But at this point, the board can't really act on this application.
I understand everything you've said. Thank you for the clarification. What I, you know, I, I didn't go out and make the application on my own. My neighbor went to the town building, complained, and that was generated and it was explained to me to come in and try and resolve this. I, I would agree. That's not correct. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I, excuse me, excuse me, we are dead. That's what we're saying. That was, that was, that was, that was, that was, that was, that was, that was, that was to stop, to stop, please. So my, my, my, what I'm hearing, and I'm asking for clarification more is, it sounds like, this shed could be anywhere on my property as far as the town's concerned, because there isn't a, a certified, there isn't, there isn't a, something from my engineer. Um, so, even though it doesn't even sound like there's really a violation, I mean, there may be a violation, there may not be a violation. We are not in a position to, to say whether there is one or there is not one. If there is one, there is a path we can take to figure out a solution for you, but if in the absence of having a certified drawing, we don't know if there's a violation. So there may not be a violation at this point. Like, we really have, we have no way of determining that without an engineer sort of certifying the corners of the structure relative to the lot line. But there is not a, there is, and if the structure sits within the setback, there, sorry, the structure is inside, not within the setback, but it's beyond the setback line, there is no violation being, with the accessories shed being located in the front yard. So, provided the project, the accessory structure fits within the allotted setback lines, there's no zoning violation at all.
Okay.
So, hypothetically, I withdraw my application, then what happens? I have to close out, I have to close out a renovation project. If I may, Mr. Chairman, so, as of today, we have no final inspection for your addition, renovation, That's correct. for your dwelling. Another requirement that is standard is an as-built of your structure on your property. Counterstone did supply this plan for your stormwater, but we also require an as-built for your foundation to locate your structure on your property. Okay. So, I did reach out to Jeffrey Heffener, your contractor, and asked him to supply that, because he thought he had supplied one. I do not have any record, email, or in our file of your as-built. No, we haven't submitted that. We're not done. You're not done. No.
And you're occupying the structure. That's correct.
I also asked him to- Which I was very straightforward with the building department about. To whom? I mean, probably the guy that put me in this mess. Well, he was long gone before. There's no way that I'm- Nate, I appreciate all the help that you've given to me. There's no way in my mind whatsoever that I can think that the building department hasn't completely fumbled my- It's been 10 times harder. And I apologize for putting you on the spot. That's all right, because I was only a part of this. I wasn't the complete- I wasn't the result of this. I did every single thing the town asked me for. Okay. So, I asked for- By going to the zoning board originally, when I didn't have to go, which I made almost four months. This application was entered in there, okay? This whole thing. Yes, and I fully understand the law now, but that really means nothing. Your builder to locate the shed on the property on the as-builder. That's not his job. That's not his job. He's not there to deal with the shed. If you want an as-builder, I'll give it to you. That'd be fantastic. So, we can put this to bed.
10. If this meets the required setbacks, then it's permitted as a break. So, I don't go out in the field and judge a structure that's on property for a setback without an as-builder, because I don't know what lock lines are. They're an invisible line. And unless we have bounds and have a line or some kind of markings, then it's impossible for me to know or anybody in the building department to know. So, the only way to prove this is to have this on an as-builder along with a foundation, and then we can make a determination from that point. Do all sheds being permitted in the town of Wayland require a stamped drawing? No. Okay. What is it unique to my situation that requires that?
Can you repeat that? Not every shed needs to be on a stamped drawing in Wayland. Why does my particular application or building, what, why am I, what is it about my project that is requiring me to provide you with a engineer drawing of where the shed is? Because this has come in question as far as is the location and to verify its location. So, the burden is on the homeowner to verify the location when they've gone through the proper channels with the town and gone above and beyond what is required. So, the burden is on me to prove it, not the town? Correct. We are not surveyors. We have plans submitted to us for projects with locations indicated to where our structure is going to be. So, for, for argumentative purposes, how can you approve a shed or anything else without an engineered drawing? It sounds like there, if it is in question, when we review the application, we will require it. We will require more precise information. A majority of the sheds, probably 90% of them, are not in question of, of a 10, 10 foot setback from property line. This is a town bylaw or this is something, a request that the building, that the building department makes? This is upon our, our official review from the building official, besides myself, Mr. Zufa and myself. So, it's, it's the building department's decision as to whether or not a engineered drawing needs to be completed for a shed. If, if it's not clear and something is in question, we can require a determination of where the structure is on the property. That it meets all the requirements.
So, I guess I would just add, the reason I, I saw an opinion from town council in, um, all of the years I've been on the zoning board, a particular instance like this has never come up where a question is being asked on something. Um, uh, and from the zoning board's perspective, the only thing we can react to is the application itself. No. The only thing we have. So, I was frustrated, if not understanding, uh, what's, you know, what the board could actually do in this case. Now, the board can also, the board is also the appellate board for decisions, um, that the building commissioner makes that, uh, applicants want to overturn. So, we also hear those, a very different situation, um, but, you know, we can't actually, we can't actually act on the application without that piece of information. I understand your question about, well, how would you know to supply that piece of information? It's a valid question, and I would agree, most of the cases in town, this never even comes up with a question of a shed. But I suppose, um, you know, never say never, right? There's always a case where something comes up that you've ever anticipated before. For me, this one is the first.
So, that's why we wanted to get those, like, try to distill it down to precisely what the, kind of, the legal questions being asked are, so that we can at least provide, like, a clear understanding of what, uh, what the rules we have to act on at the zoning board level, and we sort of, how that, how that influences this decision.
