[Music] Welcome to a meeting of the um zoning board of appeals for the town of Milton on case number 2883. Um it's an application filed regarding
property address 184 Reedsdale Road. And this evening on the panel um we have me as the chair of the ZBA. Um Michael and Nick, do you want to say hello? Say your names. >> Good evening. Michael Brown. >> Evening Nick Gray.
>> And they constitute the panel for this evening. Um in uh the um webinar I mean has up on Zoom so far. We have um attorney John Barry who's representing the applicant who will be doing a presentation on behalf of that applicant and James Bailey who was the architect
for the proposed uh second dwelling. um to just uh talk about what we have before us is an application for a variance that would allow the applicant Elmanda Dami um to divide an existing
lot at 184 Reedsdale Road into two lots both of which would be nonconforming because they don't have the uh required frontage on Reedsdale Road. They would have the minimum lot size of 7,500 square ft. Um so the um application had
been they had applied for approval to the board of appeal to the building department and received a denial letter on June 25th, 2020. Um and uh stating that the um proposal uh to create the
two non-conforming lots required that required frontage lack the required frontage and that um uh they would have to be applying to us for relief. Um the application itself, as I said, was dated um July 20th, 2025
um and filed by attorney Barry on behalf of his client. Um and they're seeking um u a relief from um zoning provisions, article X 10, section 275-10.1.C on lot sizes and frontage.
Um because I guess the proposal is that this um existing lot um only has 61 feet instead of 75 on Reedsdale. Um the proposal would be to divide up the lots but have an easement that would eat that
would lead off of Reedsdale Road to access a new um single family dwelling um on a second lot to be created in the rear. Um the um the apparently the the lot width is okay. Um but the uh
situation is that the required frontage isn't available. Um so the um application be filed by John Barry. along with the application or set of plans um showing the um proposed dwelling, a plot plan um showing the two
lots that would be created and actually the existing two lots and then the new ones that would be created as a result of a new approval that we might give. Um there is a sort of plans of the house itself
um plans of the um existing house, the proposed driveway easement um and then the layout and design of the house itself. Um, in addition to that information, we did
receive John uh Barry sent along two letters of support from the abuter at one at 180 Reedsdale and at um the second at 196 Reedsdale. Unfortunately, I couldn't read the names of the people that signed the letter, but um that's
their addresses. We've also received opposition from neighbors on Center Street, which is the street behind Reedsdale. Um um a video showing flooding on front on Central Street provided by Suzanne Bridges. Opposition letters from George and Mary Ellen Giri
at 59 Center um Center Lane and Penelopey um Hines Riley and Bob Hines Riley at 65 Center Street. Um let's see. Um uh we also got a sort of a
a edited GPS plan from our member Nick Gray um showing the lot and adjacent lots. Um thanks for that Nick. And I I believe that that is the that's the contents of the file. Um
and um at this point I'd ask Mr. Barry to um present his um his information to the board. >> Sure. Um, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is John Barry. Um, I have a law a law office
located at 10 Forbes Road West, Sweet 210 in Brainree, Massachusetts, zip code 02184. The architect for this proposal is James Bailey. Uh, he has a principal place of business at 128 Lincoln Street, unit 110 in Boston, Massachusetts 0211.
Uh we've been hired to represent the Thame family that live at 184 Reedsdale Road in Milton, Mass, 02186. Um I think just in the sense of kind of context or what was the like the brainchild behind this proposal
directly next door um to this site uh is 190 and 196 Reedsdale Road. Um these two lots have admittedly they have more lot width in frontage. Uh but essentially
this plan is um a very similar layout to what was done at these two sites um in where ideally this idea I think sprang from a little bit. Um but essentially our proposal
here is to take um a very large site in uh underutilized site at 184 Reedsdale Road that is roughly a little under 16,000 square ft. Um and our hardship here is that u economically the site is
very unutilized. It's a it's a huge lot due to the um shape of the lot. The current structure sits very very close to a major road uh retail road that's very busy. Um and the rear yard is
enormous and uh unutilized. And that is essentially the hardship that my clients are suffering and hoping uh to gain this variance from. And and I will address what I'm sure maybe some of the questions or concerns the board has um related with what is being proposed here
as I go through our uh plans and our proposal. Um but essentially that is that is the hardship. It's the shape of the site. It's a what what is referred to in the kind of the zoning world as a pork chop shape. Uh a very large backyard. Uh the
current single family sits very close to the front of the site and leaving the entire rear of the site uh underutilized or unutilized. The family went through a renovation of the existing uh single family that's towards the front. Uh they
essentially made the house the width of the house as it faced Reedsdale Road a little skinnier to allow for a larger driveway to access the rear. Um so ultimately it was initially 10 ft. It's now 14. Um but just getting into the
plan. So the existing site has a uh lot with pre-existing non-conformance. uh at this particular time, even without a proposal, it doesn't have the 75 feet to begin with. Um that this proposal would trigger a need for a variance at
that site, but the the 10 ft of the easement that we're asking uh the relief for in the whole plan here. Um that is that there was still an issue with the width regardless of that. Um, but essentially with what we're
proposing here, there's enough square footage once the two lots are created with the subdivision. Uh, each lot is going to be 7,500 square ft after that subdivision. The rear lot is going to be a little bit larger. It's going to sit at about 7,998.
