2026-10-14 - Zoning Board of Appeals

Alright, good evening everyone and welcome to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for October 14th, 2026. Members attending the meeting are George Dallas, Alan Benzekin, Matt Triplett-Ciotis and

myself Lauren Jacobson. The first part of our meeting tonight will be the public hearing portion where each applicant and the public can share their thoughts as to each application. We'll proceed in

the order for today's agenda. We have four applications tonight. We'll ask the petitioners to present a succinct summary of their application. We'll look to keep this to no more than five minutes. If

members of the public would like to speak, we ask you to limit your comments to no longer than three minutes. We'll then have an opportunity for board members to ask any questions that they may have.

And then once the full agenda has been heard we will proceed into the second portion of our meeting which is deliberation and potential vote. The public is welcome to observe that portion of the

meeting. We just ask that you keep yourselves on mute and there will not be any further opportunity for questions, comments or clarifications from anyone outside of the board. And as you may see we

have four members of the ZBA here with us tonight. So we're excited to meet a quorum as there was some of you may know some potential issues where we may have not. But we do have a quorum. If any of

the applicants tonight would not like to proceed tonight and have it continue to potential next meeting where we may have more members or we may have less, please let me know now. You can raise your

hand. But if not we'll just proceed with the way the agenda is scheduled tonight. All right. I don't see anyone's hands. Anyone have questions about the vote? So I kind of went past that quickly. So

you'll need four members affirmative votes in order for your application to be approved. We like to have five members but as you know we only have four tonight. So if you'd like to see if you could

potentially have another member we could continue your matter if you'd like. And I'll also give you an opportunity to do that when I call your application. All right. So we will proceed with the first

application on the agenda. It is 036-26. This is 144 Shadow Ridge Road. We have Christian Pierre Fry for Cumond Desai for a variance. Kendall do you have notification mailings? Yes they've been

received. Perfect. I'll read in the planning letter that I have for this. Applicant owns a single family dwelling with a shed and is proposing to construct a two-story single car garage addition with

new living space on the second floor and a new entry landing with a portico. Applicant is requesting a front property line setback of 39.4 feet in lieu of the 40 feet required. B a combined side yard

setback of 16.6 feet in lieu of the 20 feet required. And C a side yard setback of 5.9 feet in lieu of the 10 feet required in an R10 zone. Pierre Christian Fry architect and Viget Desai son of the

homeowners made a presentation answer questions from the board the planning board by a vote of three to two to zero in favor Godzino Salit and Sabramanian denial Linder and McKay recommended the

zoning board appeals approved CBA application 036-26. Mr. Linder and Mr. McKay recommended denial because the hardship of the land was not clear and would set a precedent for allowing such side yard

setbacks without a genuine hardship. The opinion of the board that the proposals in general harmony with the intent of comprehensive plan are S1 residential single family future land use category. I

also have the EPP memo dated August 11, 2026 that's part of this file as well as the um I have a few different memos for them. I have a memo from Monica Sim, zoning enforcement officer to the board as

well as a memo from Kendall Richie associate planner to the board dated August 14, 2026. Okay um now do we have the applicant with us tonight please raise your hand or you can just start speaking if

you're here do we have unmuted everyone so unmute yourself I see Mr. Desai has raised his hand can you unmute him handle or um no I have no you have to unmute yourself um I can see that you're on the

computer Mr. Desai so you should just be able to toggle that on and off to the right of your name there you go yes I'm here am I unmuted as well or yeah we can hear you you can hear you now okay sorry

about that um yeah so um yeah my name is Pierre Christian Fry I'm the architect for the project uh my company PCDF architecture uh yeah good evening everyone um we're back uh I just wanted to uh lead

off by saying that um after the last hearing uh when we were um approved uh we basically took all the comments um and and took them you know in and distilled everything into the drawings uh where we

basically took the entire project the proposed addition and reduced it on all three sides front side yard and rear um you know we pulled everything back we also uh got us ourselves to just under the

coverage on the property we were just slightly over before and now we're just slightly under which is I think good um and uh as a result you know obviously we're we're here now to uh you know present

again and uh you know I think I think we have basically the hardship that we have for this project and I think that was probably not properly explained by myself probably the last go around is this

sort of the physical site limitations on the property uh the this is this is the only almost the only house in the neighborhood where the driveway is on the left side and all the other houses

driveways on the right side for whatever that's worth um but the driveway on the left side where we're proposing the garage is as we looked at every aspect we looked at putting a single car garage on

the front of the house that would that would project into the front yard setback too much it would also create more impervious coverage on the lot which we felt that was not right and so that was

shelved um putting the addition on the right side to sort of follow the houses down the street uh would not work in this particular situation because if I can show you I can bring up a photo board

