Oh, I see the problem. Try it now. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Pretend like that didn't happen. >> Okay. >> Good evening. We're opening the uh August 21st meeting of the Littleton Zoning Board of Appeals. We're at 37 Shadic Street, Littleton, Mass.
Um we have a full complement of our board, four regular members, and an alternate. and it is a little after 7:00 p.m. We have two sets of minutes to review. You're still not on a screen. >> Thank you very much.
>> Now we're on the screen. In case you didn't hear, it's the Littleton Zoning Board of Appeals, August 21, 2025. We have two sets of minutes to review. We did not review the uh June I believe 12
2025 minutes. So has everyone had a chance to read those and remember what we did? >> Yes. >> Okay. This is the Littleton Zoning Board of Appeals. >> Hello. >> Hello. Welcome.
>> We need to read your We've started the meeting and we're live. Please. Thank you. >> So, does anyone have any comments to the minutes of June 12th? [Music] >> I don't >> skimming them real fast again because
it's been a while. Yeah, I don't think it was um a problem and it was straightforward. So, I'm okay with the minutes. Anybody else want to comment? >> I'm fine with >> No, the ones in June are just fine.
>> Okay. So, um entertain a motion to approve the minutes of June 12th. >> I make a motion we approve the minutes of June 12th, 2005. Cheryl and then a second by Rod. All those in favor, please signify by saying I.
>> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing? None. The minutes are passed for June. Okay. Uh, moving on to the minutes of July 17th, 2025. Are there comments? >> Yeah, this long paragraph in the beginning about my situation. Didn't uh
what's not mentioned in here was didn't the town clerk say I could then continue on? >> She put it on and there's nothing in there. >> She did. She did. >> My suggestion my suggestion for amendment is that we take uh the first paragraph of page I have it as page two
where it starts chair Gould. >> Yeah. I want to take that first paragraph >> and I want to move it to the end of the long paragraph about the situation and say that >> right uh uh >> okay
>> simultaneously with commencing the meeting simultaneously with commencing the meeting >> uh message was received from the town clerk >> confirmation from the town clerk's office >> confirmation from position on the board
legally until he's sworn in. >> I should have read a little further >> and that and that Rod was qualified to serve as a voting member. So, a quorum was reached then it will go on to the further stuff. I think we did intersperse minutes and administrative
matters in the minute in the middle. So, I think we can then go on with the rest of the narrative here. There were also just some syntax errors that I thought would clarify it a bit and I'm not sure if anyone else has comments first and then if not I'll go through what I think
would be good to clarify. >> It's a complicated hearing. >> Yeah. >> So what I wanted to start with is to we'll read it and I'll make the amendments as I read it. Um Charles Ellis seeks a variance pursuant to 17327 to modify lot dimensions. Mr. Ringwall
pres representing petitioner um represented that he owns zero Elizabeth 32 Lley lots 56 and 55. Next paragraph has been moved so you can skip it. Mr. Ringwall continued his presentation indicating there are houses
on 16 Elizabeth and 32 lots layup. The vacant lots 55 and 56, I want to say between them, >> okay, >> are part of the original subdivision of land. Lot 56 has a septic system on it
serving 16 Elizabeth. And I want to say the applicants wish to build a garage for 32 LEA on lot 55. >> On lot 55. That sound all right for everybody? >> Yes.
Okay. And then I want to say um uh a good percentage of the lot is wetlands and the drainage is found. That portion of the lot is not buildable because it's in the wetlands. The goal of the application is to build a storage garage on the southern portion of the land they own in the middle known as lot
55. There's a septic system upgrade on lot 56 on the northern portion of zero Elizabeth. Um if lots 55 and 56 were combined with 32, it would still not meet the requirements of 40,000 square ft lot size. Mr. Ringwall indicated that
the reason for the appeal is because zoning by law 17327 tries to limit making a nonconformity more nonconforming. I want to say tries to limit making a nonconforming lot more nonconforming.