Uh, with the front lot being 7500. Uh James and I work together in going through the zoning code and trying to lay out that particular site in the rear to not trigger any uh sideyard setback issues. >> I do know that uh in some of the notes
that I received there was a question about would the rear uh setback needing to be 30 ft be an issue. My clients would be 100% willing if the approval for the structure was allowed uh to amend those plans if that was something that was going to be a dealbreaker as far as the need for a 30-foot setback in
the rear. Now, my understanding of the zoning code is that if it's a deck without a roof, um that shouldn't trigger a point at which the setback begins. But, um I just want to bring that up that if it is an issue, we can address this um and amend the plans to
make sure that there's a 30foot setback uh in the rear if that's going to be a deal breaker, even if um some minor edits need to be made or the deck needs to be moved or made smaller. Um, so with that being said, um,
essentially just walking through the set of plans, the the first cover sheet is, uh, ultimately just a rendition of what the rear structure would look like. Uh, there's a zoning table that's that's listed. Essentially, there are no other variances that are needed here for this
to for this proposal to be approved other than the issue as far as the the lack of lot front lot frontage. Um, moving into page number two, we have the existing site plan. Um, again, just reiterating, it's a uh relatively
smaller single single family. It's a total of 1500 square ft uh on a almost 16,000 square ft lot. The rear of the site has roughly an 81 to I think 85 foot width. Um but because of the lot
next to them cutting into a portion of it, that's what creates the 51 ft uh width at the front of the site um where the site meets Reeddale Road. Flipping to page three, that is ultimately the
proposal that was worked on with the thame family, myself and James. Um, essentially the red footprint in the rear of the site is where the new structure uh would sit. Uh, and that would be the footprint of the site uh
with a goodiz deck on the rear and front of the site. You'd pull off of the easement that both owners would share. There would be a driveway for the front structure to keep cars not blocking the shared easement driveway. uh a little
bit of a a turn to get to then the the rear structure with the two-car parking garage uh that is utilized by the whoever is the owner of the rear structure. Uh moving to the third page, this is just was to orient the board to an
aerial view uh both from a um map and from an aerial view of how the site currently looks right now. Uh and then just uh James laid out a little bit of a rough floor plan of the structure. Um moving to page number four
uh which is SD dot sorry-0.2. Um we have a little bit of a plot plan that James worked out showing the board uh that driveway that I've discussed the existing house and deck the proposed parking for the front structure, the
rear structure, those decks. We tried to create a border of green space around the entire site uh trying to maintain as much green space on the site as possible. Um one of the issues that came in in these letters of opposition um was that
they're concerned I think from what I read out of the letters was that their concern is that in excavating uh to dig for the foundation in the rear of the site um that that might trigger more issues related to the flooding. Um I just wanted to highlight and we haven't
hired any um civil engineer just yet but as this board knows if this approval was approved if this sorry if this proposal was approved um a statelicicensed civil engineer would take a look at the entire
site um they would ultimately look at um what is the grading and come up with a lot of um there's a lot of ways to deal with any of the the site drainage if there is runoff. Um there are ways
that you could essentially either use uh you know some type of BMS um put some kind of plantings or landscaping around the site to address if there is any runoff issues. But I just wanted to highlight to the board that uh what their concerns are. they might actually be relieved by a proposal like this
being approved and that you would have a civil engineer that would look at and and essentially have to come up with the plan to satisfy Milton's building department. Um it could be a cult system. It could be um you know ways to just recharge any runoff
and address any of these issues related to uh what's happening. I didn't see anything in what their concerns were related to the flooding that it was coming from this particular site. Um that said, I mean there is some hard packed gravel and and dirt on this site.