Probably get that. And I appreciate the, uh, the explanation. Um, I'd like to, you know, I don't know how to properly say this. I'd like to continue this until next month. Um, I'd like the ability to review this, um, outside of this meeting, and I'd like to also, um, find out if I'm allowed to review what town council provided to the, uh, to the zoning board and the building department for my review. So, the only, the only challenge I see with this is that, like, the application we have is, is, theoretically is incomplete because it doesn't have the engineer drawing that accompanies it. So, at this point, like, we have opened the hearing, um, but we can't really act. Like, so we could, if we continue to, I mean, we have continued cases in the past where people have sort of provided additional information. So, I suppose there's no, there's no harm in continuing it. But my, my concern is, like, without an actual engineer drawing, we could continue this for 10 hearings, but we can't actually render it. We can't render a decision and sort of bring it to some kind of closure, whatever that closure may be. Yeah. I'm, I'm not, um, I'm not asking to continue it for, for 10 more sessions. It's, I want this done more than anybody. Um, I just need to understand better, um, the situation. Um, I'd like to see what was provided to the zoning board. Um, and, um, yeah, I just like the opportunity for 30 days to, you know, we did talk about me reviewing it. It does sound like there, there are, there is documentation from, there is, no, I mean, literally, it was a phone call. I mean, we do not have minutes prepared for it. We could write something up and happily share that with you. Um, yeah, that would be good. Um, and in addition to that, I mean, I also want to take the time to, um, you know, yeah, I, I, I'm, I'm, I'm going to, I'm going to go through this. I'm going to read a lot more about the town bylaws. This was presented to me just as sort of like, um, you're going to come in, make your case and it was going to kind of, you know, get resolved. I thought it, I thought it would too. So the scope of this has changed and I, I feel, um, that I, you know, probably need to run this by some people so that I feel good about, you know, I don't know how to make the decision on whether or not I should take it off the table or leave it going or, you know, make some more points. Um, so I'm going to, I, if, if the, you know, the, the board would allow, I would like to just continue this until next month, please. I, I'm happy to sort of, I'm happy to continue this. Totally. Yeah. Okay. I also want to make sure I give it an opportunity for. Yeah. So, so before we close it and continue, yes, absolutely. So I, you are here patiently waiting. So if you want to come up and just name and address and. Yeah. Kevin O'Leary at the 38 Stonebridge Road. Rob, it's nice to meet you. Um, first of all I want to clarify, I did not complain to the town about the shed. I'm just going to sit right ahead. I inquired about application of the bylaw when an accessory, a detached accessory structure is close to a lot line and it evolved to, Oh, what's your address? And then I could see the, the, um, the lights go off and, uh, Mike crucifullis, uh, hit. And he made a couple of comments like, Oh, okay. I get it now. But, um, he took it on his own to go to the next level with this. Or I don't want to say on his own, but he, uh, hesitated a little bit. I could see it in his eyes when I met with him. There's nothing in the building file jacket, um, to indicate that the shed was part of the permit and nothing on the initial or the proposed plot plan. Um, and it kind of went off on its own. Now, Rob, one thing you mentioned in some documentation that you wrote to the ZBA is that you had an agreement with the town, uh, with the building department. Um, what kind of agreement was that because I just, I'd like to know what, what agreement you had with the town to proceed and put a shed in that location, the address. First of all, so did you say last time though, that you said you were, that, that, that, um, yeah, the, I'm sorry. What was the comment? No, I just said like, typically we try to avoid like, yeah. I mean, my next question is, do I have to answer? So through the chair, I'm not, I'm not here to, you know, that this is important, but I mean, you should be addressing. Yeah. One thing I do want to say, just since I have the floor is at the last meeting, I recall you said that, you know, looking at the shed when you were walking by, it was a detriment and you had a problem with the lights. You a hundred percent said that I didn't walk. I never walked by the house. You said that you also mentioned a light. So you have walked by. No. So what you're saying is that it just haphazardly goes, went through the town building. And to be frank, we've never met before. I don't mean to be rude. It just doesn't seem truthful. Which part were you, well, you saying you had a light? I'm going to stop the conversation here. If you guys want to have a conversation outside, if it was something that you'd like to address the chair, that's more than fine. Sure. But if you guys want to have a separate conversation about that outside of here. Yeah. No, thank you. You should have come to my house first before you brought me into the ABA. I didn't bring you in here. You're fine. Okay. All right. So, yeah. I'm trying to move on. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah. So you have some additional comments. Yeah. I think there's several points of clarification. I didn't get an answer from either you, Mr. Chair, or the applicant of the agreement between the applicant and the town. Because I think in some respects, the town shares some responsibility for a placement of the shed if, in fact, they did have an agreement to put the shed somewhere in the front yard.
So, I can't answer that question because I don't know. I understand that the past building commissioner was not as precise about this applicant's project as they should have been. I understand that. But I don't know anything about any conversation that was made, you know, or any deal that was made or whatever. All I know is that the bylaw allows a shed to be located anywhere on the property, front yard, side yard, back yard. It has to comply with certain setback requirements depending on the district that it's in, depending on the shape of the lot. There is also a modification that it can be within 10 feet of a lot line if it's in the rear yard only. So, you know, as of right, you can put a shed anywhere on your property as long as it doesn't violate any of the setbacks. That is a statement that town council confirms is consistent with our bylaw. It could be articulated clearer in the bylaw, but that is consistent with the bylaw. So, I imagine the building commissioner at that time or the inspector at that time said, person wants to put a shed, if you go anywhere, put it down. I don't think there was some sort of grand deal that was made. I think it was probably a basic conversation as most shed constructions in the town probably where we are. And we can't speculate either. True. But, I mean, you know, we see very, I can't think of a case we've seen come before the ZBA where someone has willfully sort of gone ahead and done something crazy, like approved some sort of structure, like that's so detrimental. It doesn't, it hasn't happened here. At least it's come before the board. So, I can't answer that question beyond that. So, follow up then, is a detached shed over 200 square feet allowed anywhere on the property? Not within the yard setbacks? Yes. Does it or does it not have a foundation? Yeah. There's different questions here. Yeah. Right? These are not, so the question about the square footage is not a zoning question. That is a building code question out of the IBC because it's like what determines whether a structure has a foundation have to do with those square footage requirements in the building code, not related to the zoning ordinance. So, that's more of a code question. But in terms of can it be located anywhere on a property? Yes. Okay. Is the, I didn't hear anywhere in the discussion with the board tonight about multiple front yard setbacks and I don't want Mr. Haskins to go off in the wrong direction, possibly wrong direction because the front yard also has a center line roadway setback distance and that's a variable street layout. Yeah. So, it does have to, there are two requirements there, 30 feet from the lot line and then there is 55 feet from the center of the right of way. Okay. Because I didn't see any of those setbacks delimited on the hand sketch that was submitted. Yeah. We've already covered that. We know that there is not a certified plot plan that has that information on it. I know. But I just want the board to be aware that there's other setbacks on the front yard other than what's shown on the plan that was submitted. They only show the one 30-point setback. The plan doesn't matter because we don't have a site plan. We can't speculate on it. No, but I'm just giving the board a heads up that there's also a center line and the plot plan that was submitted doesn't show center line, doesn't show road layout, it doesn't show those critical dimensions. I understand. We're just well aware of the dimensions we need to review. Okay. I didn't, because there was no discussion about center line setback in the prior conversation with the board tonight. Because at this point, it's amazing. We don't have a plot plan, so there's no point in discussing it. Exactly. There wasn't a point in discussing it last week. Okay. I can't think of anything else. I think the board's covered it to some degree. There's still some, I think, loose ends, but... How old is there's any loose ends with respect to zoning, respectfully? There are. I do not agree with you. This case, we don't have a case. We can't hear a case. We don't have a plot plan. If one's provided, we could ultimately render a decision. We are happy to continue this case, but without a drawing, there's no other zoning. There might be a zoning enforcement action, but that's a building department issue. That's not a... Right. No, what I was referring to is kind of the, a little bit of loose language in the bylaw relative to being silent on the front yard setback. And I understand the town council has made a decision about that, whereas direct the board and the direction to resolve it, so not an issue anymore. Yeah. It would be, it would be better if, I mean, that's one of, that's one of many. Right. There are four language choices in our bylaw. We're stuck in. Right. Unfortunately. Right. Is the shed, question from the board, is the shed, do the setbacks change if there's a foundation on it? No. Setbacks would be, the setback limits would be the same. It would be defined as, it's defined, it's defined as a structure. It does not have to have necessarily a foundation. You know, it's going to have to have some sort of support, but. Yeah. It doesn't really distinguish between, like, a cast in place foundation or a block foundation or a slab on grade with like a turn down. It's like, it doesn't get into that degree of specificity. Yeah. If I may, the only determination would be conservation setbacks for the wetlands or septic system installations for a foundation. Makes sense. All right. All right. So, it sounds, to me, it sounds like, are you good now, to, as far as for the items which you wanted to bring up this evening? Tonight I'm good, yes. Okay. Per your request, we can now vote on the continuance. Continuance. Yeah. We do have to pick a date. A date, certain, everything like that, in which we can, we're going to have meeting minutes that will be accounted for for that discussion between the town council and the CBA. Yeah. Absolutely. Well, it wasn't the CBA. It was the chair. Chair. Building commissioner and the building inspector. So, those will be accounted for. So, our next hearing is August 11th. Before we do this, I just want to be sure that everyone who is here is going to be here at that date. Double check the family calendar. I may have trouble with that date. I'm here. Yeah, I'll be here that day. All right. So, we're not going to have a forum, so we would have to continue this to September 8th. Yes. Does September 8th work for? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. We obviously don't have anything scheduled that far out at this point, right? No. We have two cases for August 11th, but not for September 8th. Okay. So, we can put it on. We're not going to have a forum. Okay. Yeah. We're down, we're down shot, so. We're down shot. We don't have enough members. Well, with four, we would have a forum. We don't have a forum. Oh, well. It is not here and Hunter's not here. So, just the three of us. All right. Okay. So, does that mean no meeting? Sorry. Sorry. It's dumping. I'm just asking. All right. So, we can put this on first on the 8th. So, I'd make a motion to continue case. 2612. Yes. 2612 to September 8th at 7pm. Seconded. By roll call. Ms. Janice. Aye. Ms. Paul. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. So, September 8th at 7pm. Thank you so much. You're very welcome.