>> Yeah, sounds a little better. >> And the existing nonconformity is that 32 Lock Slayer Road has lots of is that 32 Lock Slayer Road has recently
benefited How's that has recently benefited from the septic system on lot, >> but it they own that lot. >> No, one owner owns it all. The 32 is the daughter who lives there. So, it's 32
lock slave is really a different think of it as a different owner. It's not, but think of it as 32 is a different lot, but now it's got 56 appended to it. >> But I thought they had legally broken that off over to 32. >> I thought that she as part of this they
do it Not yet. >> As part of this, they were requesting >> that's what we're doing with this. Yeah. >> So, so um so I want to say 32 LEA has recently benefited from uh from abing lot
now I've lost my lot numbers again from abuing lot 56 >> uh by improving lot 56 with a septic system. Okay. Ringwall stated that Elizabeth Street went before town meeting in ' 68 to be accepted under article 10 as a town way,
but it was never recorded. Uh, Elizabeth Street is a paved culdeac right away that the public uses on Ellis's property north and south of the rightway. The property owners have offered to deed the portions of the street. I think instead of changing to property owners there, I'd like it to say the Ellis's have
agreed >> to deed portions of the street that are on their property to the town. >> Yes. Okay. Now 0 Elizabeth Street is an immediate abutter to the Ellis property at 16 Elizabeth Street. The applicant pro proposes to create a right of way
that encompasses the fullness of the pavement which would allow for a physical ownership of land not center line of the right of way connecting from 16 Elizabeth along the stone wall to the property on the other side of the road. The proposal is to divide zero Elizabeth
into lots 55 and 56 as shown on the original subdivision plan to provide upland connecting to 16 Elizabeth to become space to build a storage garage. The northern portion lot 56 would be next to 32 LEA officially
because the sept septic system is on that side. I like that paragraph. Mr. Mr. Ringwell indicated they applied for a variance based on hardship due to the lack of space on the 16 Elizabeth Street property to build the storage facility. Let's go back to storage garage because
I don't want to go back and forth on what is otherwise a commercially sounding use >> to build the storage garage owing to the slope topography and soils the condition uh wetlands which are part of the branched system. Most of the lots in the
neighborhood are substandard size lots less than 40,000 some with less than 150 ft of frontage. The granting of the variance would not be a degradation. So all that is fine. Stuart asked for confirmation on the split of the property. Split zero Elizabeth lots 55
and 60 56 and attach half of it with the septic system to 32 and the rest to 16. Right Stuart? >> I don't remember. I do. He did. That sounds reasonable. >> Kelly Hollinger asked the dimensions of law 55 and whether it falls under the
new state guidelines to separate as of right. Ringwall replied the dimensions or and they would the garage would be built on 55, the septics on 56. The land for the right of way and the paved area being offered to the town
would be deducted from those lots. So I had no questions. Okay. Then the butter speak. And I think that was pretty clear and pretty okay. >> Good for you forgetting anyone's name and address.
>> Uh thank you. Chair Gul at the last paragraph asked for confirmation that there will be two separate buildable lots and two parcels with two lots each. Ringwell stated that the applicant will have to file an 81P plan. It's an approval not required plan with the
planning board for endorsement. Chair Gould asked the applicant if there would be an agreement if the decision was conditioned on there being an 81p plan uh with this results in two lots and eliminates any possibility that the state's new statute is implemented to
further subdivide it. Ellis replied that they would. Ringwall Ringwald clarified that the petition before the board is to combine the lots so that the garage can be an accessory structure to the building. Again, good. Uh Lambert asked, Brian
asked, Scanland asked, and Stewart asked um if they're part of the paper road, will it be deed to Ellis when part of the culdeac is deed to the town? Gold replied that the applicant still has to depict the paper street running through the land because the public still has a
right of way over it. There was one place in here I wanted to deliberations I'd like to get rid of on the second chat thing that they chose to do it the right way. I don't know if I said that or not, but it doesn't need to be there even if I did say it because I certainly didn't mean it that way. There's no
right way or wrong way. >> Um, >> so I would just take that out. >> Just take that out. I I didn't we just have to make the sentence read right again. Pie indicated that the applicant should have >> could have sold himself a lot and
avoided all the concerns and worries. >> Period. >> Just take worries out to all the concerns. >> Okay. Period. >> Has no reason to allow. >> There's no reason to allow. She believes she has no reason >> not to allow the petition as presented.