So I think anything happening in the rear um would be a would be a benefit um and would address any of the issues as far as runoff that are coming from this particular site. Um, moving forward to
essentially this is uh SD 1.1 is just a rough set of each floor of this particular structure in the rear. Um, again we don't have any issues with the height of the building, the size of the building, F or any of the um
dimensional aspects of the building. If the board would like us to walk through the floor plans, that's why James is here. Um, but we're not looking for any relief related to this particular structure. SD2.2 is related to just some renderings to show the board what ultimately at this point what the design
of the structure would look like if it was to be built. Um, SD3.1 is just a it's just showing the board um ultimately what is going to be where the parking would be located and
how the height of each floor would look within the structure. And that's essentially the set of plans. Um I pretty much gone through gone through my presentation. I don't know that uh James really has anything to offer. So I I think with that if there's any
questions or concerns from the board, I'd be happy to feel them. >> Michael or Nick, do you have any questions for Mr. Barry? Um I I mean I think I have a lot of questions about this, but can you say more about how um the large backyard
poses a hardship to the property owner? >> Um it's just they can't fully utilize the site being that if they were to build anything here, they're going to trigger this this issue as far as the frontage and the width of the front of the site. So, with how everything is
currently situated, they would have either had to have had a financial hardship in ripping down the single family that they currently live in um to build something in the rear and even to build off of it and do any addition to the house, they would have ultimately have run into this issue. Now, they've
been living in the house. They have two young children. Um they're not really in love with where this front house is situated. So close to a busy street, it's very, very loud. Um, and that's another hardship that they've brought up to me that, you know, I know that this
isn't something that most zoning boards, um, >> they're not, but they're not proposing to move the existing house. Correct. That's going to stay where it is. >> They're not. I mean, with the work and renovation that they did to that, it would financially be impossible for them to um, add on to it. So, what they were
hoping to do was sell the current house that they renovated um, and build this house in the rear. That would be the house that they were looking to live in, the dream house with their children. That would be offset from the street and not as loud. >> Right. But they but the So, you're saying that the current hardship that
they have is that they they can't subdivide their house and turn and turn their backyard into a separate lot to build a house on it. >> They can't without this relief because of the frontage at the front. It's only 51 ft. So, by literally proposing any
kind of construction here, you're going to run into that issue. It's a pre-existing non-conformance that's going to get triggered. Um, that I think that's the answer to your question. >> Okay. Has there been uh with respect to the the water issues, has there have
there been any studies uh done on the ground on groundwater issues or anything affecting the neighborhood? >> There hasn't now we received these opposition letters this morning. Um, so we didn't have any notice of this issue, but from my understanding, there's
there's no issue as far as runoff from this particular site. Um, the board has before them two support letters from direct to Butters. Um, both at I apologize. I don't have this right off the top of my head, but I believe it's 196 wrote a letter of support and 184.
So the the neighbor if you're s sitting looking at the front door to the left of them and then the neighbor that this structure would um essentially sit next to next to that is the the two sites if you're looking at the front door to the
east of this site that are very similar in this kind of layout that are two separate lots. They have more width to play with. So they were able to do a little bit of a um direct cut in the middle of these two where we don't have enough width at Reedsdale Road to try to
accomplish something like that. Um but they are in support of this proposal. They didn't state that they have any issues with flooding themselves. Um, my suspicion is if there's flooding that's happening, it has nothing to do with this particular site or anything that we're planning to propose, but it's
probably something related to just the grading of uh center lane in how during really vicious rainstorms, the water might be pooling. Um, but I brought that up just to say if if this proposal was approved, we could do
things at the site to address any uh runoff and recharge it into our site that would at least alleviate some of the issue. I still don't think that there's anything related to this site that's triggering anything with that um flooding issue that was raised
in the opposition letters. >> Okay. >> But there have been no studies done on it. um there haven't because we needed this approval in order to get started with anything like that for my clients to start investing that kind of money. I just mean when you say you think that this has nothing to do with the
>> I watch the particular site there's no ma major uh grading issue from the front where Reedsdale Road is when you go to the rear um if there was like a significant grade where I could say yeah there's a huge grading issue and water is running from the site back towards um
center lane. I didn't observe that. Um, I can't tell you it's a perfectly flat site, but if an entire street is having flooding issues, as I'm sure the board is aware, that wouldn't just be one site that's triggering that. >> Okay. I don't have any other questions
right now, Nick. >> So, I've got a I've got a couple. um that in looking at the map that I submitted to the board for the hearing um it it contains the 1 ft top of contour lines for the
shape of the lot for all the all that the entire neighborhood right and it it's showing that that lot slopes at least five to six feet from the front to the back so it's sloping from Reedsdale Road towards center lane okay it's not
it's not level it. The water runs off according to the map from the front uh from the from the Reedsdale Roads thing through their yard towards the houses behind them. Um that's what the contour lines show on the town's um GIS GIS map.