So, since it's past 7-15, we can move on to the next case. This is DVA case 26-16 for Sherman's Bridge. This is the application of the Town of Wayland Department of Public Forest Works requesting a special permit and or other zoning relief to allow for the preservation and rehabilitation of Sherman's Bridge, including replacement of the existing timber deck, aluminum decking, installation of new railings, scar veils, and associated substructure repairs. Would you leave anyone to present this application? We have Paul. I am here. We have Mike Riccardi. He should be in here from Tuck. I am here. And Pete Engel from TEC is here as well. I've had some. Making the presentation to sort of, at this point, review why the zoning board needs to hear a special permit request for this. I have a quick PowerPoint I can share. It might be overkill. But I can share my screen and run through it and we can go from there. So, this is a PowerPoint to sort of answer the threshold question about why it's a special permit or is this a PowerPoint presentation that is the application material we already have? I think it explains a little bit of why we're here and explains what we have and goes through the permits that we have in place. And, yeah, I think a little bit of supplemental beyond what you guys have, more or less just kind of summarizing things. And then, could you just re-identify yourself? Sure. Mike Riccardi with TEC. Pete Engel from TEC is joining me. And here, I'll share my screen and we can run through it. I assume seeing PowerPoint okay, things are working right? Yes. Great. So, thank you all for your time. And this project we've been working on with both Wayland DPW and counterparts in Sudbury as well. I'll explain why I guess we're here. We're reviewing zoning bylaws. I believe it's Article 17. So, project location is Sherman's Bridge Road from Wayland side, Lincoln Road from Sudbury over the Sudbury River. And project is in a FEMA flood way. And I have all your bylaws copied. I don't necessarily need to read them verbatim to you guys, but I underlined kind of why we, what triggered us making sure that we came before you all here tonight. Is that in the floodplain district, no filling, excavating or transferring of any material that will reduce the natural flood water storage capacity, shall happen. And similar from the federal floodplain district bylaw, purpose to control the floodplain district. I think we're having an audio. Hang on. We're having an audio problem here. Yeah. Take over, Mike. Perfect. Thank you, Pete. I guess, Mike, if you want to go back two slides. So, the floodplain district, basically no filling, excavated, transferring material. And then a couple of lines later without, or unless a special permit for the action or structure of the floodplain district. So, the floodplain district, basically no filling, excavated, transferring material. And then a couple of lines later without, or unless a special permit for the action or structure has been issued by the ZBA. So, Mike, you can go back a couple more, whatever you were at before. So, basically, at the end of the day, the project results in a slight fill within the floodplain. Mike, if you want to go forward, actually. So, this is an existing cross section of the bridge. Basically, the, the driving surface, the decking is a four inch thick wooden deck. Next slide. This would be the proposed cross section. So, that four inch deck is being replaced by basically seven inches plus or minus between a glulam structural panel and a one and a half inch wearing wooden surface blank. So, basically, a three or three plus or minus inch fill over the expanse of this bridge. Excuse me for one second, Mr. Engel. Yep. Can, can we just start with the fact of whether or not why this is coming to zoning board before we get into the, the weeds on this? Right. So, this is, this is kind of, we're, because we're filling in the floodplain, you, the ZBA has control over the floodplain overlay district. We are filling. And then you're saying that the, the, the increasing the thickness of the roadway is what constitutes the, the definition of the fill? Correct. Or is it because ground on either side of the bridge needs to be raised? Well, both, um, because the, the entire bridge is under the, the 100 year flood elevation, or the, the, the decking of the bridge is about a foot under the 100 year flood. So, during a 100 year flood flood storm, the entire roadway is covered in water. Um, so the decking, the decking is increasing. Increasing that thickness. That's what, okay. All right. That makes sense. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Please continue. Yep. And because the, the joists were using the existing joists, so the decking increases. And then because of that, we also have to transition the road to make up for that three inch difference at the abutment of the bridge. Um, so Mike, if you want to go one more, this is basically the impacts. So we lose, we're, we're losing 285 cubic feet of flood storage at the end of the day, because of that three inch increase in deck thickness and the making up of the pavement at the abutment. It's like 0.36% of the available flood storage within the right of way owned by the town. Um, both towns really. Um, and then Mike, next slide. Part of this, part of the bridge design, we do a hydraulic analysis, um, hydrologic, hydraulic analysis, um, which we model with that change in deck thickness. And with that relatively minor amount of fill in comparison to the flood storage, because it's a 900 foot wide floodplain. And the model comes up and says that the flood surface elevation during that hundred year storm is not impacted by that fill. And then, um, we have a no rise certificate from the hydraulic engineer, um, which was provided to both towns signed by both floodplain administrators. Um, so basically, even though we're filling, it's having no impact on that, the horizontal or vertical, uh, extensive flooding. And then just the, the permits we have in hand. So we do have an order of conditions from Wayland Concom. Uh, we have a, uh, permit approval through the army corps. And then we also have both conservation and zoning board special permit through, uh, Sudbury as well. So this is kind of the last, the last permit requirement. Any other information you want to, uh, share before we go into questions? Uh, no, I think any, if, if you have any questions, we're happy to try to answer them. The key question that I had, which is just making sure we had the correct, um, kind of delineation of, of how to apply, uh, 1701.1 against, uh, 201. And I think you just provided that information that we needed. Um, but I, I do not have any additional questions actually. Anyone else on the board? I do not. Um, so we don't have anyone here, uh, in the audience. And I don't know if there are any other questions of parties online. I don't think there's anybody online. Okay. That's good. Robbie, there's no one online, correct? No, there's not. It's easier than I thought. Just to go in front of Sudbury, um, zoning board, uh, back in June or July. June, I believe. Late June. So they, they voted to proceed with this project. Yeah, I think it's, I think it's extremely straightforward. Um, so I guess, I mean, if I look at, um, if I look at the article 17, article 17, uh, the sort of our special permit statute is the