September 8, 2026 – Zoning Board of Appeals – Video & Transcript
September 8, 2026 - Zoning Board of Appeals
All right, so that's good evening. This is the September 8th, 2026
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. I'll just start with the preamble here. This meeting may be
reported and reported will be made available to the public and we can assume after the meeting
is possible. The public will be almost be excluded from any executive sessions. Pursuant to Chapter
2 of the Act of 2025, this meeting will be conducted in person and viable to access and
accordance with the law. If this meeting has only remote access, no in-person attendance by
members of the public will be permitted. If this meeting has remote access, one may watch,
participate remotely to the meeting link that is posted on the agenda. If required by law or
allowed by the chairperson's wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the
meeting, may do so at the meeting location, which is in-person or remote as required.
The public comment should be limited to two minutes per person. So I guess,
with that, do we have any public comment not related to the specific cases this evening?
None. Move on. Has everyone on the board had a chance to review and approve the draft meeting
minutes from January 14th? Sorry, July 14th. Yes. Any comments? No. Okay. We're going to have to do
a roll call for this since one person is remote. So I'd make a motion that we approve the meeting
minutes for
July 14th, 2026. Second. Okay. Ms. Jentz? Aye. Mr. Farrick? Aye. Ms. Paul? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. So those meeting minutes are approved.
So with this, this brings us on to our first case tonight. This is a continuation of ZBA case
26-12. This is from 22 Stonebridge Road. This is the continuation of the application of Robert
Hoskins for the property located at 22 Stonebridge Road.
The board will continue to review the application and any zoning relief required based on the
submission of additional documentation. Do we have anyone here to present this evening?
He's online. He's online. Okay. Good evening. Can you hear us? I can. Can you hear me?
So, if you I'm sorry, you can hear my last. Yes, we can hear you. Sorry. Yeah, no, I know that when we last left this you would ask to receive a copy of the correspondence we had previously with town council I believe that was forwarded to you. Yep, it was. Thank you. So, do you have any, I guess, any additional information you wanted to present this evening or any additional considerations. No, I don't have any additional information I mean the way that I understand it is that, you know, the through submitting my as built to the building department will outline where the new shed is. And I believe the processes for me to, you know, sort of go through the building department. So. You know, my, the way I see my options is I can, you know, asked to withdraw, or I could ask for a continuation. I think my preference would be to request to the board for one more continuation. I am under the understanding that, you know, if I withdraw there's a possibility that I might not be able to come back for two years, I'll be honest I don't know all the details. So I guess I'm just looking for another 30 days. So I guess I'm just looking for another 30 days to wrap up with the building department. I think that's fine. That's, that's, that's his choice. Yeah, that's your choice. Um, there are some requirements about withdrawing and reapplying. However, we do have applicants that withdraw. We can have you withdraw without prejudice, which would basically eliminate that obstacle and allow you to refile because there are there are several times we have cases. Not similar to yours, but maybe analogous in some ways where it's waiting on additional information that just may sometimes be impractical to continue. I think in your case, 30 days is probably more than enough time to gather the additional information. So I think continuing gives you a little bit more, I guess, leeway in that process. I mean, I'm looking at the building commission. I don't know. Did you have any additional comment on this? No, that's his right. If he'd like to. I don't know. It's just a matter of time. So I'm just going to let him do his thing. I don't know. We can do it. Yeah. And give him time to prepare his plan. And. I was ready. We can work with them on the finality of his project. Okay. I made that something. I had a phone call with the applicant today. So I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. So he can withdraw. From. The application. And there is no. there is no deadline uh that would just close the case for here and he could reapply i think there was a little bit of a misunderstanding um that he wouldn't be able to reapply but um as you previously said that that only applies to be denied but yeah yeah anina i i think i understood that the only reason why i was saying continuation was just just in case i need to use it but honestly i i'm i i'm indifferent really on whether or not um i withdraw with prejudice just so long as i don't have to wait two years i mean that i don't i haven't even really thought that all through i don't know how that would affect it but i know i don't want to this hanging out for two years nor does the town so um i'm happy to that's what the board would prefer no i mean my only comment on that would be uh if you continue it it's less paperwork for everybody whereas if you if you withdraw without prejudice and then reapply you've got to sort of get a new application and do all that so it kind of seems like if you if you need if you ultimately wind up needing some kind of relief from this uh it's more work for you to reapply so the continuation may give you uh you know less paperwork to fill out so yeah i mean i i would i guess um yeah continuation i think would probably that's what i'm requesting and i i do appreciate the information from anina um i'm just trying to make sure that i'm getting it right so i'm just trying to make sure that i'm getting it right um i'm just trying to make sure that i'm getting it right um i'm just trying to make sure that i'm making sure that i'm getting it right um i'm just trying to make sure that i'm getting it right as easy as possible as easy as possible as easy as possible okay okay okay all right um all right um all right um all right um all right um all right um i guess with that uh i'd make a motion i guess with that uh i'd make a motion i guess with that uh i'd make a motion that the board should before i do that i that the board should before i do that i that the board should before i do that i want to double check uh where our next want to double check uh where our next want to double check uh where our next meeting is i believe it is october 13th i believe it is october 13th i believe it is october 13th i make a motion that we continue i make a motion that we continue application uh zba application 26 uh 12 to october 13th at 7 00 p.m so good okay um i'll do this by roll call uh miss janice hi mr perry all right miss paul mr white i so unanimous uh so yes you are continued to uh october 13th at seven we don't since this is done this way he doesn't he's not here nothing needs to be signed correct uh no since it's on record we're okay all right all right well we will uh we will see you next month thank you aren't you all right so this brings us to our next case this is the 705 case for uh zba case 26-17 for five ridgefield road this is the application of stephen shung on behalf of five richfield road llc for the property located at five richfield road in single residence our 20th district the property is a pre-existing non-conforming lot with respect to minimum lot area the existing dwelling is a pre-existing non-conforming structure with respect to the required front yard setback or a lot the applicant proposes to demolish the existing single family dwelling detached garage and greenhouse and construct a new single family dwelling within the back to car garage and associated site improvements the applicant seeks a special permit and or other applicable zoning relief for the proposed attached garage with existing non-conforming front yard setback do we have anyone here to present this case tonight or is this online uh it's online actually it's i thought it'd be easier so i could go through the slides that's okay yeah perfect okay so if you can just give us your name and address please sure uh stephen chung um i'm an architect i actually live in wayland too i live at 52 woodland road in wayland been a resident for over 20 years um just happen to have an opportunity to work on a project on ridgefield so let me share
share
okay
and do you see that screen uh yes you can make it a little bigger that would be great that's full screen yeah okay okay it's just on on the lower uh the lower image just locates the the property just in case just to give you some orientation west plain street is sort of here um bubbly pond lake kichichewit and just sort of moving towards your 27 and 126 is sort of over here so it's right along on west plain street um right at the corner and this is west plain on the the upper image ridgefield is a little small road that sort of comes off of ridgefield and the house is this is a recent photo of what's there right now it's a single family house 1374 square feet um and then there's two accessory structures one is a little garage the other is a i mean it's dilapidated sort of sun room um and then there's two accessory structures one is a little garage the other is a i mean it's dilapidated sort of sunroom um this is the existing condition the owners have have moved out um it's actually pretty bad state of repair but disrepair but in any case this is on um west plain street this is sort of the i guess the entry it's really coming from the back um existing condition of the house and then sort of aerial photo from sort of hovering over over plain street and then just a side view just give you a sense of the the condition of the house um so after after looking at it we we really thought that um the sort of most sort of sensible approach to redevelop the project would be to keep the existing foundation we looked then they seemed to be okay so keep the house in its existing location but provide for a new garage as you can sort of see the structure the garage is detached the way it is now and really sort of attach it to the house to make it sort of more of a more convenient and then keep everything else intact i think really the house is going to be built on the existing foundation we would sort of build this new garage two-car garage um so that sort of rear the property keep the existing driveway take away the two existing structures and then the actually the house has this kind of appendage on it in the front would take that off and really bring it all the way back to its existing um condition just an architectural site plan which just really gives you a kind of just a more clear version of what proposed which is just really really rebuilding on top of the existing footprint and adding this little uh garage and again keeping the existing driveway and then i think in this scenario we really like the idea i mean if you look at sort of historical photos i mean some of the houses on plain street used to really have you know entrance well many of them still do but historically houses had sort of front approaches and entries off of west plane which is what we would like to do for this house so it has a kind of formal fun entry and then the family