So I what can you tell me what percentage of the lot of the 7,998 square foot lot is the house going and its driveway and uh sorry the house and the and what percentage of the lot is
going to be covered because that that's a concern. If it's if we're taking what's currently an open lot that allows water to by common sense to be absorbed into the soil and we're covering it with a 3,000 ft house plus some additional
parking space to a layman that suggests that the there's going to be less square footage to absorb water. I mean we all pay tax in Milton. >> Sure. >> Based off of you know what I call the rain tax, right? just based off of the percentage. So, what percentage of a lot
is going to be covered by this structure and it's and the deck? >> Do you have that number handy? I know that you did a calculation. I know that we made sure that the house didn't trigger any issue as far as lot coverage in that. I believe it's less than
>> Yeah, 30 is the maximum and it's at 28.5. So, it is underneath. I mean, that's a zoning uh you know, >> what's is that just the footprint of the house or is that including the drive the space for the driveway? >> So, uh these are actually on the the um
application. >> If they're on the plan, that's great. I just couldn't find it. >> It adds up to 5,147 square ft. >> So, it does not include the driveway. >> Yeah. All right. So, now now that being said, if I could just address your
concern or or thoughts that we've come up with with all of this. Um, as everybody here knows, we could do some kind of imperous pavers for the driveway. So, it doesn't need to be black top that's just going to have water running down it. Um, in in receiving these opposition letters this morning about this, um, I had a
discussion with the owners. Um, James and I have discussed this. There's ways that we can design ways to capture any of the water during storms and make sure that this isn't an issue. If anything, what I would say is by denying this,
it's going to continue on. Um, I wasn't aware of that map being provided to the zoning board. I wish I had a chance to review it in more detail um that there was that difference in grading. Um, you know, that being said, the proposal,
if it was to be approved, would actually remedy that issue more than it would cause more of a problem there in that we could identify it and address it with issues, like I said, by creating some kind of landscaping plan around the site to trap more of any runoff in, maybe create some kind of a burm system around
where the landscaping would be around the site in order to again prevent any runoff from occurring. Um, and then just deal with any of the grading issues during the construction of the site, >> creating a Ptech system to recharge water back. >> You got a bigger problem than the water. I even even without the opposition
letters um about the about the flooding, you got a bigger concern in my view. Okay. Which is that that the house? What's the the house that you're proposing to build has zero frontage on on on Reeddale Road, right? There is no frontage, >> right? there would be the easement but
yes >> there's the right does the easement count towards the frontage total for that lot >> it does not >> okay so you're you're asking us to grant two variances I think one variance to the what the front lot for its now
nonconforming um uh minimum >> the pre-existing non-conforming >> right the pre right we're you're looking for us to sort of bless that and then secondly you're you're looking to us to approve a variance for basically zero frontage for a second lot. Is that a do
I have that about right? >> That's what the variance request is. Yes. >> Yeah. So, and you you're talking about the hardship issue um which I understand um but there's a second test in section
10 of 4A right in the granting of the variance that is that we have to find that desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially degragating from the
intent or purpose of the bylaw. Right? So you what the this proposal is asking us to do is to take a a 15,000ish square foot lot, cut it in half, make the person's backyard a
separate buildable lot for in perpetuity and with no frontage and I have a lot of can you can is there right now I'm having a hard time understanding how that doesn't substantially degragate from the intent of the zoning bylaw.
Right. So even if forget about the water and all of that, let's say that was solved the second prong of our variance test to right now I I don't see how that's met possibly. I I don't see. So is there any way that that how does this
project not degregate substantially from the intent of the bylaw? That's what I'm struggling. intent of any zoning code is for there to be an option or for exceptions where there are unique situations. And that is what I identify when I look at this particular
site. If you go around in the entire neighborhood, there is not one other lot that has this shape in this size. So, the owners here are stuck with a 15,000 square ft lot in a 1500 square foot home that exists on on it. Now, there are
ways around this. They could have created some kind of a um you know thoroughare or breezeway to an additional structure and that would have essentially I don't want to say done an end round on all of this but it would have then not
have been two different structures that would have triggered this issue. In doing that, the owners here then are stuck with ultimately building the house they want, but then being combined or living right within almost the same structure as somebody else in that look would be completely outside of what
happens in Milton. So, the idea here was to try to create a way that they don't suffer from having this huge yard that they're never going to be able to fully utilize and ultimately have the financial hardship of we are only using I think the the coverage amount is 0.1.
So there's an F of 0.1 of the existing house on this lot and never be able to utilize it for any financial gain and build the house here that they really would like. They're going to run into it. They can walk back there. It's not like it's it's cut off from them. They still have right
>> they still have access to it. They still possess it. They still own it. It's like if we allowed this to happen, what's to stop any other person in Milton from cutting up their lot into two pieces with zero frontage and coming to us and
say, "Well, you granted a zoning, you know, I have a hardship. My lot is slightly weird." It I I just don't see how we could possibly grant that. I haven't talked to the board members about this obviously, but I don't, you know, I I it to me it just it I I don't
see any way to grant this without completely abregating. >> Most lots are not going to be of the size where they can cut their lot in half and still have two 7500 foot lots to utilize. >> Not in this neighborhood, but in other parts of town.