standard special permit under 201, you know, which is like substantial derogation. I, I think we've seen from the data presented that even though there is sort of a change in sort of the topography within the floodplain, I think the engineering data supports the fact that that three and a half inches does not modify anything about the water flow. There is a slight decrease in the flood storage capacity within the right of way. But it's when you extrapolate that over, um, all the potential square footage. It's a, it's a, it's a non-impact. Yeah. Um, we just have to find the appropriate line, which in 201, um, where you pay the big bucks. I don't know when that, I don't know when that payday starts. Um, checks in the mail. So I guess before we proceed, sort of, uh, I don't have, there's no additional question that we have, and I don't know if the applicant has any additional material they need to present. Anyone else in the board? All right. So then I close the public hearing portion of this and sort of move to deliberations. Uh, so for that, we have to name it. The panel is going to be in five members of the board. Uh, Ms. Janice, Ms. Paul, we're both remote. And then Mr. Hirsch, Mr. Perry, Mr. Wright that are all in person here. So as, as we know, under, uh, section two or 3.1, the applicant's got to show, uh, to this fact satisfaction of the board that the, the use, in which case, uh, I guess it's the use or is it the structure which the application is made sign against the public interest that tells them derogating the character of the neighborhood, um, or is detrimental and offensive because of the noise, vibrations, gas streams, or the dust, or the injectable features. And it's not injurious to the inhabitants of the town. I think the applicants demonstrated that, that, that this application by just increasing the height of the roadway, you know, three and a half inches. I think it's clear that there isn't going to be a health or safety violation for this, nor do I think it has anything to do with, uh, character. Right. Great. So. Great. If anything, it's adding value for everyone. I would. So I guess I would make a motion. I'd make a motion to, uh, a special permit for ZBA case 26 dash 16. Because, uh, under section through a 3.1, um, the applicant has shown. That, uh, they are in compliance with all the provisions of section two or 3.1. I don't know that there are necessarily any additional conditions that need to be applied to this because this application is like a fully engineered solution. I can't, I can't think of an application. So I can't think of a condition that the board would need to apply to this. I can't think of it. Anyone else on the board? Okay. All right. So that's my motion. Sorry. Oh. All right. We have a second. Uh, so, um, again, by roll call, Ms. Jenis? Aye. Ms. Paul? Aye. Mr. Hirsch? Aye. Mr. Perry? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. So the board has approved this, so you're, you're complete with your last, uh, last special permit applications. Uh, so the year is a, uh, we have to write it, we have to offer a decision for this. I would assume. Very straightforward. Yeah. Okay. So there's a two week process to write that. Uh, and then there's a, uh, mandatory 20 day appeal period after that, the decision can be recorded. So thank you for the application materials and for the quick overview of the, uh, the scope. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Much needed. Before we, any board comments or concerns? Yeah. I just want to make sure that everyone's all on the same page is that we, because of lack of quorum, uh, we will not have a meeting next week. Next month. Excuse me. Next month. Yeah. Or next week. I, I, or next week. Uh, a fair question. So, it sounds like that, it sounds like that is the case. It sounds like there is no meeting. There will be no meeting last month. So you, so we have two cases. Correct. Yeah. And the deadline to open them would be September 10th. So we're within the deadline. Wow. Barely. Oh, we just need to open. Uh, yeah. But what if someone is sick? I'm not saying that someone, someone's sick on the eight. I'll throw that. We can stay remote. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. We just have to be, we just have to be very mindful of that. That if we, I know we have to be very mindful of the fact that if we don't have a meeting, we are bound by a statute that's due over the case within a certain amount of time. So we have to be very specific about that. Okay. Yeah. Can I ask, can I ask a question about, um, the, um, the, the first case, just to clarify, it was really good to get the information from town council that under our bylaw, the, um, location of a shed can be front side or rear lot provided does not invade the setback lines. And in the rear, it can actually be 10 feet from the lot line, which was always understood. My question is, is that only for sheds or is it for other accessory units? And is it also for accessory dwelling units? Dwelling units that they have their own section of the file. Yeah. We only, our conversation was limited to shed. Yeah. Okay. So it never, it never came up. Okay. I'm asking because I'm writing this out and sticking it in my, my book. So it's stapled. Cause it is disagreement initially, but, uh, we resolved it. Yeah. Um, no, cause it was, it's different than past practice. And when KP law has come up with good counsel on these going forward, um, from the past two, I have tried to just write out a summary and put it in my bylaw. So that's smart. Yeah. Going with it. Okay. Any updates from the building commissioner? No updates. I do not have any updates. So. Anyone have a motion? Move to adjourn. Second. Okay. So we sum it to that. Uh, so by wall call, Ms. Janice. Aye. Ms. Paul. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. White. Aye.
The application of Robert, Robert Haskins for the property located at 22 Strongbridge Road in a single residence R20 district. The applicant seeks a special permit variance or other zoning relief for retroactive approval of an accessory structure located between the principal dwelling and the street. The structure was previously approved under a building permit issued by the town, which was later determined by the building department to have been approved in error. So before we get going, I had an opportunity to review this case extensively with the building department and with town council. So I don't know if the applicant wants to sort of give us a quick overview of where they are at, and then I can sort of relay the information, or I'm happy to sort of relay the information that I received from town council first.
So you're asking, so I'm the applicant, and I guess I'm not understanding what you're asking of me. So, uh, well, I, then I'll just take this opportunity to let, to let you know. So I do have, I do have a bunch of questions. Um, all right, well, let's start with this one. You can come on, come on up, sign in, and we'll review your questions, and then I'll sort of, we can try to answer those questions, and then some of the information, uh, from town council, they make this easier. So. Okay, I did, I did sign in. Do you want me to sit somewhere else? No, you can, you can sit there, it's fine. So. Sorry, if you don't mind sitting on the front just for a minute. Uh, you want me to sit right here? Yeah.