here let me just see here um I want to just I want to just keep talking here but um where did I go um essentially I wanted to uh can you still hear me if I lose yes we can hear you okay are you trying

to share your screen yeah trying to share the screen and I just ended up with a black screen here now can the lizzie have permission yeah he has permission okay let me see here um well let me just go

back basically and then uh um the left the right side of the house is basically there's probably 10 feet at best to the property line so that would not allow for a garage addition on that side of the

house uh which would also then you know get into the setback on the side there um so that was that was sort of quickly decided that that wouldn't work um so then it left us then you know on the rear

of the property uh and there was a discussion about that at the last hearing uh to maybe put the garage addition in the back of the house um that was that was looked at quite carefully but there was a

number of reasons why that didn't fly in our opinion because that would bring us down too close to the rear yard setback and then also there's uh setback issues back there for the river that runs

behind the house and you know there are definitely times when that river crests there and can flood the backyard and you know putting a house there and a structure and all that would not be probably

good for many reasons plus it would also probably eliminate the entire backyard and create an incredible amount of added impervious coverage because we would have to not only create the addition we

would have to create a turnaround to get out of the garage and then extend the driveway down to the back so that was that was decided again so back to where we are now where the addition is now we

figured that the single car garage would basically go in place of where a car parks next to the house now in the driveway and so essentially it would be one driveway parking space would now be

enclosed in a single car garage and then we would have living space on the second floor above that and now to the neighbor's house um we now basically with the new smaller addition from last time you

know we have basically seven feet from the wall of our proposed addition to the property line which is uh there's a vinyl fence along there and then on the other side of the vinyl fence there was a

comment one of the last hearings of the neighbor's house being very close there but that neighbor's house is actually we measured uh 12 feet back from the vinyl fence on the other side so there's

between both houses there would basically be like 19 feet between the two so we thought that that would you know wouldn't be too bad and we could also you know if if they wanted to some plantings

there's enough room to put some plantings there potentially or there's a fence there now so we felt it's not like they're you know the two houses are not going to feel like they're right on top of

each other so that was where we ended up arriving where we are now you know because of this hardship um thank you so that that's basically i think in a in a nutshell where where we're at was trying to

talk there but uh automatically muted myself uh so um any members of the public that would like to speak to this application please raise your hand or if you're on a cell phone there's a special

number you can push oh can i just add one more point point okay yes as um as part of do you hear feedback i hear feedback yeah there is another i don't but it could be because i'm on hold on let me

try meeting myself and see um so so i basically uh what i just wanted to just add is that originally we were sort of projecting into the front yard let's say five feet and now we're projecting out you

know two and a half feet so you know we've cut that way back and uh you know on the side in the back so i think you know we've we've really tried to work hard to basically get to a point that where

we've like i said before we've distilled it down to the the minimum required that we need to afford relief that you know for for this addition you know like any smaller than this would basically make

a sort of a basically un really unusable garage that would be comfortable let's say for a person to get in and out safely and comfortably in the garage out of a car out of a decent sized car so we got

it down to 12 feet you know from the last time around i think we were closer to 14 feet so you know that's help too so that's just what i wanted to add okay thank you any members of the public that

would like to comment on this application please raise your hand or speak all right i don't see anyone can you hear me applicant oh yeah please state your name and address for the record hello my name

is ansonine denny and i live on 136 shadow ridge road great thank you you may proceed thank you um yep so i just moved into the neighboring property um where this was not proposed i moved in in april

so this would be a material event for my property um so i appreciate uh the comments that were said um and appreciate that this is one of the only properties with a left sided driveway um however you

know i think seven feet which is what it was proposed is a little close to my property um and i don't believe there's other properties in the neighborhood that become that close to the side adjoining

line um so i wouldn't think that would be a fair precedent to set and then also i'd like to add you know my the master bedroom in the house is facing that um would be facing that new construction the

new garage and second level which is pretty close um and where we you know sleep and live for most of it for the most part um so just wanted to voice those concerns and then also i know there was a

comment made with you know there's enough room to put plantings or shrubbery to kind of um you know mitigate that but um would that be happening as part of this construction and who would be the one

putting those plantings in for privacy um would that fall on me or would that happen in conjunction with the with the construction so i just wanted to voice my concerns as i am the neighboring

property and um appreciate all the work that's been done but um i just don't think there's precedent like this in the neighborhood all right thank you sir anyone else from the public that would like

to speak with regards to this application don't see anyone else's hands other than the applicant i think your your hand was still up from before correct okay if it would be helpful i have i have some

photos of the neighborhood houses that have additions if that would be helpful i don't know um we're going yeah we're going to next have questions from the board and if any of the board members would