>> Yeah. I that that's what I'm having trouble with. I just I I >> yeah I >> well I I mean I you know I think as Nick has pointed out that in the provisions of you know 10A there's three
requirements we have defined um that there's special circumstances relating to the soil conditions and the shape and the topography etc. um that the literal enforcement would be some sort of a hardship and that as Nick pointed out that the desired relief isn't, you know,
without substantial detriment to the members of the public. And so those are the three things that we have to find and and I I get the sense from the other two board members and they probably should get this sense from me is that
I'm not finding grounds for the three provisions. Um, deficiency in lot frontage is un unfortunately not a circumstance that's supposedly related to the soil conditions or the shape or the topography of the lot just because it doesn't have frontage that's not
related to that first requirement. I don't think that you've already got one house on there. I don't think that and I think there's case law that says that you know there's no hardship, you know, based upon somebody's desire to build a second house. Um, you know, that's
that's not a hardship. um there's already a house there. Um so, uh you know, so I I have, you know, as I think maybe the other two board members do too, is that I'm I'm finding it a hard argument to come up with the reasons for
the variance. um because I don't think those three provisions have been satisfied. But you know that's I don't know what their other opinion is. But that's the difficulty I'm having with with the variance is the fact that we've got to make these findings and we've got to
support those findings and we can't just recite the statute. We have to come up with reasons. And um I don't I don't so far hear any. >> I don't know how to respond. I mean, I've given you reasons. It sounds like you disagree with me on them. I don't want to just repeat them and waste
everyone's time right now. Um, >> you know, I do think it's unique. I think there is something special as to this particular site in that there's a there's it's the way that initially when whoever did the estate plan here divided all the lots up that it is a very unique shape and that it literally goes from 80
feet at the back to 50 feet at the front. Had they had the 80t back, the very two neighboring lots did something very, very similar to this. and this zoning board must have at some point approved that. And in doing that, you know, essentially that created this
particular lot here. So, you know, >> I don't want to get into this like, well, someone else created this problem kind of an argument with the three. I'm just saying my client was left with what they were given. They have a 15,000 foot lot. I understand Mr. Gray's argument and I hear this all the time in making
zoning presentations that, well, everybody is going to follow this thereafter. No, I disagree with that argument here on this particular site in this particular neighborhood because this is the only site that has that shape in the rear of the um in the actual site, the property itself to be
able to divide it in half and still have 7500 square feet for each lot to ultimately utilize. Um >> you have the frontage. >> Say that again. >> You don't have the frontage. If if if >> you don't and that's the variance in a different way that you could make that
subdivision and you had the frontage. >> Yeah. No, I I I understand what you're saying. >> But what you're saying is if we had the frontage, we wouldn't need a variance at all. This would be an as of right. >> You wouldn't you could do it as of right. Yeah. >> So that's that's why we're here. That's what I'm saying. Like it's a bit circular me making that argument in that
if we had this we wouldn't need this. We wouldn't be here. We' just be doing an as of right project. just need something more to hang my hat on with respect to that last element about how this doesn't abregate substantially degrogate from the intent of the bylaw and I haven't heard anything yet that
I can we could write a decision and point to as a reason how that doesn't happen that's >> I mean my understanding of the bylaws is that it's as long as it's staying with the harmony the aesthetic and the feel and fabric of a particular neighborhood okay what my client is was looking to
propose here was some kind of a plan to do this. I was at the, and this is not a knock on anyone, I was at the planning board. I was at the building department trying to figure out where to get started with this brainchild. And I spent four months being sent to go and
get um I think it's an ANR. So, I was told to go and get a subdivision first. >> I looked into that. That costs I think roughly $7,500 just to have them look at it. And I said, "Well, why are we going to start with the subdivision here when we know that we need a variance?" We were then sent back to the building
department and then this was the violation that happened. At no point has anyone from the building department met with us to discuss this particular issue of this house is big or that it's going to be detrimental to the particular community. I am by no means are my
clients set on that the house has to be of this size or this design. But what they're struggling with is that they have this huge piece of property. Milton has high taxes. they could bring in another taxpaying member of the community to this particular neighborhood. If you look at the aerial
view of this particular neighborhood other than this stretch of Reedsdale Road, almost all of the other lots are around I want I didn't do an exact measurement, but are are the size of what these two when split would ultimately result as. So, it's not as if it's all 15,000 square foot lots in this
neighborhood. By subdividing this, you're going to end up with two very small um you know what we call like shoe box sites. It is unique in that you would have a driveway going to a house that's in the rear. However, I would like you to look at the two sites that
are to the east of this particular site. One, and I'm just doing this off of like the eye test. One only has a a frontage of maybe 30 feet. Um, it's not as if they're both 40 or 50 feet and they got variances for that one which not I think
it's 196. The frontage there is very very small. It's just it's it's a little bit of space and then the driveway that winds to that rear house. That rear house sits behind the house that's in front of it at 190. So, it's not as if that that house sits and has frontage on
to Reedsdale Road. That house is behind the other structure. It is different. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that they're both oranges. It is a little bit of an apple and an orange situation, but it would be similar in what we're what the intent of the design here is, which is I'm guessing both of
ultimately what was two lots, they were allowed to split it in half and make it into three. And my clients looked at that and said, well, we could do something similar here, but for this zoning issue and that is the uniqueness of this particular site. Um, I don't