>> Not to allow the petition as presented. She has no reason. >> State of the board should include that the grudge >> be allowed to be built as presented. That was another piece of the decision. >> Right. >> There was one more place in here and I didn't have a pen and I was reading it. The place was um ringing wall stated
something about the goal was and I didn't like the way that was worded. Um that would be right up here. M it starts with Mr. Ringwall stated that >> no simply about the the goal of
>> the goal is >> the goal of not making more nonconforming. >> That's right there. Ringwell indicated that the reason for >> the appeal is because zoning bylaw tries
to limit making a nonconforming >> lot conformity more conformity. >> It's not a nonconformity. It's a non-conforming lot >> more nonconforming. >> Right. >> Making a non-conforming lot more non-conforming. The existing
nonconformity conformity is that 32 has >> that's not the nonconformity. The existing nonconformity is that 32 doesn't meet the 40,000t requirement. That's why I wanted it. 32 does not >> 16 does
>> does yeah does not need >> and I think we need to say but 16 does because the end result is that we said we're making a smaller lot more nonconforming >> but we're making it bigger and we're making a bigger lot
a bigger conforming lot not any less conforming right >> so that's why the decision was made the way it was so I want this paragraph to read right so a non-conforming not more nonconforming. The existing
non-conformity is that 32 LE road is is only how many square feet. Does anyone remember? >> It was over 40. >> No, 32. >> No, it's under 40. >> It's under 40. >> 16. Elizabeth, >> let's say it's under 40,000. We just say it's under >> even with the addition of the block.
>> I can look it up. I've got It's under It's under 40,000. That's all we need. I've got the old >> application in here. >> Okay. Now, I think that did it. Now, back there, then go back to the decision. And I noted in the decision, we didn't
say anything about him conveying land to the town, but I don't I don't think we have jurisdiction to say that anyway. >> No, we should. >> So, we said uh grant the variance pursuant to 17327. Allow the applicant to combine lots in the following fashion. zero will be split into two
lots, 55 and 56, as shown on the original Rose landscape plan. And then the applicant will combine 56 with 32 and lot 55 with 16 and record an 81P at the registry of deeds to confirm that configuration subject to the following
conditions. 16 will equal or exceed 40,000 square ft and 32 lots will remain a non-conforming lot. No further subdivision uh of those lots. Can we say we'll remain a non-conforming lot um
with additional square footage or you want to just leave it? >> Let's leave it. >> Okay. Keep it simple. >> How far the subdivision? >> Okay. And then we gave the permission to construct the garage. So I'm okay with those minutes as amended. Anybody have any other comments? >> I make a motion that we accept the
minutes as amended. Um, can I hear a second? You >> Oh, my turn. I second that. Give you a chance. >> Okay. Cheryl and then uh John seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I.
>> I'll abstain. Not having attended. You weren't there, right? >> Um, that was David Outman uh abstaining. Okay, it is time to call the case
number 25978 of 35 Birch Road. The petitioner Craig Daniels seeks a variance pursuant to 17331 for a porch edition and such other business as may properly come before the board. Um, who's presenting? You are. I
have a small um administrative matter. Um let me just tell you how the how the petitions run and then we'll go over the administrative matter. Petitioner speaks first, presents the entire case. When you are finished, the
board will ask questions first for clarity or for detail and then we will go out to the abutters and then and the people who are assembled and ask if anyone has any comment. Um, my clarifying or administrative question is it looks to me like the garage was
allowed as of right. You're not violating this 15 ft side setback and you were extending the front further. Is that correct? Or is there a side setback request as well? >> Uh, there's not a side setback request. >> So, the garage is dimensionally
approvable by the building inspector. >> That is correct. >> Thank you. One of the comments that was made by one of my members was that it looked as though the garage was proud of this petition and the advertisement was only for the porch and so we were going I was going to take a minute to clarify
whether or not we had to amend uh the application. Okay. >> Clearly the porch they're still with they're still 30 ft. >> I I saw that. I just wanted clarity. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead, Christine. >> So I would like to introduce myself quickly. My name is Seth Dono. I'm with Dillis and Roy Civil Design Group. I'm
here tonight on behalf of Craig and Suzanne Daniels of 35 Birch Road. And um would it be all right with the board if I pass out some highlighted versions of what was submitted? We >> like pictures and papers. >> Thank you.