care to see that they can ask okay okay um all right so um let's start with you george any questions uh yeah a couple of questions i i see um uh two other properties i think on that side of the street

with a uh garage is attached albeit on i guess what what's referred to as the right side of the house i find it interesting that um you know left side versus right side uh is making a difference on

how these houses were uh laid out um i i respect that the neighbor's concern about uh the distance although from the gis uh photo um it looks like uh that addition is uh very close to the property

line uh do you happen to know uh uh mr neighbor uh what your setback is uh to the property line on that side of your house uh george we can't ask questions of the neighbor okay all right sorry it's

only for the applicant i mean we definitely have in the past but if if the neighbor doesn't know or care to share right there's no obligation for them to respond because they're not the applicant but

all right um the other question i had in in in looking at the numbers on the uh application the applicant or the architect indicated that they had done a lot of work since the last meeting in reducing

uh the size are those numbers reflected on the documents that we're looking at now yes yes they are all right um all right those are my questions for now lauren thank you thank you george alan could i

just add a comment to your george's question about the setback george was that a question directed to pierre uh yes yes well it was yeah i think you addressed it uh uh sir to uh to the neighbor but i

i'm not going to speak for the neighbor but i mean we we measured it um you know just by laser you know very sort of uh you know uh loosely from the fence line which is sort of on the property which i

believe the fence is actually maybe a little bit in board of the property line by six inches whether it's on my client's side or the neighbor's side but then the laser line at a couple of spots to the

neighbor's house uh we got we got measurements of about 12 feet so we could you know that could be confirmed by a site survey or a little more accurately than me with my laser but like it was about 12

feet okay no i i appreciate that and admittedly it could be that the uh the view on the gis uh uh file um you know may not be totally accurate in terms of the you know the visual distance okay thank

you all right thank you alan uh yes we'll confuse you oh yeah sorry uh you presented you said you said you were approved earlier or you were not approved earlier what was the i was confused about that

because i remember seeing this previously and i believe we did not approve it right no it was approved by uh planning oh it's approved by planning oh yeah you presented you've never presented to the

zoning board before no we presented to the zoning board before um we were we were before the zba i believe it was in june and then it was pushed to july and then i think in july it was um denied and

then we took those comments and that's where we reworked the design and then we came back and then uh probably because i was just at the time very overworked i missed the deadline to get september so

then we're into october so that's why we're here now okay got it and then you said the uh the addition you reduced the size but the drawing i'm looking at still shows 13 feet two and a half inches you

said it was well you said it was 12 that's the new one it's 12 on the inside of the garage like the finish oh oh the inside inside for the garage we're trying to maintain 12 to make a comfortable

single car garage got it and how so how much room is left on the outside to the property line on the outside um from the new the new 13 to let's say it was seven feet to the property line and again it

could be seven foot six let's say depending on where that fence is if it's right on the property line or if it's six inches in or whatever but it's it's it's seven feet feet and then you measured the

neighbor's house what did you say 12 feet about 12 feet yeah total about 19 got it um do you do you know if they intend to keep the i mean obviously the pavement i'm looking at the uh google maps here

and i see it's paved so i assume that's that little stretch of pavement will will be taken up and then back to the neighbor's comment i guess soon you would your your client would be responsible for

with the plantings yeah probably that little paved strip alongside the addition would probably become like uh you know a walkway down to the back you know door that's behind the addition there be

stepping stones or something to have a little more grass or gravel or you know something so it's a little softer than just you know a strip of pavement um and there is planting along the fence there

now um so it probably would just extend that basically and create a nice little walkway to the backyard there got it okay yeah i don't have any other questions thanks thanks on matt yeah i just one

question your city you're getting seven feet on the side but the survey that you submitted says 5.9 feet on the side what am i missing uh that's um i don't have to survey right in front of me right

now but like i think that's why we were measuring to the fence so i don't know that again like you know my my sort of just very rough measurements there out there you know it could be more like six

and a half something like that or whatever but you know it was it was definitely do you have any reason to doubt that mr frederoli's survey is wrong were you any reason that's correct i should say

it's he's he's very good so like um you know but you know that being said i mean we would probably you know confirm all that and check all that definitely and one other question and then i'll i'll

yield um there is area within the um building envelope uh that is not currently built on and i understand you said there's concerns about trying to make a turnaround and that but is there anything

else specific about the land there is there um you know does that land grade you know like a severe grade down or something else going on there that that would hamper that i see that there's the the

drainage easement but that's outside the building envelope i'm talking about specifically within the building envelope yeah what i'll do is i'll bring up the the photo board that i had here and i i

can share it that might help a little bit here um let me try this again here um okay does do people see the photos there no no we don't see your screen at all okay well you've got to give him access