So, um, my main question was, was, um, you know, wanting to be prepared for the meeting, and I had thought of the, and I was remote last time. Um, my, uh, scope, uh, my impression of what was going to happen at the meeting was much different than, um, you know, sort of my experience. So at the end of the meeting, I remember we had talked, and I, I knew that the board was going to meet with town council. I was unaware that they were meeting with, um, you know, another board in town. Um, but I did email and call, are you a Nina? Yes. Excuse me. Um, and I was hoping to review all that information. So I, I just want to A, confirm that we did speak about that at the last meeting. I didn't see any, you know, minutes from the meeting. I just saw, you know, just sort of an agenda online and I did email you, you email me back. I called you afterwards. I never heard back. You gave me a general response of, um, you know, saying you're not allowed to talk about it. So, um, I am concerned with my ability to, you know, um, react to whatever, you know, the decision is and, and participate without being able to review all that information. So I guess my first question is, is we did talk about me being able to review that before this meeting. Is that correct? Is that correct? That is correct. But we just weren't able to coordinate a meeting time with town council with enough notice to actually be able to put anything together to share with you. And it's, it's nothing that extreme that was discussed or reviewed. So, okay. Do I have the option to review that until we go through all this? Uh, it may not be necessary, but, um, okay. Um, there was a lot of questions last time about the, um, setback of the shed. Um, I don't know if, uh, the building department has brought, um, the, you know, the, the application, which the shed is detailed out on. Um, but I did go out personally, um, and, and remeasure the shed. Um, and the shed is, um, well within the setback limit. Uh, I'm not a engineer or a land surveyor. Um, but, um, you know, the, the, my argument from the last meeting that, you know, I, I took the guidelines from the town and I, I not only, I met those, but I also exceeded those. Um, so I understand that, um, and thank you, uh, for that. Uh, so when, when we reviewed this with, with town council, um, we sort of asked in basically the questions that you relate to us, which is basically, here's the situation. We outlined the entire situation and, uh, we kind of came back to the same, the same point that we left with at our hearing with you last time. And that was that, um, in the absence of a plan from an engineer or is struggling to understand actually how to react to this application, right? Because if you look at the requirements for a special permit, we actually have to, in order to grant one, you would have to have stamped drawing from an engineer that sort of certifies the location of, of a structure or an accessory structure, right? It was one element that we talked about. Uh, the second element that was raised is does the zoning board have the authority to grant relief retroactively to a project without that documentation? And then the third question that was asked, um, actually by, uh, um, an interested party was can an accessory structure be located in any yard or is it limited to being located in the backyard? So I have an answer to all three of those questions. Those were my takeaway questions that I think were surfaced at the last hearing. I, I mean, would you agree that those were the three? My, my comments before were not, that it wasn't limited to just what I was saying. No, absolutely. Okay. Um, I guess maybe taking them out of order. Um, so we, we did receive clarification and guidance that the, uh, the zoning bylaw permits sheds and accessory structures to be located in the front yard, in the side yard, in the rear yard, in any yard that as long as the project meets the setback requirements, uh, it, it is compliant with the bylaw. The bylaw does not prohibit structures or accessory structures and sheds from being located anywhere on a property as long as it's inside of the setback lines, right? There's some further clarification in, uh, in section seven that talks about if it is located in the rear yard, it can be closer than the setback line, but no closer, I believe in 10 feet or something like that, but it does not apply to sheds in the side yard or the front. Those are sort of bound by the regular setback lines of 15 feet, 20 feet or 30 feet, depending on the district that it is in. Uh, that's, that sound guidance backed up by town council and by case law. Uh, so we're comfortable with that the second question about, uh, you know, can the board retroactively grant a special permit in some cases, yes, but there are sort of certain documents we would need to do that. One would be, uh, kind of clarification on what the requested zoning relief would be. And then a B would be a certified plot plan that sort of documents what that zoning relief would be, um, and then the third piece is, can the board actually act regardless of whether it's were actively retroactively or proactively to approve a special permit without a stamped certified site plan? And the answer to that one is we cannot. So based on that, the, the issue that we have is going back to is, is kind of one of zoning enforcement sort of the question was asked, is this project, is this shed compliant or not? Like the only way to determine that is with a site plan, but zoning relief is not necessarily required unless that site plan documents that there is a, there is an issue. So this board can't take any action on your case without having something that documents what is kind of the core underlying question that we're being asked to sort of render a decision on. We, at this, at this point, we can't render a decision on any of this because we don't have graphic evidence, but we don't really have a, a documentation of a zoning violation at this point. So my suggestion would be to withdraw the application without prejudice. And if for some reason in the future, a site plan determines, determines that this shed and it does have a violation, we can then sort of act with that drawing to come up with some sort of corrective action for it. But at this point, the board can't really act on this application.
I understand everything you've said. Thank you for the clarification. What I, you know, I, I didn't go out and make the application on my own. My neighbor went to the town building, complained, and that was generated and it was explained to me to come in and try and resolve this. I, I would agree. That's not correct. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I, excuse me, excuse me, we are dead. That's what we're saying. That was, that was, that was, that was, that was, that was, that was, that was, that was to stop, to stop, please. So my, my, my, what I'm hearing, and I'm asking for clarification more is, it sounds like, this shed could be anywhere on my property as far as the town's concerned, because there isn't a, a certified, there isn't, there isn't a, something from my engineer. Um, so, even though it doesn't even sound like there's really a violation, I mean, there may be a violation, there may not be a violation. We are not in a position to, to say whether there is one or there is not one. If there is one, there is a path we can take to figure out a solution for you, but if in the absence of having a certified drawing, we don't know if there's a violation. So there may not be a violation at this point. Like, we really have, we have no way of determining that without an engineer sort of certifying the corners of the structure relative to the lot line. But there is not a, there is, and if the structure sits within the setback, there, sorry, the structure is inside, not within the setback, but it's beyond the setback line, there is no violation being, with the accessories shed being located in the front yard. So, provided the project, the accessory structure fits within the allotted setback lines, there's no zoning violation at all.
Okay.
So, hypothetically, I withdraw my application, then what happens? I have to close out, I have to close out a renovation project. If I may, Mr. Chairman, so, as of today, we have no final inspection for your addition, renovation, That's correct. for your dwelling. Another requirement that is standard is an as-built of your structure on your property. Counterstone did supply this plan for your stormwater, but we also require an as-built for your foundation to locate your structure on your property. Okay. So, I did reach out to Jeffrey Heffener, your contractor, and asked him to supply that, because he thought he had supplied one. I do not have any record, email, or in our file of your as-built. No, we haven't submitted that. We're not done. You're not done. No.
And you're occupying the structure. That's correct.
I also asked him to- Which I was very straightforward with the building department about. To whom? I mean, probably the guy that put me in this mess. Well, he was long gone before. There's no way that I'm- Nate, I appreciate all the help that you've given to me. There's no way in my mind whatsoever that I can think that the building department hasn't completely fumbled my- It's been 10 times harder. And I apologize for putting you on the spot. That's all right, because I was only a part of this. I wasn't the complete- I wasn't the result of this. I did every single thing the town asked me for. Okay. So, I asked for- By going to the zoning board originally, when I didn't have to go, which I made almost four months. This application was entered in there, okay? This whole thing. Yes, and I fully understand the law now, but that really means nothing. Your builder to locate the shed on the property on the as-builder. That's not his job. That's not his job. He's not there to deal with the shed. If you want an as-builder, I'll give it to you. That'd be fantastic. So, we can put this to bed.
10. If this meets the required setbacks, then it's permitted as a break. So, I don't go out in the field and judge a structure that's on property for a setback without an as-builder, because I don't know what lock lines are. They're an invisible line. And unless we have bounds and have a line or some kind of markings, then it's impossible for me to know or anybody in the building department to know. So, the only way to prove this is to have this on an as-builder along with a foundation, and then we can make a determination from that point. Do all sheds being permitted in the town of Wayland require a stamped drawing? No. Okay. What is it unique to my situation that requires that?
Can you repeat that? Not every shed needs to be on a stamped drawing in Wayland. Why does my particular application or building, what, why am I, what is it about my project that is requiring me to provide you with a engineer drawing of where the shed is? Because this has come in question as far as is the location and to verify its location. So, the burden is on the homeowner to verify the location when they've gone through the proper channels with the town and gone above and beyond what is required. So, the burden is on me to prove it, not the town? Correct. We are not surveyors. We have plans submitted to us for projects with locations indicated to where our structure is going to be. So, for, for argumentative purposes, how can you approve a shed or anything else without an engineered drawing? It sounds like there, if it is in question, when we review the application, we will require it. We will require more precise information. A majority of the sheds, probably 90% of them, are not in question of, of a 10, 10 foot setback from property line. This is a town bylaw or this is something, a request that the building, that the building department makes? This is upon our, our official review from the building official, besides myself, Mr. Zufa and myself. So, it's, it's the building department's decision as to whether or not a engineered drawing needs to be completed for a shed. If, if it's not clear and something is in question, we can require a determination of where the structure is on the property. That it meets all the requirements.