entry from the rear and then of course the existing septic and all of that has been it's past title 5 and and we've repaired septic as needed and so forth keep we our plan would propose to keep the existing sort of vegetation there's sort of a nice mature line of trees to the side of the property line there's a lot of trees in this location simply limb some of them as needed but really try to keep the existing vegetation in place and just enhance as needed i'll show you the rendering in a second and maybe i think the idea is we'd like to have a sort of fence i think you'll maybe you'll agree if it improves that kind of curb appeal from the from the street as well as provide some some visual privacy so the aerial view is um looking from kind of richfield and west plane and this is just kind of just giving you a kind of sense of the massing a two-story structure on top that existing foundation with that fence that i just mentioned and i just want to i mean if you give me a little bit of license i mean i think one of the buildings that we were kind of looking at was the grout herd house which is a historic house in wayland and i think you can sort of see this sort of center colonial and i think that this house is a pretty straightforward um sort of simple structure but it i think it really harkens back to that house i think there's elements of that house that we that we like the client likes so i think that that's that was the intent um in terms of a kind of inspiration so this is on richfield you know with a fence as sort of designed and just sort of gives you a sense of that more formal you know front entry um uh from from richfield uh sorry from west plane and then here is the uh proposed well the rear of the house with the proposed uh one-story garage and the this is all existing this existing curb cut and and the vegetation probably just need to clean it up it's a little bit of a mess after someone's not lived there for about a year so sort of clean that up um and that's it so happy to answer any questions or put it on the slide that you'd like for discussion okay thank you um
i don't have any specific questions on materials presented um the attic space will that be livable space the attic um this is not a great shot but the rear has a dormer so on the front it doesn't have that dormer but on the rear which is south facing and has a potential potential distant view of lichichuit um as well as just the solar orientation is great so that that has a sort of partial 500 square foot dormer um which is a kind of a bonus room you know play area study whatever so that's top layer um it has a bathroom up there with it right and it's labeled a bedroom it does it does yeah yeah i i think it's it's labeled a bedroom but i mean i i think the owner is thinking that it's i mean maybe a guest room or something but it seems like a good study actually so we'll see but yeah
so you do i do have a question it looks like the height is uh 34 plus six inches is that reading that correctly you're six inches shy of the height limit of 35 feet yeah we're we're shy i i i should have sort of showed the worst condition but um there's a little topo here i think they take the average and then it's yeah so i think we're okay to the top of structure so i mean the building inspector is can maybe weigh in but i think we're okay with that it's i mean you know it is it's close um but it's it is compliant yeah
the draw the drawings the drawings show the drawings show it about six inches shy of the height which is is compliant but it is compliant yeah there six inches
um so i guess i i do have a question if you if you um or the owner sort of uh shared uh any of these plans with anyone else in the neighborhood any of the voters i think when one of the voters is right right behind uh anina there i think she wanted to ask a question about it oh yeah we will we'll hear from people okay yeah yeah well i i kind of i passed out some flyers and um this was a kind of we were going to present in august and then it was this it was uh suspended or postponed until so i walked around and tried to just pass out flyers through all the the butters and i ran into the neighbor there and she asked me about you know colors and if we could paint it purple and so yeah so she yeah i did i did speak to some um neighbors no no i mean no issue i think people were just curious what was going to be there and happy that the house that's not in great condition is going to be replaced all right sounds good um i guess before we hear from anyone else anyone else here do you have any other uh any other information you want to share about the drawings or design uh not unless you have something specific i mean now that i have my home computer i can show more images if you need them but um uh i'm comfortable i don't have any different questions okay yeah all right um so uh anyone here tonight uh have any issues or any questions they wanted to ask of the board or sort of make a statement about the project
yeah come on just give us your name and address sure uh i'm ryan cruz i'm at 7 richfield road which is the budding property uh we have no problems mostly my daughter wanted to see a zoning oh boy riveting uh it will be a big improvement over the existing structure especially the part that we see which is the dilapidated uh whatever building that's supposed to be uh i i think it'll be a big improvement so we have no problems with it okay great thank you except for the purple
we unfortunately we can't legislate colors
all right it doesn't look like there's anyone online so i think we are we are good um so i i do have a question for uh the building commissioner on this um i know the there's been a sort of a modification in the application of uh of 40a requirements so my understanding of this is that the the garage piece only needs a special permit under 203.1 it does not need a finding under 401.1.2 that's how i interpret the change in 48 regulations is that correct i believe so yes okay and then 706.1 is your other driving force on this where you have a uh a property that's on more than one street yeah but under 7601 761 it is just a street it is a special permit correct state and uh actually the frontage on the side street is uh is what your is the conformity yeah
okay
by the way this is mislabeled i'm sorry about that this is obviously west plane you know i didn't catch that but yes obviously yeah and i'd like to blame my assistant but that's actually that's my fault
okay that's this will be an important example um okay um to the board all right um i guess before we move on does anyone on the board have any questions about uh the modification or at least the change in uh 48 that sort of is traditionally this would have been a project that we would approve under 401.1.2 but in this case it's like we're really just limited to the special permit needed for the line itself garage itself because the garage is technically is new and it's technically an intrusion into the front yard on Ridgefield which we can we can authorize under 203.1 but it's very it's a little bit of a difference standard for like 1.2 so and there's any questions on that I'm wondering about the height and I do not have a time to drive by today but I'm wondering about the neighboring homes and how what's what the um what the setting is like with height in the other homes um I think that I mean I I drove by there's uh there's a mix of homes of one and two-story homes and I think that's a good question I think that's a good question I think that's a good question um I don't think you could say one prevails over the other I think it's probably half and half roughly uh so I I did not have an issue with the height my only observation is it's just very close to the limit so if something goes awry during construction you just want to stay on top of that to make sure that you don't accidentally wind up at you know 35 to 2 inches or something like that right um yeah but there are other homes in the neighborhood that are not high I think the existing structure was not as tall as this um and I do agree that from uh from Ridgefield you know it's it appears as though it's it's nearly three stories but it still fits into the definition of uh two and a half stories under the zoning
and I also think that the special permit can only condition the garage I think the construction of a house is as of right so if the house didn't have a garage it would just be an ad right construction okay
um so before we go on uh I just wanted to let the applicant know that um we have only four members tonight so um any vote to approve or that project has to be unanimous because we're down one member so uh we always want to give the applicants um the opportunity if they were concerned about something to you know to continue the application so such time as we have five members just in case there is a a split in the vote um I I don'tlight everyone else is going to listen to vote on this this this evening but uh I I don't see any problem with the relief you're requesting for the special permit for the collage intrusion on this field. But nonetheless, I want to give you that opportunity that if you are in any way concerned, we could continue this until such time as there are five people. Can you give me a hint?
I think I gave you a hint. No, I'm going to roll the dice. We tried our best. And I also want to thank Anina for helping me navigate. Even though I've lived here a long time, still, there's lots of things different than in the past. So I appreciate her helping me try to navigate through this process. I can tell you that we on the board are very excited to have Anina with us. It's changed our lives on the ZBA. Over the period of time. So I hope that you're not the only one that is excited about the assistance.
All right. So as I mentioned before, the panel hearing this case will be limited to four. It's the four permanent members that are here tonight. That's Aida Jenis, Hunter Perry, Justine Paul, and myself, Thomas White. So with that, I would I guess before we move to make a decision, I would like to ask you to give us a little bit of time. I'm going to ask you to give us a little bit of time. I'm going to ask you to give us a little bit of time. I'm going to ask you to make a motion. Any questions from the board on the limited scope that we would be approving into this project? Really just the garage intrusion into the front yard setback on Ridgefield?
No.
Ms. Jenis? It's all okay. I think the revisions to Chapter 40, 48, have made it so that that's the only thing that we can consider, right? It's all okay. I think the revisions to Chapter 40, 48, have made it so that that's the only thing that we can consider, right? Yes. Okay.
Okay. This is our first meeting? I believe this is the first meeting. This is the first meeting we've had with some of these revisions. Yeah. All right. I would make a motion under 203.1 that we... grant a special permit for the intrusion into the front yard of Ridgefield Road for the proposed garage that I would say the applicant has shown to the satisfaction of the ZBA that the proposed garage for which the application is made isn't against the public interest. It doesn't variegate within the character of the neighborhood. Such use building... such use building or structure occurs and is not detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, fumes, dirt, or dust, or other objectionable features. The proposed garage is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangerous to the public health or safety. Second. Any discussion?