to to share his screen yeah so anyway um i'll just i'll just keep you know going without that uh basically to your point um matthew uh the house the the driveway slopes quite quite quickly uh beside

the house there towards the backyard i would say probably from the front of the house to the back of the house i would say maybe has about a nine foot drop and slope so that's pretty heavy and then

that comes down to the back and then there's there's a pre-existing sort of wing on the back of the house um that we would sort of have to get past that to put let's say the addition and the addition

there would you know attach to the house back there but that essentially would be probably about the same distance from the property line uh which you know wouldn't leave enough room for let's say a

turn around to you know comfortably back out of the garage and then you know nose the car up the hill and drive up the hill and out so we'd have to push that addition back into the backyard and that

gets the backyard sort of angles back there and it's pretty close to the river back there so we would have to probably just thinking out loud and we looked at it we would probably have to bring up the

grade a little bit back there probably some retaining walls retaining walls next to the river might might create uh you know different sort of flood pattern flow of the water which might not be good

it might you know adversely affect the river in in a flood situation so that would not be great and probably wouldn't be approved to get that far anyway so uh during the last big storm we had there

the nor'easter or whatever some weeks back i mean there was there was water up into the backyard here so like you know it it was not the ideal spot for any kind of addition back there beyond where the

house is now okay no further questions thank you matt um pier have you or your client had previous discussions with the neighbor regarding these plans i i can i can let mr desai comment on that but

like i do understand that you know he has spoken to a couple of the neighbors certainly um not uh well you answered a question um i i meant to um i was more directed to the neighbor that spoke here

tonight um did your client speak with them specifically i don't i don't think so i i he he might have uh very briefly but i don't think really that in depth about this project is basically the last

time i believe we were before the board here i think that was when the new neighbor was was potentially moving in um so there was a you know change uh you know neighbors there and i think he'd spoken

to the previous neighbor but uh probably not the new neighbor as you know as much mr desai did you want to to share anything further than that or yes absolutely thank you yeah uh so uh anthony's our

new neighbor i haven't had a chance directly to talk to him about this project the previous neighbors who were okay with the project um and since had moved out um but all my other neighbors are okay

with it obviously anthony's the closest um and to answer his previous question you know we we privacy is very important to us as well as him and we respect that and we're certainly willing to do

whatever it takes whether it's planting trees i'm happy to talk and uh figure out what works best for him as well as us so if it's you know privacy trees or modifying the windows on our project to

eliminate any issue of you know privacy concerns um i'm happy to do that in fact we were applying to do that if it was okay with him that we would put up some trees uh particularly the emerald trees

which are like basically a wall of trees um but whatever works uh between us um i'm willing to take care of all that as well and like i said if we need to go back and redesign the window locations on

that side facing his uh project i'm willing to talk to him about that too because like i said i don't want to necessarily look into his house and he doesn't want to look into my house um so i'm

willing to do all that because my concerns for privacy are no different than his um so i'm going to work with whatever it takes and i'll take care of all that you know that's our responsibility so we

have enough space between the fence and the uh the remaining space there that where we can plant uh trees uh fairly easily which we already looked into actually um and that was my initial plan even

with the previous neighbor um to make sure there's that privacy but again i didn't speak to anthony if you would want those trees or not but you know if it's something else he wants or whatever or if

i want to if he wants me to extend the fence forward i can do that too um whatever it takes to you know i want to be want him to be happy i want all my neighbors to be happy um and unfortunately this

is the only location we can do this um but even to the point that if we don't have to put windows or whatever or put privacy windows uh as well or put privacy uh screening for his windows i'm willing

to take care of that as well thank you mr dosa um anthony i know you have no obligation to speak further um and you may not even be still here on um on the meeting um but if you are i i do have i'm

wondering if you have any thoughts as to the applicant's proposal as to screening the the fence is there anything specifically that you are looking for it because i'm hearing that you didn't have an

opportunity to speak to the applicant at play hello can you hear me this is anthony yep go ahead hey uh yeah no appreciate that um yeah i this was the first i was hearing of this altercation i got a

notice in the mail um uh and appreciate um mr dosa's uh proposal um i think i just would need to think about that a little more um but um i mean yeah we could we could talk separately on that um i

just would need a little extra time to think about you know the implications of that i appreciate that you know maybe know when those would yeah i'm not i'm not putting you well i was putting on the

spot but uh totally totally uh okay answer um it's helpful for me um because sometimes we put conditions on applications regarding screening um so i just wanted to know you know specifics if this was

something that we were approving if this was a condition um but thank you um uh pier uh how high is the fence the fence fence now if i remember correctly i believe it's it's about six feet it might be