>> I'll be back for round two actually. Thank you. Thank you. I actually >> Great. Maybe yours didn't have it. >> Well, okay. >> For uh for discussion purposes, I had just highlighted a couple things because
as chair mentioned, um the plan shows several things, but we're only here for one thing. >> Thank you. The plan shows a huge lovely addition. [Music] Thank you.
So, we are here before you tonight for a variance related to the dimension of a proposed front porch. Um, there are some existing stairs on the dwelling. Those are highlighted in red on the survey plan that I just handed out to you. And
then a a brown hatch is the proposed front porch. Uh the the existing structure. It has a front entryway which is uh several feet above grade. So it requires steps to get in and that's what the front steps are for right now. The
applicant desires to do a covered front porch to provide better access to the dwelling and to provide all weather access as well. The existing steps are completely open to the sky at this point. So the nature of our request the the existing dwelling the face of the dwelling or actually the roof overhang
is 32.1 ft from the front lot line. So that is a conforming setback. That's 30 ft is required. The existing steps do not conform. Those are 27.6 ft. So they encroach into the front setback. What's
being proposed is a covered porch in place of those existing steps. That would be 27.5 ft from the front step uh front step setback. So that's a slight improvement over the existing steps, but there are required to be open steps that are 24.8
ft to allow them to step up to the house. If you've driven by the house, you can see that it has um a doorway that's significantly above grade. Um the nature of our request um the hardship is related to reusing the existing
dwelling. They would essentially have to extensively modify uh the floor levels of the dwelling to get it down so that they did not have to have a front porch on there and the topography as well is it goes handinand with that. So the front porch is actually highlighted on the architect plans that I handed
around. Um that is the the limited portion of what we're here before. So, as the chair asked me before we started discussing, uh there is a proposed garage associated with this, but that is in full conformance with the town's required side and front setback. So,
we're not seeking relief for that. That is the nature of our request. Um if the board has any questions for myself or specifically for the applicant, we'd be happy to address those. >> Would you just introduce us to the applicants? >> I'd be happy to. So, Craig and Suzanne Daniels are right behind you. >> You do.
board. I'll start with you, David. >> Uh, >> I don't think I have any questions, >> John. >> No, it's pretty straightforward. >> Sure. >> Very straightforward. >> No questions. >> And behind the Daniels, your neighbors,
>> our neighbors from 36. >> Oh my. >> Is two thumbs up recorded? I can't hear it. >> Would you just identify yourselves for the record, please? >> Sure. This is I'm Gail McCrosski. This is Scott Nutting
and we approve. >> Thank you. >> The front porch. >> There are some butter letters and they look to be that they all said the same thing. So would you just list us who the abutters are so it goes on the record and what they
basically said. >> Richard Axeman, 39 Birch Road. Um it's it's a form letter that all of the different members have Butters have signed it says I'm writing as a property owner and the address which abuts 35 Birch Road. I've used reviewed the
proposed plan submitted by my neighbors Suzanne and Greg Daniels and I have no objection to the project as described. I support their application and believe the proposed work will not negatively affect my property or the surrounding neighborhoods. Please feel free to contact me for any additional
information. And that's signed Richard Axman. The same letter is signed by John Marshall of 34 Birch Road. The same letter is signed by Gail Mcrosski >> who's here. That's the woman who's here.
>> Gail McCrosski of 36 Birch Road. We have three of those letters. Great. >> And I assume you're directly across the street. >> Yes, we are. >> Okay. And then so we have either side and a directly across the street. >> I don't think you have either side.
>> We don't have either side. >> We've got one side, but I think the other side's town across the street. >> Pardon me. >> Two are directly across the street and one's to the side. >> And is one one side town of Littleton land? >> Yes. So >> that makes sense then. >> They didn't answer. Huh.
>> Well, either that's also the town of Littleton. >> The board. Any other questions? Any motion to close the hearing? >> I so move. Second. >> Okay, that was >> John. >> John and second by Ray Rod.