No. I would, I guess, further condition this motion that the... this project has got to be constructed in substantial conformity with the plans submitted tonight.
I think that's the only condition I think we need to apply to this.
All right. So we'll advance this by roll call vote. Ms. Jens. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. Ms. Paul. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So you gambled correctly. So yes, you are approved. Can I ask a question? I have submitted a building permit set that does not have that garage on it because this whole postponement of this ZBA and owner that was ANSI, that is in your hands right now being reviewed without the garage. What would the building inspector or commissioner suggest that how I, how to proceed?
Please submit a new plan with your... I was told that I might have to make the original application and we will review your new application. Or can you maybe complete the review of the house that you have now and then I go back to the owner and tell them that this was approved? Does he want to pursue this? Can it be an amendment or can I file a new permit just for the garage later on? Something like this so that we don't have to slow down. Because we've been waiting so long. I would think you might want to amend because if he... Well, I don't know. But that's okay. want to speak for you but i think it would make sense because the amendment could be tied solely to the zba approval of the garage yeah so we would then you have two sets of plans during these so there's a downside of that right but we would like one application with all the with all the information on one application along with your zba um approval um with this also so once you have your zba approval you need to submit that and your plans for your garage so this is the the challenge because of the whole time thing is that this is we have to wait 20 days for this where you're reviewing the permit set right now when there was a couple of questions and it's basically i think it's ready to go we'll have our demo stuff ready the asbestos is being done now so i think we could start conceivably i mean i assume hopefully the billing permit's okay like soon and not have to wait this period of time i almost kind of want to just start and then and then submit um submit submit an application just to make a garage
you could do amendment to the original permit which should be cleaner and easier okay so so change what i have no just leave it leave it with you leave it as is you could proceed at your own risk if you don't have any um you could proceed at your own risk uh for the garage until the uh the 20-day appeal period is up after the decision has been issued okay okay okay thank you very much all right yeah so we have there is a uh we have a two-week period to write the decision and then a 20-day appeal period after that right right so that's right that's what that's what i meant it's it's basically like another month and plus so i just thought gosh we're trying so hard to get a building a shell up before the winter otherwise we just pass it we miss it we have to start in the spring so that's why okay thank you all right good luck thank you thank you nina thank you okay um so this brings us on to our next case this is uh the 715 case for dba 26-18 282 main street this is the application of english serophilus before the property located 282 main street in a 20 district the property is a pre-existing non-performing lot with respect to minimum lot area and frontage requirements the existing dwelling is a pre-existing non-conforming structure with respect to the required rear yard and side yard setbacks the african seeks a special permit and or other applicable relief under the waiting whaling zoning bylaw to remove the existing deck and unheated bedroom and construct a new unheated three-season porch with an adjacent deck landing and stairs so assuming that is you gentlemen yes yeah you can come up and uh tell us about your project please
well we're we're we're just thinking
you can bring a chair up yeah you don't have to stand it's a really informal you know usually i don't want you to have a stand for this yeah my name is larry cohen i'm with architect of support in boston you know we are residential remodelers yeah you know and i've been guiding nick through the process you know what we have is an existing deck uh that is into the existing setback you know the new structure you know the sun room or i should say races and decking will be the same depth in the rear so we are not increasing degree of non-conformity you know we'll replace it what's there with new you know porch and new adjacent small deck yeah with stairs to the yard
okay and that
deck because the deck aligns with the existing dwelling dwelling to be removed that's why this is and the deck is considered a structure if that's why we have a relief requested for this so i'm sorry i'm sorry i mentioned i'm asking this question of the building commissioner sorry please say yes
okay i think so i just did this double check yeah
because the rear yard setback is 30 feet and the deck's going to occur to existing non-conforming yeah okay which is typical for a lot of the lots in that area
so then in this case this is a extension of a pre-existing non-conforming under 401.1.2 solely for a setback
question so my first question to to the commissioner then is this is conceptually the same as the project we just heard right but why is this different
it's just increasing non-conformity to the for the deck and the stairs well the stairs aren't part of it it's just increasing the non-conformity of the deck uh the original the additional space
yeah but is it because it's a three season
it's enclosed and heated or i don't know ipod
no the the guidance that we have is that we are only being told that we have to request the only zoning we required under 48 would be the deck but my question would be uh under these new guidelines from the state like i i'm really at a loss as to how this is different from the other one. This is the same as the case we just heard. The guidelines weren't in when this came. This is pre-existing the guidelines from the state.
The application? Yes. I think it's literally just that sliver over the mudroom that is a little bit over the mudroom, so it's encroaching closer to the setbacks that need to relieve. It's literally just like this law square. If it were a little smaller, it wouldn't need to come from the ZBA, but with the new guidelines, it's such a minimal encroachment.
I understand, but I guess my question is the path to approve this would be 203.1, not 401.1. So, 401.2 is basically the same language as the 4048 section 6. Okay. So, they are really more or less interchangeable without the second part, which basically... So, yeah. 201.1.2, as it is written, it's pretty much the same as 48 section 6. The only thing that really changed for us was for 101.1.3.2 to 20% of the gross floor area. In the previous case, that doesn't need relief anymore, but the encroaching on the setbacks would still be... We would still need relief in regards to the setback and the vested structure, if that makes sense. Okay. All right.
So, we would not need a finding, then, for this? So, I'm not quite sure about finding. Okay. Because we didn't make a finding for the first one. No. We didn't make a finding.
So, we're adopting to these new... I can't say. There's been a subtle change in our regulations from the state, but our bylaw hasn't changed. So, it's kind of interpreting between these two things. So, thank you for your patience.
Well, I mean, either way, I don't think it changed. I mean, it doesn't change anything. I'm happy to sort of make a finding for this. It's going to be the same. But just to clarify, so, it is the small sliver of the enclosed three-season room and the deck. Because the deck is extending the line of nonconformity across the backyard. That is still... That doesn't change under the new 40, the new 48 lawrence.
Yes? Yes. Okay. All right. I don't have any additional questions for the office. Does anyone on the board have any questions for the office? No. All right. Do we have anyone here in the audience to be heard on this particular case? It doesn't sound like... We do. Just in the mirror of others and here in support of... Of the applicant. Could you just give us your name and address, please? My name is Joe Gagne, G-A-G-N-E, 284 Main Street.
Thank you.
So, much as I said to the previous applicant, there are only four of us. So, we do have to make a unanimous decision on this. And if you were uncomfortable with that, we could continue this until next month when we'll have five people here.
Nope. Okay. Did he gamble or two? Yes. No. All right. So, thank you. So, notwithstanding the slight bit of confusion about the applicable pieces of the bylaw, I think this is some extremely straightforward... I think this is some extremely straightforward project. We have support from, you know, the writer next door. It's a very minimal change to the site plan. I don't believe it altered the appearance of the street or the setback configuration. It's really an aim-meaning for where... So, to me, I think it's easily just... Even both sides of the four of us... I agree. So, any other discussion on the board? Nope. Not for me. Janice? Janice? Anything? No. Thank you. All right. So, looking at this, I do think it's probably prudent that we do look at, in this case, 401.1.2. I'm satisfied that the board can make a finding that the proposed intrusion into the rear setback for the small sliver of the three-season room and a piece of the deck doesn't have... doesn't change any meaningfully not conforming conformity of the existing structure. I don't know if anyone agrees or disagrees or any further discussion on that. Agreed.
So, I would make a motion under 203.1 that we grant the release special permit for the proposed changes to... 282 Main Street because I think the applicant has shown that the proposed three-season room and deck is not against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which the used building or structure occurs and it's not more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, fumes, or dust or other objectionable features. And the proposed three-season room and deck is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangerous to the public health or safety. And I further condition that motion that the application of the construction needs to proceed in accordance with the plans that we approved at Disney Hill during this evening. Second. Okay. So, by roll call, those in favor? Ms. Janice? Aye. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Perry? Aye. Ms. Paul? Mr. White? Aye. So, we are unanimous in our decision that this is a special permit is approved. So, there's a 14-day process to write the decision and then a 20-day mandatory appeal period. And then after that, you can proceed to the building permit stage. Excellent. All right. Thank you. So, your fifth member doesn't have to chime in? No. Not in a case like this. If we were continuing, yes, they would have to. Understood. Thank you very much. You're very welcome.