seven feet i i don't remember offhand but maybe uh mr decide would remember that yeah it's uh i believe six feet i think that's the code um so six feet is yeah yeah okay um and those were all my

questions any uh further questions from the board now that we've heard a little bit more from the applicant i just have one one question sorry go ahead alan it's alan right you're echoing yeah uh the

architectural diagram uh that you have here it looks like you're also doing alterations to the house is that right you're putting a roof and an entrance way is that part of the whole um construction

part of it also is we're putting as i don't know if you can see the photos here now that yeah shared but above the front door there's there's no sort of weather protection there at all and uh that is

obviously a problem in the summertime where that that whole front gets really baking hot and then in the winter or you know autumn or whatever when it's raining uh you know you stand there and you get

soaking wet before you get into the house so the idea is to just put a a nice little portico roof over that entryway that's you know in compliance with you know city regulations and all that just to

put a nice little roofed over entryway just two columns and a little roof basically right and then a roof to the right of that looks like is new as well that's that's something we were just looking at

there that like okay you know that will probably not happen but it's just an idea we were thinking to just sort of break up the sort of front of the house a little bit okay that would be basically in

playing with the how the wall that's there now and you know wouldn't wouldn't extend forward or anything like that and then it's hard for me to tell on the diagram but is the garage uh sticking out

from the house is it further forward i can't tell it projects forward about two and a half feet um from the you see on the side um let's see oh yeah see another picture it projects a little forward

and the reason for that is that it's sort of right at the edge of where the driveway starts sloping down very quickly so we figured we were trying to get as far forward without pushing very far

forward into front setback um to basically you know have positive drainage out of the garage so that we would basically right there we would have the addition start and then we would probably we

raised it up slightly so that there'd be a little sort of apron to drive sort of slightly uphill into the garage so that the garage would stay dry because sort of this house and all the other houses

down the street you know they have a sort of a downhill slope into the garage and that's usually not recommended to keep water out of the garage got it okay thank you thank you any other board member

questions uh i just i just to confirm the the addition that you're proposing would be 20 feet and seven inches from the floor to the uh peak um let me just see i like that's how i read the plans if

that's what we have on the plan yes we would we're trying to keep everything now as you know it's taller than that and then the uh you know it sticks up a little bit sort of like the neighbor's house

there but we're trying to keep it in in context and you know so it doesn't look like it's uh you know a tower next to the house and you know keeping it as low as we can i think it only sticks up a

foot a foot and a half uh from the existing uh home uh and that was to mitigate the water intrusion into the garage so we had to pop prop it up a little bit yeah any other board member questions all

right seeing none uh pierra would you like us to deliberate on this application tonight yes please please okay we will do so so this application is closed um we will proceed to 042-26 uh 30 denada

lane christine zang um kendall have notification mailings been received yes they have great i have a planning board letter uh i will read into the record applicant owns a single family dwelling with

two sheds and a deck and is prepared by 20 foot 16 and a half inch second story cantilevered addition and a 16 foot by 17 foot 11 inch deck off the rear of the existing dwelling applicant is

requesting a rear yard setback of 17 and a half feet in lieu of the 30 feet required in an r10 zone in the opinion of the board the uh planning board that the proposals in the general harmony with the

intent of comprehensive plan res one residential single family future land use category based on the comprehensive plan alignment only the planning board by a vote of four to one in favor godzino lay

salit and subram subramanian uh against lindar recommended the zoning board of appeals approves eba application 042-26 the zoning board of appeals shall be responsible for determining whether there is

an unusual hardship of the land preventing the applicant from carrying out the strict letter of the zoning regulations mr lindar felt there was not a sufficient hardship of the land shown by the

applicant um i also have um a memo from the engineering department dated september 14 2020 so that is part of the record and a memo from epb dated September 28 2026 that is part of the record right do

we have the applicant um mr um mr zen yes this is christine thing from 30 donada lane um and i also have um mr ken frederole on this call as well who has been assisting me with the application you may

proceed um so as you have mentioned we're looking to um add an addition to the rear end of our home which is also replacing an existing structure on a property um the thought was to also maintain the

look and feel of the current neighborhood and then the the layout really is to making sure that things flow smoothly within inside of the home so that without disrupting the neighborhood um also we

did consider you know adding addition to the side of the house however they would require us um re re rewiring our a track system and also um needing to remove some of the established mature greenery

okay thank you anything further can you hear me uh no but maybe there are some things that uh mr frederole can go over more okay um do you want him to answer questions on behalf of you or did you want

him to present on behalf of your application he can present as well and he can answer okay mr frederole do you have anything further yes good evening thank you all for the opportunity to speak just in

quick i wanted to add a little bit to the application um the hardship as she said was due to the existing dwelling its purpose to utilize the existing kitchen dining and family room area in an