So, I guess I would just add, the reason I, I saw an opinion from town council in, um, all of the years I've been on the zoning board, a particular instance like this has never come up where a question is being asked on something. Um, uh, and from the zoning board's perspective, the only thing we can react to is the application itself. No. The only thing we have. So, I was frustrated, if not understanding, uh, what's, you know, what the board could actually do in this case. Now, the board can also, the board is also the appellate board for decisions, um, that the building commissioner makes that, uh, applicants want to overturn. So, we also hear those, a very different situation, um, but, you know, we can't actually, we can't actually act on the application without that piece of information. I understand your question about, well, how would you know to supply that piece of information? It's a valid question, and I would agree, most of the cases in town, this never even comes up with a question of a shed. But I suppose, um, you know, never say never, right? There's always a case where something comes up that you've ever anticipated before. For me, this one is the first.
So, that's why we wanted to get those, like, try to distill it down to precisely what the, kind of, the legal questions being asked are, so that we can at least provide, like, a clear understanding of what, uh, what the rules we have to act on at the zoning board level, and we sort of, how that, how that influences this decision.
Probably get that. And I appreciate the, uh, the explanation. Um, I'd like to, you know, I don't know how to properly say this. I'd like to continue this until next month. Um, I'd like the ability to review this, um, outside of this meeting, and I'd like to also, um, find out if I'm allowed to review what town council provided to the, uh, to the zoning board and the building department for my review. So, the only, the only challenge I see with this is that, like, the application we have is, is, theoretically is incomplete because it doesn't have the engineer drawing that accompanies it. So, at this point, like, we have opened the hearing, um, but we can't really act. Like, so we could, if we continue to, I mean, we have continued cases in the past where people have sort of provided additional information. So, I suppose there's no, there's no harm in continuing it. But my, my concern is, like, without an actual engineer drawing, we could continue this for 10 hearings, but we can't actually render it. We can't render a decision and sort of bring it to some kind of closure, whatever that closure may be. Yeah. I'm, I'm not, um, I'm not asking to continue it for, for 10 more sessions. It's, I want this done more than anybody. Um, I just need to understand better, um, the situation. Um, I'd like to see what was provided to the zoning board. Um, and, um, yeah, I just like the opportunity for 30 days to, you know, we did talk about me reviewing it. It does sound like there, there are, there is documentation from, there is, no, I mean, literally, it was a phone call. I mean, we do not have minutes prepared for it. We could write something up and happily share that with you. Um, yeah, that would be good. Um, and in addition to that, I mean, I also want to take the time to, um, you know, yeah, I, I, I'm, I'm, I'm going to, I'm going to go through this. I'm going to read a lot more about the town bylaws. This was presented to me just as sort of like, um, you're going to come in, make your case and it was going to kind of, you know, get resolved. I thought it, I thought it would too. So the scope of this has changed and I, I feel, um, that I, you know, probably need to run this by some people so that I feel good about, you know, I don't know how to make the decision on whether or not I should take it off the table or leave it going or, you know, make some more points. Um, so I'm going to, I, if, if the, you know, the, the board would allow, I would like to just continue this until next month, please. I, I'm happy to sort of, I'm happy to continue this. Totally. Yeah. Okay. I also want to make sure I give it an opportunity for. Yeah. So, so before we close it and continue, yes, absolutely. So I, you are here patiently waiting. So if you want to come up and just name and address and. Yeah. Kevin O'Leary at the 38 Stonebridge Road. Rob, it's nice to meet you. Um, first of all I want to clarify, I did not complain to the town about the shed. I'm just going to sit right ahead. I inquired about application of the bylaw when an accessory, a detached accessory structure is close to a lot line and it evolved to, Oh, what's your address? And then I could see the, the, um, the lights go off and, uh, Mike crucifullis, uh, hit. And he made a couple of comments like, Oh, okay. I get it now. But, um, he took it on his own to go to the next level with this. Or I don't want to say on his own, but he, uh, hesitated a little bit. I could see it in his eyes when I met with him. There's nothing in the building file jacket, um, to indicate that the shed was part of the permit and nothing on the initial or the proposed plot plan. Um, and it kind of went off on its own. Now, Rob, one thing you mentioned in some documentation that you wrote to the ZBA is that you had an agreement with the town, uh, with the building department. Um, what kind of agreement was that because I just, I'd like to know what, what agreement you had with the town to proceed and put a shed in that location, the address. First of all, so did you say last time though, that you said you were, that, that, that, um, yeah, the, I'm sorry. What was the comment? No, I just said like, typically we try to avoid like, yeah. I mean, my next question is, do I have to answer? So through the chair, I'm not, I'm not here to, you know, that this is important, but I mean, you should be addressing. Yeah. One thing I do want to say, just since I have the floor is at the last meeting, I recall you said that, you know, looking at the shed when you were walking by, it was a detriment and you had a problem with the lights. You a hundred percent said that I didn't walk. I never walked by the house. You said that you also mentioned a light. So you have walked by. No. So what you're saying is that it just haphazardly goes, went through the town building. And to be frank, we've never met before. I don't mean to be rude. It just doesn't seem truthful. Which part were you, well, you saying you had a light? I'm going to stop the conversation here. If you guys want to have a conversation outside, if it was something that you'd like to address the chair, that's more than fine. Sure. But if you guys want to have a separate conversation about that outside of here. Yeah. No, thank you. You should have come to my house first before you brought me into the ABA. I didn't bring you in here. You're fine. Okay. All right. So, yeah. I'm trying to move on. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah. So you have some additional comments. Yeah. I think there's several points of clarification. I didn't get an answer from either you, Mr. Chair, or the applicant of the agreement between the applicant and the town. Because I think in some respects, the town shares some responsibility for a placement of the shed if, in fact, they did have an agreement to put the shed somewhere in the front yard.