All right. So, this is great because we have two other discussions this evening.
Before I have to go on with these discussions, any comments? Any concerns from the board? Sure. Thank you. So, just to get this straight, with the new 48 rules, will there no longer be any need for a special permit if there's an increase in square footage, 20% or more? I don't know the answer to that. And town council has actually indicated to me that they would be happy to come in and give us, like, a zoning kind of refresher, if we would like. Now, she offered that before this notion of the changes came up, so I'm assuming she would still be amenable to that. But I don't know the answer to your question, so maybe you could shed a little light on this. You said it was just the 20% increase was thrown out? Well, 20% of the lot coverage is still intact, but the 20% of the gross flow is still there. Okay. floor area of the building that is um that is now as of right so there's no cap on like how how how much it can increase as long as you're within like the setbacks yes there's only setbacks that are in play but there's no cap on like how big i guess the way it was before was if it was basically under 20 it was approvable by right but if it was over 20 you needed a special permit and what you're saying now is that that that piece of the requirement has been eliminated there's no square footage component to section 401.1.2 anymore so i have a question with that with the 20 percent increase that was for square footage that was in play prior to this revision wasn't that was that 20 percent of the original footprint not 20 percent of the footprint increase of the footprint that is present before the application comes to us do you follow what i mean so it wasn't yeah so an applicant comes to us the house was built in 64 74 and they want to increase the square footage by 30 percent of what it is at the moment when they come to us so i can see two ways that that could be played out one is that they can they could i understood they could only increase it by 20 percent of the original construction of the house when the house was constructed when it was laid any subsequent additions that they did to that did not increase the the square footage we would look at if they are coming for a first-time You had to look back at the original 20% the original construction and 20% of that and the increase beyond that 20% would put the new rules from the state. It basically says that so it says Extension or alteration of pre existing non conforming structures that do not conform to zoning because of water quality block shape frontage block coverage or for area rate ratio.
Non conforming structures can be extended as of right without the need of any finding by special permit. So on this there within the high restriction stories and setback. So basically that makes that entire Code like no one would is how I'm going to tell I read that. I would tend to agree. This is why I was so confused. About this. So I think I really, I really think it would be good for for town council to come in. I don't know that I don't know if that needs to occur in a public meeting or a fact that just occur over zoom. When it's convenient for the board. So yeah, I can speak to that. So I did reach out to the town manager because we need their approval to start a webinar, but it would be in conjunction with the planning board. And this is not a it doesn't have to be Announced or Public meeting. It can just be a zoom and people can attend since it's a training. So there's no open meeting violation of like Because that would that would probably just be more convenient for everyone's schedule and probably ultimately easier to coordinate than trying to have town council 10 off hours and Okay. I had that would be worthwhile to explore how we could go about setting that up because I had that same conceptual question that Hunter has like If I read that it means there's no if they are it would seem like there are no other requirements that we would adhere to other than the standard or 201 which is pretty weak because that just says that all as long as there's no gas tunes over or objection to the features. You got to approve it. And what residential project has any of those. Those are all industrial components of a commercial building. So it seems it seems kind of silly. So I just want to make sure that we're in full conformance with what the intent of the 48 changes.
The only thing that wouldn't change would be the requirements from the Board of Health for septic purposes for for their formula. So they they impose So that would be the only other caveat that we have to discuss. So does that mean that the town's going to revise the byline? I would think essentially eliminate goes to section four. Right. Well, four point one point two still would Like the language is very similar. I believe that we could just leave it in because it mirrors. The only thing that I think that you brought up is whether or not we need a finding for that. I'm not 100% certain if that would still be the case. But Other than that, yeah, definitely four point one point three point two. That needs to go completely.
But yeah, I think. Yeah, it's difficult to talk about. I think we need town council to to time it in that. Yeah, I do.
Okay. So the other two things that were on the agenda for this evening. Were any discussion review of the 2026 annual report draft. I think you've already put that together. Yes, I send a draft and I put it in the folder as well. Yeah. Yeah, it's pretty similar to the one that Was approved last year with like just like adjusting the The cases that were approved. I took a look at this and I think it's Great. I think it's great. I cannot claim authorship. This Just not to say that I obviously it was instrumental in helping some of us. But I have reviewed this and I think this is I think this is fine to submit. I do as well. Well, thank you for putting this together. Oh, thank you. I think we would need to or you would need to vote to approve this to publish this in the report. We do. Would you have to vote to approve this? Okay. And that is something we can do tonight that it is on the agenda, but it's it's not like a specific case. Okay. Do we need to make a motion? We would. I would make a motion that the I would make a motion that the board approve the 2026 annual report. Second. All those in favor. Miss Janice. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. Ms. Paul. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So it's official. This is the report.
The other thing on the agenda is A question, I guess, about And I think that We approved a change in that. Well, the zoning board was asked their opinion about a change in the bylaw for the Restaurant preorder pickup window. If you remember, this was probably a year and a half ago or so, I believe, maybe less than that. So What you're asking us is if we have any comments. This is, are these proposed changes to that? These are just the rules and regulations. This is just the rules and regulations that would summarize this. And since the ZBA is the one that would like enforce the bylaw, the town planner asked for feedback whether this is something that can be published in this language, if you'd be comfortable.
So this is just like a little mini summary of that provision of the bylaw. It's got the general scope. It's got the definitions that are unique to this. It outlines the process that the forms need to be submitted to the ZBA.
This is actually good. 3.3, it does actually list the very specific criteria that someone would need to apply to. And I know this is something that we probably have mentioned to you before, not you specifically, but to the administrators before, that sometimes people don't always know necessarily exactly what they've got to submit. So I do appreciate that this here in Section 3.3, it spells out exactly what every applicant for this zoning leave is going to need to come in and submit. So whether they will show up with all these materials, I don't necessarily know. But for us, we could use this as a checklist so that literally someone comes into us for an application for one of these cases and they're missing one of these eight things. We can point out to them. This is like published guidance. You need this. You need to submit this. This would actually be good. You should have the same checklist for everyone who applies for a regular zoning leave. We have something similar, but not as detailed. The one thing in there from that checklist, it says in the architectural design plan, it says traditional New England Village style exterior. Like who kind of judges? That's interesting. That is an interesting question. Yeah, the design review board's usually the one that should be weighing in on that. That's very, for us, it doesn't seem to me to be in our scope really. Right. But so would we, I guess in a case like this, we may need to amend this. That instead of saying a traditional New England Village style exterior, maybe the architectural design has received an advisory opinion from the design review board or something like that. I mean, the challenge that I think Aida is pointing out is that those are non-binding. Right. So it does kind of kick the issue ultimately back to us. Yeah. You know? We have the authority to do that. So it's interesting. It's a really interesting observation. We, even in the past, always received design review board opinions suggesting that, you know, they have, you know, conducted a process that's looked at the materials, the fenestration, the facade, and it's come to a conclusion. And they write a report and they submit it to us that we should approve this project because they looked at it and said that it does. But again. It's a board that, as I understand it, doesn't have like binding authority to sort of dictate those design standards. So it's an opinion to the advisor. Yeah. So it is possible that someone would come to us with an ultramodern pickup window and we can't not approve it because we architecturally don't agree with the style. So then. So that is a point I think we want to consider in this. So I don't know whether we want to reference the design. We probably want to reference the design review board advisory opinion. But it can't be a criteria. It can be in the application, I suppose. That's what this is. But it really can't be a criteria by which we could evaluate the project. Right. So they did put in the bylaw that was amended. They do have a design standard under Chapter 28. So there is like 28.7.1.1.1 exterior design and signage for the bellic shall be designed in a traditional New England style and color palette. So they are using this in the bylaw. So I'm. But yeah, it comes up the question of how are we going to enforce that? And is it enforceable? I think the guidance you have here, the design review board opinion is probably. Is there any impediment to us asking for a design review board information on this when this crops up? There shouldn't be, right? No, I don't think so. This is just in the submission guidelines. So perhaps the submission guidelines. It's like we need this. The applicant needs to have the design review board opinion attached to the applications. Maybe that's how you could modify this. Yeah. The GREV advisory memo like attached to the application. That would be very helpful. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't see anything else in here that's a concern. It's nice that we're being asked before this is fine. Right? This is a draft. Anini. Yeah, that's really nice. We have had to stand up in the past at town meeting when we were doing voice call voice votes. Yeah, that's that's really nice. doing voice votes and talked to, there were some planning board members that had wanted to put forward some revisions and NCBA hadn't been considered in terms of how would we address what was being presented. So I mean, that was a very long time ago. So this is nice to have this here. It is, it is, it's good. Any other concerns, updates from the building department or anything else that we need to discuss this evening? I make a motion to adjourn. Second. All right. All in favor, Ms. Jenis? Aye. Mr. Perry? Aye. Ms. Paul? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. Thank you, everyone.