think that this would be detrimental to the community in that my clients have already shown that they renovated the existing front structure of this house. They have two children that live with them at this site. They're a family and a member of the community in Milton. This isn't an out of town developer looking to come in and just make money off of the town. they could work with
the town, work with the professionals and the designers of this particular town to come up with something that is not, you know, is what the town would like to see both from an aesthetic and from an architectural perspective. I just think they're ultimately left with
50 ft that no matter how you cut it, you're you're then going to just have these really odd shaped front yards with two houses in the back that are then then going to have all kinds of setback issues with houses that aren't even facing the street. they'd have to knock down their single family in order to do that. And without that, then they're
left with, say, roughly a 14,000 square foot yard in a 1,00 foot or se 750 square ft um envelope of their existing single family. >> Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barry. Let me just ask um Bill, is there somebody anybody in the um in the
waiting room audience with a hand up that would like to speak? I do see uh only identified as iPhone. I'm uh allowing them to talk. >> Hi, apologies. I think I'm the person listed as iPhone. Um hi, my name is
Suzanne Bridges. Um thank you for taking my call. Zoning Board of Appeals. Um I live at 71 Center Lane. I'm one of the abutters of this project. Um I have a letter that I want to read, but I just first wanted to make a few points from listening to Attorney Barry's
presentation. Um so first um when he was saying there was u support from 196 and 184 Reedsdale I understand why they would support uh Reeddale does not um get water in the front. The water runs
from Reedsdale to the back of Center Lane which is why um Center Lane is the um the issue at hand. I would say we on Center Lane get all of the water and not just from say said project. We get it all the time. I'm the person you spoke
about earlier who sent the video from Thursday, August 14th. We couldn't even have um cars come down the street during that during that flooding. I also sent some pictures. So, I just wanted to make point of that. That's why they would support it because they don't get water.
And also another point where you said um 190 and 196 Reedsdale have similar structures to this proposed um project. Um, from what I believe, having been here over 10 years, those were existing structures. There was a small ranch
there that was knocked down to build to build one one nice home. Um, there are two homes, 190 and 196 obviously, but to the if you're looking at this property to the right, um, there was a really
small ranch there. Um, and then a a larger home was built. So, just wanted to make note there was already two existing structures. And my other note I wanted to make uh wanted to make is just saying that a hardship is having a large backyard. I would never call that a
hardship. That's um it's you know they have they have a nice backyard that they um would have if they actually took care of it, which I'm going to make point in my letter that I wrote. Um so those are my my points that I wanted to make to attorney Barry. Is it okay if I speak a little further on the letter that I
wrote? >> Yes, please. Okay, great. Um, okay. So, um, thank you, Board of Appeals, for, um, taking my call during this. Um, my name is Suzanne Bridges. I currently live at 71 Center Lane. I'm speaking to formally express my strong opposition to
the proposed 3900 square foot construction project at 184 Reedsdale. As a property owner directly abuing this site, I have serious concerns about the potential negative impact this development will have on my property and my and the surrounding properties in my
neighborhood. Currently, my property along with others in the area already face significant challenges with water runoff, including frequent basement floodings and excessive pooling of water in my yard after a rainstorm. Given the proximity of the proposed construction
to my land, I am worried that the new development will significantly add to these drainage issues, further overwhelming an already inadequate storm water management system. This poses a real risk of increased flooding not only to my property but also um my neighbors
who I have spoken with. And as I said earlier, I sent some pictures and video from the August 14th storm that you know caused caused um cars to not be able to return to their home. And additionally, I wanted to point out that the current homeowners at the site have shown a lack
of responsibility in maintaining their property. The lot is consistently overgrown and unsightly, creating further concerns about how the land is being managed and raising questions about the developer's commitment to upkeeping the property both during and
after construction. A lack of maintenance on this scale does not inspire confidence that the development will be properly managed. Given these factors, I respectfully urge the board to deny approval of this construction project. I'd like you to thank you for
your attention to this matter, and I trust that you will consider the serious implications this development may have on our neighborhood and make a decision that reflects the best interest of our current residents. And again, thank you for listening to me tonight. >> Thank you very much for attending and we
appreciate the the input and the videos. Thank you. Um, is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this matter? >> Rachel Shu. >> Rachel, you can speak now. >> Hi. Can you hear me?
>> Yep. >> Yes. >> So, I don't have anything prepared as well as Sue did. Um, this is Rachel Shuy. I live at 53 Central Lane, but I've been listening and I just kind of wanted to chime in. I apologize. I I sent a letter just now, so you don't
have it. I was away this weekend and I did include some photographs as Sue did, but I I just also wanted to chime in. Um, we're at 53 Center Lane. We are, I believe, three doors down from Sue, closer to Center Street. Um, and and just from the flooding point of view,
just to kind of emphasize how severe it is. Um, our home, we have two sump pumps, we have an extensive French drain system, we have a dry well, and we personally, since we moved in in 18, have spent tens of thousands of dollars on mitigation um, in our backyard with
regrading, landscaping, plantings, and you will see in the photographs that I shared from recent storms, the volume of water that we deal with when we have rains, um, including the fact that we came within inches of losing a car on center lane in the storms that Sue
referenced. You will see from the photographs how the water nearly came as high as the engine on our car. Um so I just wanted to share that the the flooding is severe in this neighborhood. Um and that I just feel that that's something that really does need to be
factored in. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. And uh we'll make a note to include your letter in the materials in on file with the board. So thank you. Anyone else? >> I don't see anybody else.