So, I can't answer that question because I don't know. I understand that the past building commissioner was not as precise about this applicant's project as they should have been. I understand that. But I don't know anything about any conversation that was made, you know, or any deal that was made or whatever. All I know is that the bylaw allows a shed to be located anywhere on the property, front yard, side yard, back yard. It has to comply with certain setback requirements depending on the district that it's in, depending on the shape of the lot. There is also a modification that it can be within 10 feet of a lot line if it's in the rear yard only. So, you know, as of right, you can put a shed anywhere on your property as long as it doesn't violate any of the setbacks. That is a statement that town council confirms is consistent with our bylaw. It could be articulated clearer in the bylaw, but that is consistent with the bylaw. So, I imagine the building commissioner at that time or the inspector at that time said, person wants to put a shed, if you go anywhere, put it down. I don't think there was some sort of grand deal that was made. I think it was probably a basic conversation as most shed constructions in the town probably where we are. And we can't speculate either. True. But, I mean, you know, we see very, I can't think of a case we've seen come before the ZBA where someone has willfully sort of gone ahead and done something crazy, like approved some sort of structure, like that's so detrimental. It doesn't, it hasn't happened here. At least it's come before the board. So, I can't answer that question beyond that. So, follow up then, is a detached shed over 200 square feet allowed anywhere on the property? Not within the yard setbacks? Yes. Does it or does it not have a foundation? Yeah. There's different questions here. Yeah. Right? These are not, so the question about the square footage is not a zoning question. That is a building code question out of the IBC because it's like what determines whether a structure has a foundation have to do with those square footage requirements in the building code, not related to the zoning ordinance. So, that's more of a code question. But in terms of can it be located anywhere on a property? Yes. Okay. Is the, I didn't hear anywhere in the discussion with the board tonight about multiple front yard setbacks and I don't want Mr. Haskins to go off in the wrong direction, possibly wrong direction because the front yard also has a center line roadway setback distance and that's a variable street layout. Yeah. So, it does have to, there are two requirements there, 30 feet from the lot line and then there is 55 feet from the center of the right of way. Okay. Because I didn't see any of those setbacks delimited on the hand sketch that was submitted. Yeah. We've already covered that. We know that there is not a certified plot plan that has that information on it. I know. But I just want the board to be aware that there's other setbacks on the front yard other than what's shown on the plan that was submitted. They only show the one 30-point setback. The plan doesn't matter because we don't have a site plan. We can't speculate on it. No, but I'm just giving the board a heads up that there's also a center line and the plot plan that was submitted doesn't show center line, doesn't show road layout, it doesn't show those critical dimensions. I understand. We're just well aware of the dimensions we need to review. Okay. I didn't, because there was no discussion about center line setback in the prior conversation with the board tonight. Because at this point, it's amazing. We don't have a plot plan, so there's no point in discussing it. Exactly. There wasn't a point in discussing it last week. Okay. I can't think of anything else. I think the board's covered it to some degree. There's still some, I think, loose ends, but... How old is there's any loose ends with respect to zoning, respectfully? There are. I do not agree with you. This case, we don't have a case. We can't hear a case. We don't have a plot plan. If one's provided, we could ultimately render a decision. We are happy to continue this case, but without a drawing, there's no other zoning. There might be a zoning enforcement action, but that's a building department issue. That's not a... Right. No, what I was referring to is kind of the, a little bit of loose language in the bylaw relative to being silent on the front yard setback. And I understand the town council has made a decision about that, whereas direct the board and the direction to resolve it, so not an issue anymore. Yeah. It would be, it would be better if, I mean, that's one of, that's one of many. Right. There are four language choices in our bylaw. We're stuck in. Right. Unfortunately. Right. Is the shed, question from the board, is the shed, do the setbacks change if there's a foundation on it? No. Setbacks would be, the setback limits would be the same. It would be defined as, it's defined, it's defined as a structure. It does not have to have necessarily a foundation. You know, it's going to have to have some sort of support, but. Yeah. It doesn't really distinguish between, like, a cast in place foundation or a block foundation or a slab on grade with like a turn down. It's like, it doesn't get into that degree of specificity. Yeah. If I may, the only determination would be conservation setbacks for the wetlands or septic system installations for a foundation. Makes sense. All right. All right. So, it sounds, to me, it sounds like, are you good now, to, as far as for the items which you wanted to bring up this evening? Tonight I'm good, yes. Okay. Per your request, we can now vote on the continuance. Continuance. Yeah. We do have to pick a date. A date, certain, everything like that, in which we can, we're going to have meeting minutes that will be accounted for for that discussion between the town council and the CBA. Yeah. Absolutely. Well, it wasn't the CBA. It was the chair. Chair. Building commissioner and the building inspector. So, those will be accounted for. So, our next hearing is August 11th. Before we do this, I just want to be sure that everyone who is here is going to be here at that date. Double check the family calendar. I may have trouble with that date. I'm here. Yeah, I'll be here that day. All right. So, we're not going to have a forum, so we would have to continue this to September 8th. Yes. Does September 8th work for? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. We obviously don't have anything scheduled that far out at this point, right? No. We have two cases for August 11th, but not for September 8th. Okay. So, we can put it on. We're not going to have a forum. Okay. Yeah. We're down, we're down shot, so. We're down shot. We don't have enough members. Well, with four, we would have a forum. We don't have a forum. Oh, well. It is not here and Hunter's not here. So, just the three of us. All right. Okay. So, does that mean no meeting? Sorry. Sorry. It's dumping. I'm just asking. All right. So, we can put this on first on the 8th. So, I'd make a motion to continue case. 2612. Yes. 2612 to September 8th at 7pm. Seconded. By roll call. Ms. Janice. Aye. Ms. Paul. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. So, September 8th at 7pm. Thank you so much. You're very welcome.
So, since it's past 7-15, we can move on to the next case. This is DVA case 26-16 for Sherman's Bridge. This is the application of the Town of Wayland Department of Public Forest Works requesting a special permit and or other zoning relief to allow for the preservation and rehabilitation of Sherman's Bridge, including replacement of the existing timber deck, aluminum decking, installation of new railings, scar veils, and associated substructure repairs. Would you leave anyone to present this application? We have Paul. I am here. We have Mike Riccardi. He should be in here from Tuck. I am here. And Pete Engel from TEC is here as well. I've had some. Making the presentation to sort of, at this point, review why the zoning board needs to hear a special permit request for this. I have a quick PowerPoint I can share. It might be overkill. But I can share my screen and run through it and we can go from there. So, this is a PowerPoint to sort of answer the threshold question about why it's a special permit or is this a PowerPoint presentation that is the application material we already have? I think it explains a little bit of why we're here and explains what we have and goes through the permits that we have in place. And, yeah, I think a little bit of supplemental beyond what you guys have, more or less just kind of summarizing things. And then, could you just re-identify yourself? Sure. Mike Riccardi with TEC. Pete Engel from TEC is joining me. And here, I'll share my screen and we can run through it. I assume seeing PowerPoint okay, things are working right? Yes. Great. So, thank you all for your time. And this project we've been working on with both Wayland DPW and counterparts in Sudbury as well. I'll explain why I guess we're here. We're reviewing zoning bylaws. I believe it's Article 17. So, project location is Sherman's Bridge Road from Wayland side, Lincoln Road from Sudbury over the Sudbury River. And project is in a FEMA flood way. And I have all your bylaws copied. I don't necessarily need to read them verbatim to you guys, but I underlined kind of why we, what triggered us making sure that we came before you all here tonight. Is that in the floodplain district, no filling, excavating or transferring of any material that will reduce the natural flood water storage capacity, shall happen. And similar from the federal floodplain district bylaw, purpose to control the floodplain district. I think we're having an audio. Hang on. We're having an audio problem here. Yeah. Take over, Mike. Perfect. Thank you, Pete. I guess, Mike, if you want to go back two slides. So, the floodplain district, basically no filling, excavated, transferring material. And then a couple of lines later without, or unless a special permit for the action or structure of the floodplain district. So, the floodplain district, basically no filling, excavated, transferring material. And then a couple of lines later without, or unless a