7:01 on on Wednesday March 26 and I'll call the zoning board of appeals meeting to order um this meeting is being recorded I have with me in the room um from the zoning board of appeals Rob Scott Jean Zan and myself Sarah melish
we also have in the room um Sue filber from the planning board we have on Zoom John berys um from the Zoning Board of Appeals who's our fourth member we also have Mark Resnik the town planner and
Sharon beon beyon the administrative administrative for the zba um so as Mr glovsky is aware um because we only have four members here tonight um
the vote needs to be unanimous um we will discuss it and if there's a sense that it's not going to be unanimous you would have the right to continue to next month okay hope that won't be necessary
um I circulated to the board um a copy uh of the prior uh special um permit that we issued so last year we issued about this time um a special permit and
a variance at at that point in time um the applicants were intending to renovate an existing home home um things have changed and now they are intending to Rel it okay um so with
that I will move to open the public hearing to the application of Charles William EPs and Caitlyn connley EPS for a special permit under sections 5.4 7.2 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and other
relief as may be necessary to raise the existing single family dwelling and reconstruct a new single family dwelling which will increase the existing rear setback non-conformity of the dwelling and increased coverage by structures and imperious
surfaces and variances under sections 5.4 and 12.3.3 of the zoning bylaw and any and and or other relief as may be necessary for a new side setback non-conformity for the primary structure to allow the
connection of the existing detached accessory garage to the primary structure to make it accessible for a disabled child and to allow coverage by structures of 15.2% where 15% is allowed at 26 Proctor
Street assessor map number 16 Lots number 19 and 24 in District e f with the town clerk on February 24th 2025 I have a second open the meeting I second Sean
seconds take a vote Rob yes Sean yes John Don yes yes there VES yes okay um with that who who would like to
commence presentation of his application uh I will Mark kovsky uh I was here last year on behalf of the EPS who are here tonight Trey and Caitlyn EPs and I'm here also with tardella from Patrick aarn Architects and Emily Pothier from
my office okay and um thank you for being here for a one agenda item um we had a site visit as you all know last night and uh we had a chat with
your chairperson who indicated that the board uh isn't inclined to Grant fair ansers for uh cover by structures uh we think we had a very good argument and uh we spent some time today trying to
determine how we were going to proceed uh however Mike has convinced us that the the plans can be tweaked slightly and we can get down below 15% so uh the first thing we're going to do is uh respectfully ask for leave to
withdraw that portion of the application so that we're essentially only asking for the relief that we were given last February uh which is a special permit and a variance relating to the garage
becoming part of the principal building and um just to refresh your everybody's recollection the property is non-conforming in several respects uh it contains
36333 ft of land it's obviously in District e which requires 990,000 Square ft and the the house that's existing on the site is uh presently 4 and A2 ft or
so uh from the rear lot line and uh also exceeding the limitation on coverage by structures and impervious surfaces it's currently at 26.9 % so what we're proposing is is that number
changed to 28.4% and uh as I explained before and as the decision that you you probably read indicates the reason for the variance is that by connecting the
garage to the main house in the property it becomes principle structure which is subject to a greater uh setback than the garage was subject to to uh it's not obviously going to change its location but the board recognized last year that
the lot is unusually configured lot it's L-shaped and it jogs and that's the location of the garage so there are unique conditions that that affect the property and the need for that
variance uh at this point I guess the the easiest thing would be for Mike to explain why we're not moving forward with the relief that was granted last year and why we're here tonight and the EPS might weigh in on that as
well sure thanks Mark so again Mike tardella from Patrick a and architect um so we were before you last year for a renovation and restoration of the existing house however after going through the process of developing uh
some drawings for that we determined that uh based on the existing foundation and also the lack of adequacy in the existing structure for accessibility needs um it was determined that the most prudent effort would be to reconstruct the house in its existing location albe
it with adjustments that would accommodate accessibility and a little bit more of a contemporary Foundation underneath that would be structurally sound so we pursued that with uh Trey and Caitlyn and developed a plan that's before you this evening um Vis of as
Mark said connecting the garage still and following In The Same Spirit of the plan that was approved uh this time last year um I think to address the lock coverage question um we've we've devised a way that um we've discussed with our
clients that we can get under the requirement of 15% and come back to you with that with a certified plot plan from the surveyor U with subtle adjustments that would be needed subject to the approval to see uh I think that one of the