He's online. He's online. Okay. Good evening. Can you hear us? I can. Can you hear me?
So, if you I'm sorry, you can hear my last. Yes, we can hear you. Sorry. Yeah, no, I know that when we last left this you would ask to receive a copy of the correspondence we had previously with town council I believe that was forwarded to you. Yep, it was. Thank you. So, do you have any, I guess, any additional information you wanted to present this evening or any additional considerations. No, I don't have any additional information I mean the way that I understand it is that, you know, the through submitting my as built to the building department will outline where the new shed is. And I believe the processes for me to, you know, sort of go through the building department. So. You know, my, the way I see my options is I can, you know, asked to withdraw, or I could ask for a continuation. I think my preference would be to request to the board for one more continuation. I am under the understanding that, you know, if I withdraw there's a possibility that I might not be able to come back for two years, I'll be honest I don't know all the details. So I guess I'm just looking for another 30 days. So I guess I'm just looking for another 30 days to wrap up with the building department. I think that's fine. That's, that's, that's his choice. Yeah, that's your choice. Um, there are some requirements about withdrawing and reapplying. However, we do have applicants that withdraw. We can have you withdraw without prejudice, which would basically eliminate that obstacle and allow you to refile because there are there are several times we have cases. Not similar to yours, but maybe analogous in some ways where it's waiting on additional information that just may sometimes be impractical to continue. I think in your case, 30 days is probably more than enough time to gather the additional information. So I think continuing gives you a little bit more, I guess, leeway in that process. I mean, I'm looking at the building commission. I don't know. Did you have any additional comment on this? No, that's his right. If he'd like to. I don't know. It's just a matter of time. So I'm just going to let him do his thing. I don't know. We can do it. Yeah. And give him time to prepare his plan. And. I was ready. We can work with them on the finality of his project. Okay. I made that something. I had a phone call with the applicant today. So I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. So he can withdraw. From. The application. And there is no. there is no deadline uh that would just close the case for here and he could reapply i think there was a little bit of a misunderstanding um that he wouldn't be able to reapply but um as you previously said that that only applies to be denied but yeah yeah anina i i think i understood that the only reason why i was saying continuation was just just in case i need to use it but honestly i i'm i i'm indifferent really on whether or not um i withdraw with prejudice just so long as i don't have to wait two years i mean that i don't i haven't even really thought that all through i don't know how that would affect it but i know i don't want to this hanging out for two years nor does the town so um i'm happy to that's what the board would prefer no i mean my only comment on that would be uh if you continue it it's less paperwork for everybody whereas if you if you withdraw without prejudice and then reapply you've got to sort of get a new application and do all that so it kind of seems like if you if you need if you ultimately wind up needing some kind of relief from this uh it's more work for you to reapply so the continuation may give you uh you know less paperwork to fill out so yeah i mean i i would i guess um yeah continuation i think would probably that's what i'm requesting and i i do appreciate the information from anina um i'm just trying to make sure that i'm getting it right so i'm just trying to make sure that i'm getting it right um i'm just trying to make sure that i'm getting it right um i'm just trying to make sure that i'm making sure that i'm getting it right um i'm just trying to make sure that i'm getting it right as easy as possible as easy as possible as easy as possible okay okay okay all right um all right um all right um all right um all right um all right um i guess with that uh i'd make a motion i guess with that uh i'd make a motion i guess with that uh i'd make a motion that the board should before i do that i that the board should before i do that i that the board should before i do that i want to double check uh where our next want to double check uh where our next want to double check uh where our next meeting is i believe it is october 13th i believe it is october 13th i believe it is october 13th i make a motion that we continue i make a motion that we continue application uh zba application 26 uh 12 to october 13th at 7 00 p.m so good okay um i'll do this by roll call uh miss janice hi mr perry all right miss paul mr white i so unanimous uh so yes you are continued to uh october 13th at seven we don't since this is done this way he doesn't he's not here nothing needs to be signed correct uh no since it's on record we're okay all right all right well we will uh we will see you next month thank you aren't you all right so this brings us to our next case this is the 705 case for uh zba case 26-17 for five ridgefield road this is the application of stephen shung on behalf of five richfield road llc for the property located at five richfield road in single residence our 20th district the property is a pre-existing non-conforming lot with respect to minimum lot area the existing dwelling is a pre-existing non-conforming structure with respect to the required front yard setback or a lot the applicant proposes to demolish the existing single family dwelling detached garage and greenhouse and construct a new single family dwelling within the back to car garage and associated site improvements the applicant seeks a special permit and or other applicable zoning relief for the proposed attached garage with existing non-conforming front yard setback do we have anyone here to present this case tonight or is this online uh it's online actually it's i thought it'd be easier so i could go through the slides that's okay yeah perfect okay so if you can just give us your name and address please sure uh stephen chung um i'm an architect i actually live in wayland too i live at 52 woodland road in wayland been a resident for over 20 years um just happen to have an opportunity to work on a project on ridgefield so let me share
share
okay
and do you see that screen uh yes you can make it a little bigger that would be great that's full screen yeah okay okay it's just on on the lower uh the lower image just locates the the property just in case just to give you some orientation west plain street is sort of here um bubbly pond lake kichichewit and just sort of moving towards your 27 and 126 is sort of over here so it's right along on west plain street um right at the corner and this is west plain on the the upper image ridgefield is a little small road that sort of comes off of ridgefield and the house is this is a recent photo of what's there right now it's a single family house 1374 square feet um and then there's two accessory structures one is a little garage the other is a i mean it's dilapidated sort of sun room um and then there's two accessory structures one is a little garage the other is a i mean it's dilapidated sort of sunroom um this is the existing condition the owners have have moved out um it's actually pretty bad state of repair but disrepair but in any case this is on um west plain street this is sort of the i guess the entry it's really coming from the back um existing condition of the house and then sort of aerial photo from sort of hovering over over plain street and then just a side view just give you a sense of the the condition of the house um so after after looking at it we we really thought that um the sort of most sort of sensible approach to redevelop the project would be to keep the existing foundation we looked then they seemed to be okay so keep the house in its existing location but provide for a new garage as you can sort of see the structure the garage is detached the way it is now and really sort of attach it to the house to make it sort of more of a more convenient and then keep everything else intact i think really the house is going to be built on the existing foundation we would sort of build this new garage two-car garage um so that sort of rear the property keep the existing driveway take away the two existing structures and then the actually the house has this kind of appendage on it in the front would take that off and really bring it all the way back to its existing um condition just an architectural site plan which just really gives you a kind of just a more clear version of what proposed which is just really really rebuilding on top of the existing footprint and adding this little uh garage and again keeping the existing driveway and then i think in this scenario we really like the idea i mean if you look at sort of historical photos i mean some of the houses on plain street used to really have you know entrance well many of them still do but historically houses had sort of front approaches and entries off of west plane which is what we would like to do for this house so it has a kind of formal fun entry and then the family entry from the rear and then of course the existing septic and all of that has been it's past title 5 and and we've repaired septic as needed and so forth keep we our plan would propose to keep the existing sort of vegetation there's sort of a nice mature line of trees to the side of the property line there's a lot of trees in this location simply limb some of them as needed but really try to keep the existing vegetation in place and just enhance as needed i'll show you the rendering in a second and maybe i think the idea is we'd like to have a sort of fence i think you'll maybe you'll agree if it improves that kind of curb appeal from the from the street as well as provide some some visual privacy so the aerial view is um looking from kind of richfield and west plane and this is just kind of just giving you a kind of sense of the massing a two-story structure on top that existing foundation with that fence that i just mentioned and i just want to i mean if you give me a little bit of license i mean i think one of the buildings that we were kind of looking at was the grout herd house which is a historic house in wayland and i think you can sort of see this sort of center colonial and i think that this house is a pretty straightforward um sort of simple structure but it i think it really harkens back to that house i think there's elements of that house that we that we like the client likes so i think that that's that was the intent um in terms of a kind of inspiration so this is on richfield you know with a fence as sort of designed and just sort of gives you a sense of that more formal you know front entry um uh from from richfield uh sorry from west plane and then here is the uh proposed well the rear of the house with the proposed uh one-story garage and the this is all existing this existing curb cut and and the vegetation probably just need to clean it up it's a little bit of a mess after someone's not lived there for about a year so sort of clean that up um and that's it so happy to answer any questions or put it on the slide that you'd like for discussion okay thank you um