>> Um, so um and Mr. Barry, I think we would probably, you know, I think if you wanted to have any sort of last sort of wrap up to before we consider, um, the application whether there were any sort of last thoughts you wanted to add or
Mr. Just to reiterate, I I understand the neighbor's opposition related to the flooding issue. Um I think by stopping a proposal like this, it's it's just going to persist. Um I think in developing a site, the benefit would be what I just described, which is uh creating ways to
try to mitigate these issues and recharge more of the runoff into this particular site >> uh and try to remedy as much of that as possible. Um, I I you know, I think I address all of the other concerns or questions that were raised. Um, you know, I understand
some of the opinions that, you know, having a large yard is uh is not a hardship. Um, that's true. Although I I also think just the cost of living in Massachusetts is extremely high and we have an issue right now with a lack of housing. Um, so
you know, just like the the house that if I made a mistake and that it wasn't subdivided by one developer to do the whole project, uh, at some point somebody must have done that uh, with the idea of taking a lot that was odd shaped and putting two houses on it right next door. Uh, one of them was a
small ranch and someone made a decision to knock that down and build a larger house there. Um, so, you know, for all those reasons, I think that is ultimately my client is is trying to um do something similar here because of the uniqueness of the way that these these
four lots at 180 uh 190 and 196, the way that they're cut up compared with the remainder of the existing block. um they are very unique and different um from the the planning that was done as far as
each site looking very very similar to each other other than um these three lots in in the location where they are. Um you know one last thing as far as the current state of the site there was a construction project renovating the
existing house at uh 184 Reedsdale Road. So, um, if while that was going on, the maintenance of the yard wasn't perfect, um, you know, I'm not trying to make excuses, but there were there were things going on at the site that, um,
the family and the owners were, you know, spending their time on and most concerned with. But um I would say that if this proposal was approved, there would be a landscaping plan and and the entire site would be redesigned and rellandscaped >> that would address or do away with that
issue as far as what um I believe it was Miss Bridges had related to the the upkeep at the particular site. Um there would also be a new owner at this particular site. Um so if they had concerns about this developer and how they would maintain their site, well, there would be a new member of the
community as well with them. um and they would be sharing the easement of the driveway and the responsibility of maintaining both sites. So, um I think this is a good proposal. I think this is is a good option for uh Milton to add some housing. I understand that
there are some issues related to the variance that needs to be granted. Um but I think in how it's fleshed out, it it wouldn't be detrimental to the community. In fact, for what we've discussed regarding the flooding and some of the other issues, those would be remedi remedied by a development here. These were my treats for any barking.
Somebody needs to mute themselves. >> Bridges are the other butter left their phone. >> Thank you. >> I'm muting them. >> But um otherwise, thank you to all the members of this board for giving us the time and the chance to make this proposal.
>> I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So move. >> Thank you. Um, so up for discussion, gentlemen. Um, I sort of did my little kind of
outline of what I think we need to find for the variance. Um, I'd be interested in your thoughts. Um, >> I mean, I think for the reasons we all have just discussed, I I I would vote um
against allowing the variance. I I don't think we meet two of the three hurdles that we're required to find. Um I'm not convinced that there's a substantial hardship is the kind of um the kind of thing that the zoning law
just would not permit. Um I think as as Nick put it, it would abregate the purpose of the zoning law. Um and I I just don't see how we meet um the second and third requirements. Um so I would vote uh vote no.