special permit for the action or structure has been issued by the ZBA. So, Mike, you can go back a couple more, whatever you were at before. So, basically, at the end of the day, the project results in a slight fill within the floodplain. Mike, if you want to go forward, actually. So, this is an existing cross section of the bridge. Basically, the, the driving surface, the decking is a four inch thick wooden deck. Next slide. This would be the proposed cross section. So, that four inch deck is being replaced by basically seven inches plus or minus between a glulam structural panel and a one and a half inch wearing wooden surface blank. So, basically, a three or three plus or minus inch fill over the expanse of this bridge. Excuse me for one second, Mr. Engel. Yep. Can, can we just start with the fact of whether or not why this is coming to zoning board before we get into the, the weeds on this? Right. So, this is, this is kind of, we're, because we're filling in the floodplain, you, the ZBA has control over the floodplain overlay district. We are filling. And then you're saying that the, the, the increasing the thickness of the roadway is what constitutes the, the definition of the fill? Correct. Or is it because ground on either side of the bridge needs to be raised? Well, both, um, because the, the entire bridge is under the, the 100 year flood elevation, or the, the, the decking of the bridge is about a foot under the 100 year flood. So, during a 100 year flood flood storm, the entire roadway is covered in water. Um, so the decking, the decking is increasing. Increasing that thickness. That's what, okay. All right. That makes sense. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Please continue. Yep. And because the, the joists were using the existing joists, so the decking increases. And then because of that, we also have to transition the road to make up for that three inch difference at the abutment of the bridge. Um, so Mike, if you want to go one more, this is basically the impacts. So we lose, we're, we're losing 285 cubic feet of flood storage at the end of the day, because of that three inch increase in deck thickness and the making up of the pavement at the abutment. It's like 0.36% of the available flood storage within the right of way owned by the town. Um, both towns really. Um, and then Mike, next slide. Part of this, part of the bridge design, we do a hydraulic analysis, um, hydrologic, hydraulic analysis, um, which we model with that change in deck thickness. And with that relatively minor amount of fill in comparison to the flood storage, because it's a 900 foot wide floodplain. And the model comes up and says that the flood surface elevation during that hundred year storm is not impacted by that fill. And then, um, we have a no rise certificate from the hydraulic engineer, um, which was provided to both towns signed by both floodplain administrators. Um, so basically, even though we're filling, it's having no impact on that, the horizontal or vertical, uh, extensive flooding. And then just the, the permits we have in hand. So we do have an order of conditions from Wayland Concom. Uh, we have a, uh, permit approval through the army corps. And then we also have both conservation and zoning board special permit through, uh, Sudbury as well. So this is kind of the last, the last permit requirement. Any other information you want to, uh, share before we go into questions? Uh, no, I think any, if, if you have any questions, we're happy to try to answer them. The key question that I had, which is just making sure we had the correct, um, kind of delineation of, of how to apply, uh, 1701.1 against, uh, 201. And I think you just provided that information that we needed. Um, but I, I do not have any additional questions actually. Anyone else on the board? I do not. Um, so we don't have anyone here, uh, in the audience. And I don't know if there are any other questions of parties online. I don't think there's anybody online. Okay. That's good. Robbie, there's no one online, correct? No, there's not. It's easier than I thought. Just to go in front of Sudbury, um, zoning board, uh, back in June or July. June, I believe. Late June. So they, they voted to proceed with this project. Yeah, I think it's, I think it's extremely straightforward. Um, so I guess, I mean, if I look at, um, if I look at the article 17, article 17, uh, the sort of our special permit statute is the standard special permit under 201, you know, which is like substantial derogation. I, I think we've seen from the data presented that even though there is sort of a change in sort of the topography within the floodplain, I think the engineering data supports the fact that that three and a half inches does not modify anything about the water flow. There is a slight decrease in the flood storage capacity within the right of way. But it's when you extrapolate that over, um, all the potential square footage. It's a, it's a, it's a non-impact. Yeah. Um, we just have to find the appropriate line, which in 201, um, where you pay the big bucks. I don't know when that, I don't know when that payday starts. Um, checks in the mail. So I guess before we proceed, sort of, uh, I don't have, there's no additional question that we have, and I don't know if the applicant has any additional material they need to present. Anyone else in the board? All right. So then I close the public hearing portion of this and sort of move to deliberations. Uh, so for that, we have to name it. The panel is going to be in five members of the board. Uh, Ms. Janice, Ms. Paul, we're both remote. And then Mr. Hirsch, Mr. Perry, Mr. Wright that are all in person here. So as, as we know, under, uh, section two or 3.1, the applicant's got to show, uh, to this fact satisfaction of the board that the, the use, in which case, uh, I guess it's the use or is it the structure which the application is made sign against the public interest that tells them derogating the character of the neighborhood, um, or is detrimental and offensive because of the noise, vibrations, gas streams, or the dust, or the injectable features. And it's not injurious to the inhabitants of the town. I think the applicants demonstrated that, that, that this application by just increasing the height of the roadway, you know, three and a half inches. I think it's clear that there isn't going to be a health or safety violation for this, nor do I think it has anything to do with, uh, character. Right. Great. So. Great. If anything, it's adding value for everyone. I would. So I guess I would make a motion. I'd make a motion to, uh, a special permit for ZBA case 26 dash 16. Because, uh, under section through a 3.1, um, the applicant has shown. That, uh, they are in compliance with all the provisions of section two or 3.1. I don't know that there are necessarily any additional conditions that need to be applied to this because this application is like a fully engineered solution. I can't, I can't think of an application. So I can't think of a condition that the board would need to apply to this. I can't think of it. Anyone else on the board? Okay. All right. So that's my motion. Sorry. Oh. All right. We have a second. Uh, so, um, again, by roll call, Ms. Jenis? Aye. Ms. Paul? Aye. Mr. Hirsch? Aye. Mr. Perry? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. So the board has approved this, so you're, you're complete with your last, uh, last special permit applications. Uh, so the year is a, uh, we have to write it, we have to offer a decision for this. I would assume. Very straightforward. Yeah. Okay. So there's a two week process to write that. Uh, and then there's a, uh, mandatory 20 day appeal period after that, the decision can be recorded. So thank you for the application materials and for the quick overview of the, uh, the scope. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Much needed. Before we, any board comments or concerns? Yeah. I just want to make sure that everyone's all on the same page is that we, because of lack of quorum, uh, we will not have a meeting next week. Next month. Excuse me. Next month. Yeah. Or next week. I, I, or next week. Uh, a fair question. So, it sounds like that, it sounds like that is the case. It sounds like there is no meeting. There will be no meeting last month. So you, so we have two cases. Correct. Yeah. And the deadline to open them would be September 10th. So we're within the deadline. Wow. Barely. Oh, we just need to open. Uh, yeah. But what if someone is sick? I'm not saying that someone, someone's sick on the eight. I'll throw that. We can stay remote. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. We just have to be, we just have to be very mindful of that. That if we, I know we have to be very mindful of the fact that if we don't have a meeting, we are bound by a statute that's due over the case within a certain amount of time. So we have to be very specific about that. Okay. Yeah. Can I ask, can I ask a question about, um, the, um, the, the first case, just to clarify, it was really good to get the information from town council that under our bylaw, the, um, location of a shed can be front side or rear lot provided does not invade the setback lines. And in the rear, it can actually be 10 feet from the lot line, which was always understood. My question is, is that only for sheds or is it for other accessory units? And is it also for accessory dwelling units? Dwelling units that they have their own section of the file. Yeah. We only, our conversation was limited to shed. Yeah. Okay. So it never, it never came up. Okay. I'm asking because I'm writing this out and sticking it in my, my book. So it's stapled. Cause it is disagreement initially, but, uh, we resolved it. Yeah. Um, no, cause it was, it's different than past practice. And when KP law has come up with good counsel on these going forward, um, from the past two, I have tried to just write out a summary and put it in my bylaw. So that's smart. Yeah. Going with it. Okay. Any updates from the building commissioner? No updates. I do not have any updates. So. Anyone have a motion? Move to adjourn. Second. Okay. So we sum it to that. Uh, so by wall call, Ms. Janice. Aye. Ms. Paul. Aye. Mr. Hirsch. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. Mr. White. Aye.