efficient manner while keeping the existing kitchen appliances the same location for a reasonable and convenient use of the property uh we submitted several items i think that came in earlier today

did you get those that we wanted to add to the file yeah can you explain what they are yes we submitted a map that would show uh part of our hardship is the uniqueness of this property it's a square

shaped lot whereas in the city of stanford uh most lots are more of a rectangle so ours is 100 by 100 plus or minus square under certain circumstances if the lot was not square and it was rectangle

similar to other lots in this area based on the definitions of lots and other um items we wouldn't need a variance we're in the r10 zone located in the mid part stanford south at americ parkway uh

there's a display that i submitted that should show approximately what an r10 typically lot looks like can you uh put that i think it was submitted earlier or christine can you share that yeah i'm

trying to pull up right now well a typical lot the frontage is 50 feet and ours is 98 also a typical lot depth is between 100 and 150 feet ours is 102 in this particular case if you can see the

display if it gets shared uh a typical r10 lot 65 by 150 sorry sorry sorry mr perilla i need um permission to share my screen okay it's not allowing me you oh you know what here sorry i stopped

sharing that should allow you know why this is i still need permission to share okay try try one more time now that i've stopped yeah no it's not i believe christine submitted these earlier or that's

what i was told prior to the hearing so if there were i mean i don't know what time but um any additional exhibits are due by noon of the hearing date um we didn't receive any i don't have anything in

my inbox from today um i have something from yesterday that is labeled an additional exhibit but it's not a visual it's that's that there was more of the definitions of a lot in a square lot okay um

part of this application when she first came to us i asked why she couldn't go to the side and the reason being was that the interior of the house was laid out a certain way they wanted to be

environmentally conscious and build over what they have already which is a deck off the back of the house and in order to utilize the property property similar if you look at an aerial uh a lot of the

neighbors have bump outs in the fact that go over the setback line so we felt this was a good way to proceed i wanted to add on to the fact that the uniqueness of the property that it's a square lot

where a typical lot is rectangle if we had a rectangular lot typical the most theoretically we wouldn't need a variance so that's pretty much what we wanted to discuss the applicant's not interest to

the neighborhood because it's similar to the adjoining properties in the area and it maintains the look and feel of the neighborhood uh with that um i'd like to answer your questions thank you ken uh

any members of the public that would like to speak to this application please raise your hand i'll just start speaking if i don't see your hand raised okay i don't see anyone great we will proceed

with board member questions um matt would you like to ask any questions yeah so kenny i i got a question for you you were talking just now about this being a square lot usually there are rectangles is

there any dimension coverage you know any anything that's specified in the zoning regulations where this lot is short of what is required of a lot in this zone no it is not it meets all the code

setback requirements it's just the fact that it's a square lot it was uh i believe the remainder of property uh there was an existing map to the north and another existing map to the south and they

did a square because that's what fit at the time is there any you you mentioned you look to build in the side yard um did you look at both sides or just one side well i believe the purpose was to

expand upon the kitchen so the right side would make the most sense and christine felt that she wanted to have it out the back because the deck was the place where the existing kitchens laid out and

how they could utilize it have a family living area over the top the second story okay and one last question is there anything you could point to in the building envelope that would you know render

those portions on the right and left of the house you know less than usable um because right now what i'm hearing is all the hardship is related to how the house is currently laid out inside but i'm

looking for something that might be tied to the property it was the purpose to remain environmentally conscious not to dig up the green space the existing electrical ac is on the side of the house uh

those were the features that christine felt she did not want to use and for her enjoyment of her property she wanted to go out the back over existing hardscape appreciate the answers um i'll yield

thank you matt um alan uh yeah do you have uh any uh anything from the neighbor from behind because that's probably the one that would be the most affected was there any uh any communication or any um

objections or encouragement no i i haven't had a direct conversation with them but um i i just sent out you know letters and you know reporting and this is what i'm doing so that you know all the

necessary steps i've taken got it yeah i did notice and gave it to your right as it seems like a swimming pool it goes pretty far back as well um so that that does touch on what ken mentioned as well

um and then there's another little uh i'm looking at a picture so maybe it's not accurate is there another little uh structure in the back of the house to the left behind the house shed it is yes it's

a shed so as i mentioned and we mentioned in the application we do have two existing sheds on the property and those are uh okay in terms of zoning regulations i don't want to open up a can of worms

i'm just wondering may i speak yeah uh the uh the shed itself i believe meets the setback requirements of a shed five foot from a side five foot from a rear uh but uh there was something raised with

some of the um engineering and other boards so wanted to make it clear in the application if it's approved the applicant will appropriately address any concerns raised through the referral process so