i don't have any specific questions on materials presented um the attic space will that be livable space the attic um this is not a great shot but the rear has a dormer so on the front it doesn't have that dormer but on the rear which is south facing and has a potential potential distant view of lichichuit um as well as just the solar orientation is great so that that has a sort of partial 500 square foot dormer um which is a kind of a bonus room you know play area study whatever so that's top layer um it has a bathroom up there with it right and it's labeled a bedroom it does it does yeah yeah i i think it's it's labeled a bedroom but i mean i i think the owner is thinking that it's i mean maybe a guest room or something but it seems like a good study actually so we'll see but yeah
so you do i do have a question it looks like the height is uh 34 plus six inches is that reading that correctly you're six inches shy of the height limit of 35 feet yeah we're we're shy i i i should have sort of showed the worst condition but um there's a little topo here i think they take the average and then it's yeah so i think we're okay to the top of structure so i mean the building inspector is can maybe weigh in but i think we're okay with that it's i mean you know it is it's close um but it's it is compliant yeah
the draw the drawings the drawings show the drawings show it about six inches shy of the height which is is compliant but it is compliant yeah there six inches
um so i guess i i do have a question if you if you um or the owner sort of uh shared uh any of these plans with anyone else in the neighborhood any of the voters i think when one of the voters is right right behind uh anina there i think she wanted to ask a question about it oh yeah we will we'll hear from people okay yeah yeah well i i kind of i passed out some flyers and um this was a kind of we were going to present in august and then it was this it was uh suspended or postponed until so i walked around and tried to just pass out flyers through all the the butters and i ran into the neighbor there and she asked me about you know colors and if we could paint it purple and so yeah so she yeah i did i did speak to some um neighbors no no i mean no issue i think people were just curious what was going to be there and happy that the house that's not in great condition is going to be replaced all right sounds good um i guess before we hear from anyone else anyone else here do you have any other uh any other information you want to share about the drawings or design uh not unless you have something specific i mean now that i have my home computer i can show more images if you need them but um uh i'm comfortable i don't have any different questions okay yeah all right um so uh anyone here tonight uh have any issues or any questions they wanted to ask of the board or sort of make a statement about the project
yeah come on just give us your name and address sure uh i'm ryan cruz i'm at 7 richfield road which is the budding property uh we have no problems mostly my daughter wanted to see a zoning oh boy riveting uh it will be a big improvement over the existing structure especially the part that we see which is the dilapidated uh whatever building that's supposed to be uh i i think it'll be a big improvement so we have no problems with it okay great thank you except for the purple
we unfortunately we can't legislate colors
all right it doesn't look like there's anyone online so i think we are we are good um so i i do have a question for uh the building commissioner on this um i know the there's been a sort of a modification in the application of uh of 40a requirements so my understanding of this is that the the garage piece only needs a special permit under 203.1 it does not need a finding under 401.1.2 that's how i interpret the change in 48 regulations is that correct i believe so yes okay and then 706.1 is your other driving force on this where you have a uh a property that's on more than one street yeah but under 7601 761 it is just a street it is a special permit correct state and uh actually the frontage on the side street is uh is what your is the conformity yeah
okay
by the way this is mislabeled i'm sorry about that this is obviously west plane you know i didn't catch that but yes obviously yeah and i'd like to blame my assistant but that's actually that's my fault
okay that's this will be an important example um okay um to the board all right um i guess before we move on does anyone on the board have any questions about uh the modification or at least the change in uh 48 that sort of is traditionally this would have been a project that we would approve under 401.1.2 but in this case it's like we're really just limited to the special permit needed for the line itself garage itself because the garage is technically is new and it's technically an intrusion into the front yard on Ridgefield which we can we can authorize under 203.1 but it's very it's a little bit of a difference standard for like 1.2 so and there's any questions on that I'm wondering about the height and I do not have a time to drive by today but I'm wondering about the neighboring homes and how what's what the um what the setting is like with height in the other homes um I think that I mean I I drove by there's uh there's a mix of homes of one and two-story homes and I think that's a good question I think that's a good question I think that's a good question um I don't think you could say one prevails over the other I think it's probably half and half roughly uh so I I did not have an issue with the height my only observation is it's just very close to the limit so if something goes awry during construction you just want to stay on top of that to make sure that you don't accidentally wind up at you know 35 to 2 inches or something like that right um yeah but there are other homes in the neighborhood that are not high I think the existing structure was not as tall as this um and I do agree that from uh from Ridgefield you know it's it appears as though it's it's nearly three stories but it still fits into the definition of uh two and a half stories under the zoning
and I also think that the special permit can only condition the garage I think the construction of a house is as of right so if the house didn't have a garage it would just be an ad right construction okay
um so before we go on uh I just wanted to let the applicant know that um we have only four members tonight so um any vote to approve or that project has to be unanimous because we're down one member so uh we always want to give the applicants um the opportunity if they were concerned about something to you know to continue the application so such time as we have five members just in case there is a a split in the vote um I I don'tlight everyone else is going to listen to vote on this this this evening but uh I I don't see any problem with the relief you're requesting for the special permit for the collage intrusion on this field. But nonetheless, I want to give you that opportunity that if you are in any way concerned, we could continue this until such time as there are five people. Can you give me a hint?
I think I gave you a hint. No, I'm going to roll the dice. We tried our best. And I also want to thank Anina for helping me navigate. Even though I've lived here a long time, still, there's lots of things different than in the past. So I appreciate her helping me try to navigate through this process. I can tell you that we on the board are very excited to have Anina with us. It's changed our lives on the ZBA. Over the period of time. So I hope that you're not the only one that is excited about the assistance.
All right. So as I mentioned before, the panel hearing this case will be limited to four. It's the four permanent members that are here tonight. That's Aida Jenis, Hunter Perry, Justine Paul, and myself, Thomas White. So with that, I would I guess before we move to make a decision, I would like to ask you to give us a little bit of time. I'm going to ask you to give us a little bit of time. I'm going to ask you to give us a little bit of time. I'm going to ask you to make a motion. Any questions from the board on the limited scope that we would be approving into this project? Really just the garage intrusion into the front yard setback on Ridgefield?
No.
Ms. Jenis? It's all okay. I think the revisions to Chapter 40, 48, have made it so that that's the only thing that we can consider, right? It's all okay. I think the revisions to Chapter 40, 48, have made it so that that's the only thing that we can consider, right? Yes. Okay.
Okay. This is our first meeting? I believe this is the first meeting. This is the first meeting we've had with some of these revisions. Yeah. All right. I would make a motion under 203.1 that we... grant a special permit for the intrusion into the front yard of Ridgefield Road for the proposed garage that I would say the applicant has shown to the satisfaction of the ZBA that the proposed garage for which the application is made isn't against the public interest. It doesn't variegate within the character of the neighborhood. Such use building... such use building or structure occurs and is not detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, fumes, dirt, or dust, or other objectionable features. The proposed garage is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangerous to the public health or safety. Second. Any discussion?
No. I would, I guess, further condition this motion that the... this project has got to be constructed in substantial conformity with the plans submitted tonight.
I think that's the only condition I think we need to apply to this.
All right. So we'll advance this by roll call vote. Ms. Jens. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. Ms. Paul. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So you gambled correctly. So yes, you are approved. Can I ask a question? I have submitted a building permit set that does not have that garage on it because this whole postponement of this ZBA and owner that was ANSI, that is in your hands right now being reviewed without the garage. What would the building inspector or commissioner suggest that how I, how to proceed?