structural issues that that I heard a lot about was the fact that 8 ft is needed for the elevator uh between floors yeah and it just didn't exist yeah I mean there were significant issues with the existing framing ultimately trying to create the necessary clearances and erress spaces
that um are required for their daughter and in addition to that creating um a necessary private spe for her that would accommodate both spatial needs access and the ability to install certain Provisions for her to be able to
function in that space um the existing house as as we discussed had a very insufficient Foundation which um basically caused us to come to the conclusion that that needed to be really addressed which then the entire house became compromised at that point so it
was a product of a lot of things that came together uh post the development of the schematic drawings which were presented for approvals last year um which is why we're back in front of you today for the adjustments to what was originally
approved but again uh this project isn't about making a bigger grander house as you've seen from the drawings it essentially is almost indistinguishable from the house that's there it's only it's going to be in fact a little less
high it's going to be 22 plus feet high in an area where that could be 35 ft it could be mcmansion ised and that's not the direction this is going in this is all about accessibility and were it not for the
need for accessibility we wouldn't be here um yeah I think just be also you know the clients love the house they love the property and you know we were really tasked from the beginning with maintaining the mass and scale of what was there so we've taken that really thoughtful approach in creating a little
bit more of a house that lives the way we live today but still I think Falls a little bit to the context of of where we are and I mean as Mark said it's basically the the same house um you know the architectural vocabulary of it hasn't changed and you know
realistically the connection to the garage is probably the most serviceable part of the house to be able to give them the ability to manage the the grading that's on site where the driveway arrives and also to be able to bring you know their daughter in and out in a covered area instead of um you know
an inclement weather having to deal with rain snow Etc just I don't know whether either of you have anything to add at this point I think the only thing that I would add is seconding what Mike said we we love this house and when we bought
the house we thought that this was um our forever now and maybe we make some small tweaks and adjustments for her that was in 2000 um we've for 2020 sorry sorry 2020 um as uh as we talked about last night we've had an going research
study for Avery because she's the first person um ever discovered with her genetic condition uh there's one other in the world also named Avery coincidentally um her condition is similar to Childhood ALS it's a degenerative condition when we bought
the house she was able to walk around the first floor supported by a walker um she lost the ability to walk uh with the Walker three or four years ago um and now can oper with a wheelchair we are
fighting to try to stop the progression of this but we have to be realistic about how our conditions going to evolve and so it's been amazing partnering with Mike and the team to think about how we design spaces that can accommodate not just where she is now but where she's
going um currently in a self-powered wheelchair she may need to be in a powered wheelchair in the future we may need living care for her in the future and so to be able to design a home that could accommodate all of those needs has been what we've been working on over the
past year as we got greater clarity about where her condition is going and that was along with the required ceiling Heights along with the need for um erress in and out of the home as we better understood her condition is really the reason why we another reason
why we had to make more whome revisions to the project oh Sean do you have any questions no not at this moment John do you have any questions I do not I'll just point out
that you know I I completely understand that that lot the shape of that lot is very unique so I understand why you know they're before us today so other otherwise I have no questions on the actual proposal thanks um I think the Sean and I were
both at the site visit yesterday and they were orange or red I don't know sticks yes along the ground um which showed where the new footprint of the houses and when you looked at it it was
very minimal change it was a little larger but maybe a couple of feet here and there and maybe at the corners the were these that they squared off um that was kind of the the net result of the changes um plus the
connector between the house and the I think that was the biggest Chang yeah it's not necessary um we'll do it what what what we're hoping is that that you will be able to make a decision this evening we will then give you the revised plan but I just asked Mike what
whether or not it would be appropriate to explain to you how he's getting under the 15% that would be great well let me also ask this question yes have we formally pulled the original request for
the for 15.2 I asked for it I don't know that they voted on it okay so you know obviously we would like to keep that however we've devised a way that doesn't compromise the house entirely um
but uh that was what we had submitted and if that's not an option then we're prepared to make an adjustment but uh is there a straw poll that we should take or senent of the board that that that's really not a path we should pursue I I I
we can discuss that as and in that vein I guess I would suggest I since this is reopening this issue a little bit that what what it would be would be a Dom Minimus a bit of relief because it would