if there was something that was insufficient or didn't meet code we would do our best to resolve it and meet code if this gets approved okay so the okay thanks so the uh the one variance is just the

setback the 17 feet inside of 30s are correct that is correct okay thank you thanks alan george uh yeah i'm sort of uh echoing the path that that you know matt was heading down um but as i understand

it from mr fratter ollie okay the the right side was was uh turned down as an option okay because the owner wanted to minimize okay any uh green space intrusion and you you just want to okay keep keep

uh the addition to the back okay which also helps you use what is in the house more efficiently i mean that that's sort of a tough hardship but i understand the the right side uh concern um so what

you're really trying to do is just maximize what's inside the house by doing that on the back correct yes i believe christine would you marry that yes that is correct okay all right that's it that's

it for me laurin thank you thank you i don't have any questions um any other board member questions all right um and ken and christine would you like us to deliberate on your application tonight and

that's up to christine yes please please yes okay great we will proceed according i think you cut out oh can you hear me hello okay um we will proceed accordingly we will close your application and

deliberate thank you thank you thank you so much um application is zero four three dash two six this is 30 render mirror lane uh cutler architects for daniel simar uh kendall have the notification

mailings been received yes i know great i have a planning board letter that i'd like to read into the record applicant owns a single family dwelling with an attached garage rear and side yard patio

area side yard hot tub and spa and is proposing to construct a 48 foot by 26 foot four bay garage addition by removing and rebuilding the existing garage applicant is requesting a side yard setback of

nine in our a one zone it's the opinion of the board about the the planning board that the proposals in the general harmony with the intent of comprehensive plan ras one residential single family

future land use category based on comprehensive plan alignment only the planning board unanimously recommended the zoning board of appeals approves eba application zero four three dash two six the

zoning board of appeals shall be responsible for determining whether there is an unusual hardship of the land preventing the applicant from carrying out the strict letter of the zoning regulations i

also have epb's memo as part of the record that is dated september 11 2026 and uh engineering's memo dated september 14 2026 as well health department's memo dated september 14 2026 all right um do we

have the applicant here with us zachary trip tripada is the agent i believe yep yes hello you may you may proceed awesome thank you very much i appreciate everyone's time um going to try to summarize

everything so i think the google maps does a really good job of showing the unique hardship of this um here's the existing home as it sits on the property um zooming out and looking at this at a skew

you can see just how steep the slopes are the topographical survey uh shows just how steep the property kind of goes down after this right of way here you have the existing house and then again it

steeps down to wetlands and uh riverwalk easement here so here's the existing property and then the garage and then if we look at the proposed site plan again here's the existing house and the garage

will then be turned on its side the problem that the client is facing right now is the direction of the garage the the bays are coming in from the right side and due to steep slopes and a retaining

wall here it's just hard for him to turn into his garages so the idea was to flip it um so you would pull in on this side and like i said our unique hardship is property is difficult topography

limiting the placement of the existing house and then that limits the areas of meaningful additions um and then it also is challenging because there's uh quite a bit of wetlands um and the

conservation easement then for the let me just move this away so as for negative impact on the neighborhood um i would say it's very limited one because the property is so far away from any adjacent

homes um here's where we'll be adding and then again it's you know lots of tree cover and very far away from any of the neighbors and then here's you know all you know the river walk in wetlands uh

and then as for you know the coverage uh 15 for building coverage existing is 3.15 and we're adding about 0.39 on building coverage and then we're adding 0.64 for lot coverage uh but still uh we're at

12 the max allowable is 30 so that summarizes the project and what we're trying to do thank you any members of the public that would like to speak regarding this application please raise your hand all

right don't see anyone you can speak as well if i'm not calling on you okay don't see anyone so we'll proceed with board member questions alan you're up first thanks um trying to understand i guess

you're just flipping the garage around so you can enter from the front is that correct correct is is it a four car garage today oh no so it's a two car garage now and we would be adding um another bay

so it'd be like it almost be a four car garage because the bay door is it's 18 and 18 um so just so i understand it's a four car garage or the four they're not four cars uh parallel is two and two you

put four cars in a square uh the drawings are the best way to that's weird oh here here are the construction documents oh so you're adding a second bay you can enter yes and so you'll be able to

basically drive in you'll have four cars in parallel is that correct correct so you can drive in from the front instead of going around for all four correct and was there any thought to uh just making

this the first one deeper and you know i know you'd have to move one car to get the other car but have two entries and then two two cars side by side front and back as well we did go through like a b

and c schemes um but then we ended up landing here and then we thought of trying to go deeper this way but there's uh yeah that's what i meant yeah there's steep slopes and there's uh um wetlands

easement and then this is also just like so beautiful here it's a nice river so yeah the less we push back into that the better got it so that's how you end up going left i guess and that's where the