Please submit a new plan with your... I was told that I might have to make the original application and we will review your new application. Or can you maybe complete the review of the house that you have now and then I go back to the owner and tell them that this was approved? Does he want to pursue this? Can it be an amendment or can I file a new permit just for the garage later on? Something like this so that we don't have to slow down. Because we've been waiting so long. I would think you might want to amend because if he... Well, I don't know. But that's okay. want to speak for you but i think it would make sense because the amendment could be tied solely to the zba approval of the garage yeah so we would then you have two sets of plans during these so there's a downside of that right but we would like one application with all the with all the information on one application along with your zba um approval um with this also so once you have your zba approval you need to submit that and your plans for your garage so this is the the challenge because of the whole time thing is that this is we have to wait 20 days for this where you're reviewing the permit set right now when there was a couple of questions and it's basically i think it's ready to go we'll have our demo stuff ready the asbestos is being done now so i think we could start conceivably i mean i assume hopefully the billing permit's okay like soon and not have to wait this period of time i almost kind of want to just start and then and then submit um submit submit an application just to make a garage
you could do amendment to the original permit which should be cleaner and easier okay so so change what i have no just leave it leave it with you leave it as is you could proceed at your own risk if you don't have any um you could proceed at your own risk uh for the garage until the uh the 20-day appeal period is up after the decision has been issued okay okay okay thank you very much all right yeah so we have there is a uh we have a two-week period to write the decision and then a 20-day appeal period after that right right so that's right that's what that's what i meant it's it's basically like another month and plus so i just thought gosh we're trying so hard to get a building a shell up before the winter otherwise we just pass it we miss it we have to start in the spring so that's why okay thank you all right good luck thank you thank you nina thank you okay um so this brings us on to our next case this is uh the 715 case for dba 26-18 282 main street this is the application of english serophilus before the property located 282 main street in a 20 district the property is a pre-existing non-performing lot with respect to minimum lot area and frontage requirements the existing dwelling is a pre-existing non-conforming structure with respect to the required rear yard and side yard setbacks the african seeks a special permit and or other applicable relief under the waiting whaling zoning bylaw to remove the existing deck and unheated bedroom and construct a new unheated three-season porch with an adjacent deck landing and stairs so assuming that is you gentlemen yes yeah you can come up and uh tell us about your project please
well we're we're we're just thinking
you can bring a chair up yeah you don't have to stand it's a really informal you know usually i don't want you to have a stand for this yeah my name is larry cohen i'm with architect of support in boston you know we are residential remodelers yeah you know and i've been guiding nick through the process you know what we have is an existing deck uh that is into the existing setback you know the new structure you know the sun room or i should say races and decking will be the same depth in the rear so we are not increasing degree of non-conformity you know we'll replace it what's there with new you know porch and new adjacent small deck yeah with stairs to the yard
okay and that
deck because the deck aligns with the existing dwelling dwelling to be removed that's why this is and the deck is considered a structure if that's why we have a relief requested for this so i'm sorry i'm sorry i mentioned i'm asking this question of the building commissioner sorry please say yes
okay i think so i just did this double check yeah
because the rear yard setback is 30 feet and the deck's going to occur to existing non-conforming yeah okay which is typical for a lot of the lots in that area
so then in this case this is a extension of a pre-existing non-conforming under 401.1.2 solely for a setback
question so my first question to to the commissioner then is this is conceptually the same as the project we just heard right but why is this different
it's just increasing non-conformity to the for the deck and the stairs well the stairs aren't part of it it's just increasing the non-conformity of the deck uh the original the additional space
yeah but is it because it's a three season
it's enclosed and heated or i don't know ipod
no the the guidance that we have is that we are only being told that we have to request the only zoning we required under 48 would be the deck but my question would be uh under these new guidelines from the state like i i'm really at a loss as to how this is different from the other one. This is the same as the case we just heard. The guidelines weren't in when this came. This is pre-existing the guidelines from the state.
The application? Yes. I think it's literally just that sliver over the mudroom that is a little bit over the mudroom, so it's encroaching closer to the setbacks that need to relieve. It's literally just like this law square. If it were a little smaller, it wouldn't need to come from the ZBA, but with the new guidelines, it's such a minimal encroachment.
I understand, but I guess my question is the path to approve this would be 203.1, not 401.1. So, 401.2 is basically the same language as the 4048 section 6. Okay. So, they are really more or less interchangeable without the second part, which basically... So, yeah. 201.1.2, as it is written, it's pretty much the same as 48 section 6. The only thing that really changed for us was for 101.1.3.2 to 20% of the gross floor area. In the previous case, that doesn't need relief anymore, but the encroaching on the setbacks would still be... We would still need relief in regards to the setback and the vested structure, if that makes sense. Okay. All right.
So, we would not need a finding, then, for this? So, I'm not quite sure about finding. Okay. Because we didn't make a finding for the first one. No. We didn't make a finding.
So, we're adopting to these new... I can't say. There's been a subtle change in our regulations from the state, but our bylaw hasn't changed. So, it's kind of interpreting between these two things. So, thank you for your patience.
Well, I mean, either way, I don't think it changed. I mean, it doesn't change anything. I'm happy to sort of make a finding for this. It's going to be the same. But just to clarify, so, it is the small sliver of the enclosed three-season room and the deck. Because the deck is extending the line of nonconformity across the backyard. That is still... That doesn't change under the new 40, the new 48 lawrence.
Yes? Yes. Okay. All right. I don't have any additional questions for the office. Does anyone on the board have any questions for the office? No. All right. Do we have anyone here in the audience to be heard on this particular case? It doesn't sound like... We do. Just in the mirror of others and here in support of... Of the applicant. Could you just give us your name and address, please? My name is Joe Gagne, G-A-G-N-E, 284 Main Street.
Thank you.
So, much as I said to the previous applicant, there are only four of us. So, we do have to make a unanimous decision on this. And if you were uncomfortable with that, we could continue this until next month when we'll have five people here.
Nope. Okay. Did he gamble or two? Yes. No. All right. So, thank you. So, notwithstanding the slight bit of confusion about the applicable pieces of the bylaw, I think this is some extremely straightforward... I think this is some extremely straightforward project. We have support from, you know, the writer next door. It's a very minimal change to the site plan. I don't believe it altered the appearance of the street or the setback configuration. It's really an aim-meaning for where... So, to me, I think it's easily just... Even both sides of the four of us... I agree. So, any other discussion on the board? Nope. Not for me. Janice? Janice? Anything? No. Thank you. All right. So, looking at this, I do think it's probably prudent that we do look at, in this case, 401.1.2. I'm satisfied that the board can make a finding that the proposed intrusion into the rear setback for the small sliver of the three-season room and a piece of the deck doesn't have... doesn't change any meaningfully not conforming conformity of the existing structure. I don't know if anyone agrees or disagrees or any further discussion on that. Agreed.
So, I would make a motion under 203.1 that we grant the release special permit for the proposed changes to... 282 Main Street because I think the applicant has shown that the proposed three-season room and deck is not against the public interest. It doesn't derogate from the character of the neighborhood in which the used building or structure occurs and it's not more detrimental or offensive because of noise, vibration, smoke, gas, fumes, or dust or other objectionable features. And the proposed three-season room and deck is not otherwise injurious to the inhabitants of the town, their property, or dangerous to the public health or safety. And I further condition that motion that the application of the construction needs to proceed in accordance with the plans that we approved at Disney Hill during this evening. Second. Okay. So, by roll call, those in favor? Ms. Janice? Aye. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Perry? Aye. Ms. Paul? Mr. White? Aye. So, we are unanimous in our decision that this is a special permit is approved. So, there's a 14-day process to write the decision and then a 20-day mandatory appeal period. And then after that, you can proceed to the building permit stage. Excellent. All right. Thank you. So, your fifth member doesn't have to chime in? No. Not in a case like this. If we were continuing, yes, they would have to. Understood. Thank you very much. You're very welcome.
All right. So, this is great because we have two other discussions this evening.