>> Let our new member second. >> Yeah, I should have let him second. >> You can he can he can second to adjurnn. >> Or you can move to ajourn. >> All those in favor. >> Okay. Deliberation. >> I see no reason not to grant this. It
makes sense. >> Motion. >> I make a motion. try to want to try a motion. >> No, actually I don't. >> We'll let you second it. >> John, you want to do it this time? >> I did last time. >> No, I did it.
>> No, you didn't. >> Oh, >> I would like to in the minutes. >> I would like before we take the motion, I just wanted to make a comment on my driveby. The topography of the lot, there's a significant slope that rises from the road probably 8 to 10 feet up
and then levels off. To me that creates sort of a natural barrier and with a existing sort of nonconformity to the 30 foot you know the addition of a foot and a half given that topography and the layout I mean it doesn't don't see any
reason why you wouldn't >> topography >> grant the variance >> topography is a a natural reason for us to grant a variance and a good reason for us to grant a variance um unusual topography if you like that
>> and the covered porch to me while it notes it's you know just I see additional safety with the steps leading up to the doorway so to have a covered porch I mean all of this just seems like a good common sense plan
thank you anyone else that was David Outwin for the record Um, I keep remembering that she tells me she can't tell the men's voices apart on the table. I also um
we have a that's that bylaw for setback says that you can average the houses either side and get a lesser setback front setback if the average on two sides or contiguous lots is less. And while I note that this one is not, I did note that others in the neighborhood are less. So that takes a little bit of the
deraggation from the substantial deraggation from the neighborhood. Okay. I make a motion that we grant the petition the variance excuse me the variance case number 25-97835 grade to forward to
173-31 for porch edition as presented let me find I'm sorry let me find the >> yes the information for doing that. >> Thank you.
>> As presented and shown on building permit plan dated June 30th, June 3rd, 2025 by Dillis Roy. >> Do I need to add anything else? >> Um,
you said to allow the porch addition and I just want to add end steps. Oh, >> porch addition and steps as shown. on. >> Thank you. >> Building improvement plan dated June 3rd. >> Why don't we set state the setback
because some people may not have access to the plan. >> Uh give them a little leeway. >> I will. Not to not >> to say 24. >> Yeah, that sounds good. Not closer to the Yeah, not close to the front.
You're at 24.8. We're trying to make sure that if your builder is off by an inch, you're not ripping things out. >> It's built in. >> Okay. So, so not did it already. >> He knows. >> Oh, he already put a little not as gracious as you're you're willing
to be, but >> Well, not not to not to be less than 24 ft. Set back. Not to be less than 24 ft. That's good. So, if you want to make your stairs a little bit wider. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Can I uh ask Mr. Alen to second
that motion? >> I second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I opposed. This could be a record. Seth, >> I hope you didn't uh come from your vacation or anything. >> No, there was there was supposed to be
another case before us tonight. appreciate. >> She would have had to recuse herself and that would have left us short-handed. So, yes, I changed my 30th anniversary plans for this board. >> Oh, 30. >> 30. Yeah. >> Thank you for coming across.
>> Nice to see you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Nice to see you. >> And you have a you have a little wiggle room there. Night wide stairs are nice >> and safe. >> And safe. >> Thank you guys. >> And covered stairs. Public porches are
really good. >> Do I celebrate? >> Good luck. >> I make a motion that we adjourn. >> Not yet. I have more business to come before the board. >> Okay, I'll shut up. >> It is um
I have not heard that John Field has renewed his appointment. I would like to check that and not wait for the next meeting. I'd like a consensus of opinion and perhaps a motion and vote that if John Field hasn't, I would ask the
select body to appoint David as a permanent member on in time for our next meeting. >> You're here. >> I need a motion though. >> I make a motion that we ask the select board to promote David >> Elvin Elton
>> and give him a sign. >> We promote him a name sign. promote David Hman to a full member. >> Take a second for that motion, please. >> I'll second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I. And of course, for the record, that
goes without saying if John Field is not going to renew his permanent membership. >> No, we're not trying to kick John out, >> right? >> If he is, he needs to be put in front of the board as well. >> Okay. Did I say all those in favor? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, I'll take your motion to adjurnn. >> I make a motion that we adjourn the
meeting. Second. >> Second. >> Ride. Second. All those in favor. >> That's it. >> Nice job.