be uh 2/10 of 1% of lot coverage that we're going over it's 72 feet or something like that and uh uh your chairman last night indicated that that was likely to be an issue and
consequently we uh pulled a fire drill and did what we could today to make sure that we weren't going to lose a month by having to be continued and so we are prepared to submit plans that will get rid of that 72 feet if we have to so
last fall we had come before us two different applications for variance for coverage of structures both of which we denied um because the opinion was that they were
attempting to build too large a house on the Lots um both of those lots were Square um and in that case both applicants came back to us and reduce the scale of their
plans in order to conform with the the coverage structures um this before as Mr glovsky said is 72 square feet
over Maximum allow coverage by by structures um this lot is quite weird it's got zigs and zags um they own a lot across the street which can't be included because
of the street that that goes in between the two lots um this situation is also a little different in that they need more square footage in the house to accommodate
um a disabled child get an elevated of more or anything like that um so what's the sense of the board on the Varian Sarah I'm okay with it okay for coverage by structures yeah so I mean I
would assume that the the new design reflects all of the current and future accessibility needs and that's why it it seeds very slightly and for that reason I don't I don't see it as an issue my concern was is that last year they came
be force and they didn't exceed the coverage which supposedly was sufficient so that's kind of but that was the existing house it's very old and this one is being specifically built right for accessibility what's your sense
Sean yeah I mean um I'm okay with it I mean to be honest because it's it's a very minimal I'm kind of okay that it's so minimal on the coverage and the fact that it's different scenarios and we presented us
before that it's less it's unlikely considered precedent for future people come before us about similar circumstances yeah is that a Feeling yeah yeah given the circumstances in the
future I think if it says a set a precedent it would be a relatively good precedence or access yeah with that on that accessibility wise I'm kind of agreeing
with and I think we had an application before us on um we have Tanglewood yes I and I believe that was also that might have been a coverage issue in that one we did not issue a variance but we did it under
the um whatever the section is for um accessibility access it was before it was in our bylaw but but we went under that section of the law rather than um a variance I was trying to remember but I
thought that we did it not yeah yeah but that was totally outside of the the scope of the bylaws because that at that point that was a state state right I mean if you had a house that was already like let's say over the
um impervious service requirements and somebody had to put in a series of ramps maybe front and back that obviously would be impervious but it's see because it Mass General law so it wouldn't even take the account because it's for accessibility so if we compared it to something like that then I think it
would be good it would be okay yeah and if the structure already exceeded right the um the coverage requirements then it would be a special permit to increase it but because it doesn't exceed it its
variance okay so it sounds like perhaps we'll be okay without Chang that's break news um at this point I'll ask if there's any member of I don't see members of the public here
to to speak on this application is there any member of the public on Zoom who wishes to speak on this application I don't see any member of the public but in case I'm missing it if so raise your hand in Zoom no I think we're
okay um so I move to close the public hearing and allow the board to enter into deliberations on this application do I have a second second round seconds Mo BR yes John yes John
yes s yes this getting to Utah apparently yeah okay so we have I'm still here okay good go anywhere um so what we're we're looking
at is we're just we're looking at the special permit which is to increase the existing re setback which is already
non-conforming right and we're increasing that just slightly under a foot um and then we have an increase of coverage by
structures an impervious surface [Music] from 20 6.9% to 28.4 so 1 and a half% it's about 600 square
feet which I'm presuming is realistic giving the need for more Hardscape for somebody in a wheel J you agree with that yes right yes
John yes so you feel this is not more detrimental than the existing non-conformities that's correct Sarah ra agree John agre
okay then we have the variance which is the weirdo one which is because they're attaching the gold garage to a primary structure the garage was in the side setb already for an
accessory structure but they're now connecting it to the primary structure so now it becomes a setback for the primary structure therefore it's a new non-conformity and therefore it's a variance I get that
right yeah okay and then we have um coverage by structures which I think we've already discussed so our standard
is that it's in harmony would be purpose and intent of the bylaw you in agreement with that yes done yes okay your headlights if you
agree I don't know seeing it's an image I think it's just an image that's what I think too thank you um so you ready to have me make a motion yes please yes okay I'm gonna make two
motions one for the special permit and separate one for the variance I move to approve the application of Charles William EP third and Caitlyn connley EPS for a special permit under sections 5.4 7.2 and 12.5
of the zoning via and other relief as may be necessary to reconstruct a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot which will encroach a foot further into the rear setback and increase the coverage by