Before I have to go on with these discussions, any comments? Any concerns from the board? Sure. Thank you. So, just to get this straight, with the new 48 rules, will there no longer be any need for a special permit if there's an increase in square footage, 20% or more? I don't know the answer to that. And town council has actually indicated to me that they would be happy to come in and give us, like, a zoning kind of refresher, if we would like. Now, she offered that before this notion of the changes came up, so I'm assuming she would still be amenable to that. But I don't know the answer to your question, so maybe you could shed a little light on this. You said it was just the 20% increase was thrown out? Well, 20% of the lot coverage is still intact, but the 20% of the gross flow is still there. Okay. floor area of the building that is um that is now as of right so there's no cap on like how how how much it can increase as long as you're within like the setbacks yes there's only setbacks that are in play but there's no cap on like how big i guess the way it was before was if it was basically under 20 it was approvable by right but if it was over 20 you needed a special permit and what you're saying now is that that that piece of the requirement has been eliminated there's no square footage component to section 401.1.2 anymore so i have a question with that with the 20 percent increase that was for square footage that was in play prior to this revision wasn't that was that 20 percent of the original footprint not 20 percent of the footprint increase of the footprint that is present before the application comes to us do you follow what i mean so it wasn't yeah so an applicant comes to us the house was built in 64 74 and they want to increase the square footage by 30 percent of what it is at the moment when they come to us so i can see two ways that that could be played out one is that they can they could i understood they could only increase it by 20 percent of the original construction of the house when the house was constructed when it was laid any subsequent additions that they did to that did not increase the the square footage we would look at if they are coming for a first-time You had to look back at the original 20% the original construction and 20% of that and the increase beyond that 20% would put the new rules from the state. It basically says that so it says Extension or alteration of pre existing non conforming structures that do not conform to zoning because of water quality block shape frontage block coverage or for area rate ratio.
Non conforming structures can be extended as of right without the need of any finding by special permit. So on this there within the high restriction stories and setback. So basically that makes that entire Code like no one would is how I'm going to tell I read that. I would tend to agree. This is why I was so confused. About this. So I think I really, I really think it would be good for for town council to come in. I don't know that I don't know if that needs to occur in a public meeting or a fact that just occur over zoom. When it's convenient for the board. So yeah, I can speak to that. So I did reach out to the town manager because we need their approval to start a webinar, but it would be in conjunction with the planning board. And this is not a it doesn't have to be Announced or Public meeting. It can just be a zoom and people can attend since it's a training. So there's no open meeting violation of like Because that would that would probably just be more convenient for everyone's schedule and probably ultimately easier to coordinate than trying to have town council 10 off hours and Okay. I had that would be worthwhile to explore how we could go about setting that up because I had that same conceptual question that Hunter has like If I read that it means there's no if they are it would seem like there are no other requirements that we would adhere to other than the standard or 201 which is pretty weak because that just says that all as long as there's no gas tunes over or objection to the features. You got to approve it. And what residential project has any of those. Those are all industrial components of a commercial building. So it seems it seems kind of silly. So I just want to make sure that we're in full conformance with what the intent of the 48 changes.
The only thing that wouldn't change would be the requirements from the Board of Health for septic purposes for for their formula. So they they impose So that would be the only other caveat that we have to discuss. So does that mean that the town's going to revise the byline? I would think essentially eliminate goes to section four. Right. Well, four point one point two still would Like the language is very similar. I believe that we could just leave it in because it mirrors. The only thing that I think that you brought up is whether or not we need a finding for that. I'm not 100% certain if that would still be the case. But Other than that, yeah, definitely four point one point three point two. That needs to go completely.
But yeah, I think. Yeah, it's difficult to talk about. I think we need town council to to time it in that. Yeah, I do.
Okay. So the other two things that were on the agenda for this evening. Were any discussion review of the 2026 annual report draft. I think you've already put that together. Yes, I send a draft and I put it in the folder as well. Yeah. Yeah, it's pretty similar to the one that Was approved last year with like just like adjusting the The cases that were approved. I took a look at this and I think it's Great. I think it's great. I cannot claim authorship. This Just not to say that I obviously it was instrumental in helping some of us. But I have reviewed this and I think this is I think this is fine to submit. I do as well. Well, thank you for putting this together. Oh, thank you. I think we would need to or you would need to vote to approve this to publish this in the report. We do. Would you have to vote to approve this? Okay. And that is something we can do tonight that it is on the agenda, but it's it's not like a specific case. Okay. Do we need to make a motion? We would. I would make a motion that the I would make a motion that the board approve the 2026 annual report. Second. All those in favor. Miss Janice. Aye. Mr. Perry. Aye. Ms. Paul. Aye. Mr. White. Aye. So it's official. This is the report.
The other thing on the agenda is A question, I guess, about And I think that We approved a change in that. Well, the zoning board was asked their opinion about a change in the bylaw for the Restaurant preorder pickup window. If you remember, this was probably a year and a half ago or so, I believe, maybe less than that. So What you're asking us is if we have any comments. This is, are these proposed changes to that? These are just the rules and regulations. This is just the rules and regulations that would summarize this. And since the ZBA is the one that would like enforce the bylaw, the town planner asked for feedback whether this is something that can be published in this language, if you'd be comfortable.
So this is just like a little mini summary of that provision of the bylaw. It's got the general scope. It's got the definitions that are unique to this. It outlines the process that the forms need to be submitted to the ZBA.
This is actually good. 3.3, it does actually list the very specific criteria that someone would need to apply to. And I know this is something that we probably have mentioned to you before, not you specifically, but to the administrators before, that sometimes people don't always know necessarily exactly what they've got to submit. So I do appreciate that this here in Section 3.3, it spells out exactly what every applicant for this zoning leave is going to need to come in and submit. So whether they will show up with all these materials, I don't necessarily know. But for us, we could use this as a checklist so that literally someone comes into us for an application for one of these cases and they're missing one of these eight things. We can point out to them. This is like published guidance. You need this. You need to submit this. This would actually be good. You should have the same checklist for everyone who applies for a regular zoning leave. We have something similar, but not as detailed. The one thing in there from that checklist, it says in the architectural design plan, it says traditional New England Village style exterior. Like who kind of judges? That's interesting. That is an interesting question. Yeah, the design review board's usually the one that should be weighing in on that. That's very, for us, it doesn't seem to me to be in our scope really. Right. But so would we, I guess in a case like this, we may need to amend this. That instead of saying a traditional New England Village style exterior, maybe the architectural design has received an advisory opinion from the design review board or something like that. I mean, the challenge that I think Aida is pointing out is that those are non-binding. Right. So it does kind of kick the issue ultimately back to us. Yeah. You know? We have the authority to do that. So it's interesting. It's a really interesting observation. We, even in the past, always received design review board opinions suggesting that, you know, they have, you know, conducted a process that's looked at the materials, the fenestration, the facade, and it's come to a conclusion. And they write a report and they submit it to us that we should approve this project because they looked at it and said that it does. But again. It's a board that, as I understand it, doesn't have like binding authority to sort of dictate those design standards. So it's an opinion to the advisor. Yeah. So it is possible that someone would come to us with an ultramodern pickup window and we can't not approve it because we architecturally don't agree with the style. So then. So that is a point I think we want to consider in this. So I don't know whether we want to reference the design. We probably want to reference the design review board advisory opinion. But it can't be a criteria. It can be in the application, I suppose. That's what this is. But it really can't be a criteria by which we could evaluate the project. Right. So they did put in the bylaw that was amended. They do have a design standard under Chapter 28. So there is like 28.7.1.1.1 exterior design and signage for the bellic shall be designed in a traditional New England style and color palette. So they are using this in the bylaw. So I'm. But yeah, it comes up the question of how are we going to enforce that? And is it enforceable? I think the guidance you have here, the design review board opinion is probably. Is there any impediment to us asking for a design review board information on this when this crops up? There shouldn't be, right? No, I don't think so. This is just in the submission guidelines. So perhaps the submission guidelines. It's like we need this. The applicant needs to have the design review board opinion attached to the applications. Maybe that's how you could modify this. Yeah. The GREV advisory memo like attached to the application. That would be very helpful. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't see anything else in here that's a concern. It's nice that we're being asked before this is fine. Right? This is a draft. Anini. Yeah, that's really nice. We have had to stand up in the past at town meeting when we were doing voice call voice votes. Yeah, that's that's really nice. doing voice votes and talked to, there were some planning board members that had wanted to put forward some revisions and NCBA hadn't been considered in terms of how would we address what was being presented. So I mean, that was a very long time ago. So this is nice to have this here. It is, it is, it's good. Any other concerns, updates from the building department or anything else that we need to discuss this evening? I make a motion to adjourn. Second. All right. All in favor, Ms. Jenis? Aye. Mr. Perry? Aye. Ms. Paul? Aye. Mr. White? Aye. Thank you, everyone.