I I agree with Michael, you're done. I'm sorry. Um I I agree with that. Um as I said before, even >> even for the sake of argument, not considering the flooding issue, right,
which I think is real. I think I I know it's real. We've got we've we've got evidence in front of us and and but even if let's just say hypothetically that wasn't part of one of the issues that we had testimony on, right? and we're just merely talking about >> dividing this lot in the manner and for
the reasons stated. Um I I still don't think it meets the the tests the two of the three tests that we need to make findings on. And I don't I don't doubt that it's I mean I get the econom I get the reason why this is a good project
from the point of view of the of the applicant because it allow it you know they renovated the front house. it. Um, if they're able to do the subdivision, um, they're able to take the capital from selling the first place and turn it into building the dreamhouse in the back. I mean, I get it. It may it's and
from that point of view, it's an exciting project for them. I I and I certainly understand why they've they've spent the money hiring council and developing a plan to do it. But um I just I don't see how we can um I don't
think we have enough evidence to meet all of the tests that were required under section 10 to to grant a variance to um allow that second law to have zero frontage. >> I just that's that's the the frontage
requirement is kind of there to prevent this exact thing from happening. Right. I mean, so but for whatever reason, I just I I I can't see my way to voting for it and then defending a decision that's appealed. I I just I
don't So that's where I am. >> Yeah. Well, I'm I I agree with both of you unfortunately is that I just don't see, you know, having looked at the case laws on, you know, case law and stuff on variances, looking at the test, I just don't think that we have enough grounds
in here to justify in a decision the issuance of a variance. You know, hardship, you know, I said it's not really a hardship to say I can't have a second house on my on my land. Um, and there's cases that have have come down
on that. And and then as you say, we have two non-conforming lots and one which has no frontage at all. Um, and that's a that's a problem as well. Um, and I don't see how, you know, there's this discussion about the fact that it's an oddly shaped lot. It's not that odd
of shape. I mean, it's not like a serious pork chop. Um, but I could see the other houses, you know, that happened because they they had the required they had the required frontage. Um, and this one doesn't. But as I said, I just can't see drafting the decision. I don't I'd been I would have a hard
time putting enough meat into it to have a variance um, you know, um, granted have that hold up in court if it got challenged. I just don't think I've got enough, you know, there. There, as they say.
Anyone else? Um, Mike or Greg, Nick, anything else? Um, >> well, so I guess we should take a vote on this application and on whether or not we would be in favor of granting would be in favor of granting the license of the variance that's been
requested by the applicant. And my vote would be no. >> No, my vote would be no. >> I'm sorry to say that, Mr. Barry. >> That's okay. You already did. you all already said no in your uh discussion.
So yeah, you know, >> if I could just respond to one thing that you said. I understand that building two houses isn't a hardship. That's not what I argued or represented. >> Oh, no, no, no. I didn't say you didn't say you did. >> I just wanted to put that on the record. That's all. I didn't say that was the
hardship. The hardship is related to the shape of a lot. >> Yeah. You know, um there there isn't enough frontage for 75 ft as it exists now. M >> um so that is the struggle of this particular site in trying to subdivide it with uh how shallow and deep it is
and it you know I disagree with you that it's not pork chop shaped. It's 50 at the front and 80 at the back. Um so the front is almost literally half of what it is at the rear. But I I get that it's not 20 and then 80. Um but it is not as if it's 65 and then 80 at the back. It's
not a triangular shaped lot. Um, you know, I the one thing I would say is even with this decision, if um, you know, my client might be interested in coming and meeting with some of the town professionals, we literally got no guidance at all on
>> Well, I I apologize for that and that's true and that's because we didn't have any planners and um, we had interim building commissioners. We now have an actual building commissioner and starting on October 1st, um, we will actually have a town planner and
>> well, again, if somebody had mentioned that to us and I didn't waste five months and my client's time and money trying to figure out how to do this, >> um, we might have waited because we waited five months to get the zoning board date. Yeah. >> And then we just got a letter saying, "You have a hearing in three weeks." No, we have a commissioner come in and meet
with us. I've worked with a lot of towns all over the state of Massachusetts and I was a I'm I'm not this is not intended to berate I was just kind of shocked at the lack of assistance at all >> uh from the >> from the Milman planning department with
assisting and or having a conversation about proposal was because >> I actually went down to see what was going on 60 days after I filed this and all that I got was yep your building permit's going to be approved if you go and get an ANR um and I all I was looking to do was file it so that I
could get in front of some of the uh examiners and or the building commission and or some of the planners to be like this is what we're thinking before my spends a lot of money in putting this forward and $1,000 to put notice out. Is there somebody we can speak to about it? >> Um and all I got was here's your notice
for your ZBA hearing and here's a violation of the the zoning code. So, um with that, we now have this information. uh my clients have spent some money in that they've lost but um I think they have a decision to you know whether they want to proceed forward and and come in
and have some more discussions about this or not. So >> well I I totally I understand that totally. Um we are still getting new town council and that's happened too. Um and um there's this this the disarray in the planning department has been very
sad for all of us and especially for our Bill Donnelly in in our department because people have wandered down the hall and he's like the only person around. Um and so I I do apologize on behalf of the town for um the the trouble that you have gone through um
and the lack of direction that has been you know your experience at town hall. Hopefully that will be better. >> Yeah. That's okay. It's fine. >> Well, thank you very much. >> Thank you. Have a nice evening. >> And uh take a motion to adjourn. Oh, we
have to draft a decision. Does anybody have a a desire to do that? >> I I'll do it in between the the other I have a hearing tomorrow, too. Um but anyway, um so thank you very much for all the
people that attended, the people that sent in information. Um and to uh Mr. Barry and to Mr. Bailey, we appreciate the uh the time and um effort you spent on this and hopefully um you can come up with a clever solution for the situation. Um I take a motion to
adjurnn. >> Move to move. >> Thank you gentlemen as always and we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Good night. [Music]