structures and impious surface from 26.9% to 28.4% where 25% is allowed to allow Ada accessible Hardscape and to alter a non-conforming structure on a
non-conforming lot at 26 Proctor Street assessor map number 16 Lots number 19 and 24 I guess it's really only Lot number 19 right Lot number 19 in District e filed
with the town clerk on February 24 2025 based on a finding that the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw the proposed alteration in the coverage by structures and impervious surface
requirement additional encroachment into the reass setback and altering the non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot will not be substantially more detrimental or injur to the neighborhood in which it is located then the existing non-conforming
structure and coverage by structures and impervious surface and the requirements and conditions of section 12.5.2 of the zoning bylaw for the grant of a special permit have been met based
on the following conditions the structures and impervious surfaces are located as depicted on the proposed proposed plot plan of land prepared by hanok Associates dated 2 2
2025 is is it 2 21025 there's a January 13125 but revised 210 rision dated 21025 the lot coverage by structures and
impervious services does not exceed 28.4% the construction proceeds substantially in accordance with the zoning board of appeals plans prepared by Patrick aarn presented to the zba on 32625 I couldn't find a date on those
plans is that correct on your plans March 24 2025 oh I'm sorry the filing date no the DAT plan I don't think they would dat it should have been C sheet
here okay uh I'll just say presented to zba on 32625 3625 y okay um illustrative site plan A- 1.1 proposed first floor
plan A- 1.2 proposed second floor plan A.1 a d1.3 proposed roof plan and A- 3.0 and a d3.1 proposed exterior
elevations do I have a second a second Sean second any discussion take a vote Rob yes John yes John approve and approves
4 Z you good I further move to approve the application of Charles William EPS II and Caitlyn Conley EPS for variances under Section 5.4 and 12.3.3 of the
zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to construct a connector with lift between the existing non-conforming accessory garage thereby converting the garage from accessory structure to a primary
structure subject to primary structure setbacks resulting in a new non-conformity encroachment into the side setback of 3.5 feet or 20 fet is required and lock coverage by structures
of 15.2% an excess of 72 square feet where 15% is allowed based on a find finding that the location of the existing garage
and lock coverage by structures owing to circumstances related to the shape of the land and location of the existing Str structures especially affecting such land and structures but not generally affecting the zoning District e in which
it is located a literal enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would involve some substantial hardship Financial or otherwise by not allowing the applicants to create an ADA Compliant residence for the disabled young
daughter which is required to remain on the property and that the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of purpose of
the bylaw based on the condition the residential structure renovation is constructed in accordance with the plans listed above under the conditions for the issuance of a special permit and the lot coverage by structures does not exceed
15.2% do I have a second second Rob seconds any discussion we all agree it's a hardship yep we don't approve it okay take a vote Rob yes John approved John
approve and Sarah votes yes um I will write it since I wrote the last one who would like to review it Sean will review it don't s thank you thank you very much
very now just start building in less than a year thank you they've been champing it B I'll be watching from my house I know I'll be walking over that new little walkway behind Boer
with thank you thank you good [Music] night okay we have minutes to review um we can't we can't vote on the February 26th because we don't have
people here who were at that meeting um and I have some changes the ones from January so I'm suggesting we don't vote on them tonight that's right is that okay y um I felt that under the seven
Highwood Road section there was no explanation about presenting the application it seemed to be missing so I didn't feel we should approv them anything
else we have one application for next month which is 19 Smith points if you may recall we approved a pool at 19 Smith Point not that long ago
y That's this is for a pickle ball and it's it's very clear on the plans that were submitted it's a pickle ball court not a generic Sports Court so I asked
that the public hearing notice specify it as a pickleball court um and is pretty close to number 15 so I'm wondering if we should request the applicant to get a
letter from the owner of 50 except me know is that asking too much we can ask right yeah we can ask my guess is that5 is going to show up on own well the the plan shows it's 179 ft
from the house but it's the it's very close to the lot line so okay um that's all I have I don't have it okay we we do have we have somebody who's applied for zba
and and she's apparently in Florida and so she's not going to be interviewed by the select board until April 22nd so I think we've got one more month to get through and Georgia is not here tonight because she had to recuse herself because she's an abutter of the
apps okay with that I'll take a motion to adjourn make a motion Sean moves to adjourn John are you willing to adjourn yes Rob yes and Saros yes thank you guys
thanks have a good night yeah take care John bye guys good night everyone good night thanks Shannon good night