the variance is needed yes got it okay thank you thanks valon george any questions Yeah, this won't come out right, so I'll try to make it gentle. Okay, as Alan said, okay, it's only two cars now, but

you're making it four. Are there currently four cars trying to park at that residence and two of them are left out in the driveway? Um, I don't have Mr. Seymour's car count. I think he wanted to use

maybe a bay for storage, or he has an additional car that is, I know there's one sitting right here. So I'm not sure for the cars, the car count. Okay, yeah, I mean that's what I'm having a bit of a

tough time, you know, is a, you know, providing hardship to go from, you know, two to four cars in a bay unless, you know, there's, you know, real demand for it. But if that's what he needs, I

understand, okay, the revised layout and the pitch of the property. Yeah, when I did the site visit, I know there's a car here. There was a car parked here. I think that was his car, and then there

was two cars in here that was full, so I think it is a demand as well. Okay. All right. All right. That's it for me. Thanks. In storage, Matt. So I definitely see the hardship with the property,

right? The property has a lot more sloping and other things that we didn't see with the first two applications that you have here. So that's not my concern, but I do have a question. If you were to

comply with the side yard setback, how big of a garage could you build? Could you build a three car garage? Complying with the side yard setback, and we're asking for nine, it would be a three car

garage and just shy of four. It's just the extra few feet allow for the additional bay. Understood. That's all I have. Matt, you took my question literally word for word, but I know from the aerial,

it looks like neighbors are quite a far distance away, but any discussions with neighbors at all? Unfortunately, we did not hear back. We sent out the letters, but didn't hear anything from 107

Highline Trail. They seem to be the one closest, but yeah, I know we're looking at just the Google, but based on this, it's hopefully enough tree coverage. And I guess one more question. I'm hearing a

potential need of at least three cars, right? And that your client would potentially like to use the fourth bay for storage. Is there anywhere else within the building envelope that a storage bay

could be built? This is a tricky one because of, again, the site and then the wetland setbacks. There's not a lot of area to add. I wish Mr. Seymour was here. So I think he, again, he was very adamant

about the garage space. I think he wants to get into cars or he's collecting cars or it's some sort of hobby. So I think the garage bays are an important part of the request. Okay, to actually utilize

it. Yeah, for actual cars. Yeah. As opposed to storage of cars or just storage. Okay. But you think it's for utilized cars. Yeah. If I had to say, I would say primarily cars. Okay. Any other board

member questions? You mentioned you looked at other alternatives. I was kind of curious if you thought of putting another garage or the garage itself on the other side of the house. Seems like there's

a fair amount of room there. My aunt had just put in this from what I understand and then I got a small hot tub and then this would allow for less driveway being added. So, you know, we just thought

to turn it and then add the other bays. Okay. Thank you. Any other board member questions on this one? All right. Seeing none, Zachary, would you like us to go on this or deliberate on this

application tonight? Yes, please, please. All right. We will close out this application and proceed accordingly. Last but not least, we have 044-26. This is 118 Oak Long Avenue. David Berea is the

applicant. Kendall, do we have notification mailings? Yes. Yes, we do. Thank you. Planning board's letter, I will be reading into the record. Applicant owns a single family dwelling with a deck and

detached garage and is proposing to construct a 15 foot by 16 foot 111 square feet covered porch at the front entry. Applicant is requesting a front yard setback of 25.5 feet in lieu of the 30 feet

required and a lot coverage of 26.8% in lieu of the 25% maximum allowed in our 7.5 zone. It's the opinion of the board that the proposal is in general harmony with the intent of comprehensive plan,

RES1, residential single family, future land use category. Based on comprehensive plan alignment only, the planning board unanimously recommended the zoning board of appeals approve CBA application

044-26. The zoning board of appeals shall be responsible for determining whether there is an unusual hardship of the land, preventing the applicant from carrying out the strict letter of the zoning

regulations. I also have Engineering's memo dated October 13, 2006, EPP's memo dated September 28, 2006, and then I have the three letters of support from neighbors. The first one, I cannot read the

name of the neighbor, but I have the address it's 113 Oaklawn Avenue, 114 Oaklawn Avenue by Oscar Hernandez, and then I have 359 Oaklawn Avenue from Jordani Metellus. The applicant here with us

tonight. Hey, evening everyone. All right, David you may proceed. I'm going to try to share my screen real quick. It might kick me out to for some reason saying I have to reset Chrome. Kendall, are

you able just to share my presentation that I sent over so I don't get kicked out? I can try. I don't have it pulled up. Why don't you go ahead and get started. I'll see what I can do. Okay. All

right. So thank you, everyone. I'll just kind of go through. I just had three kind of quick slides going over the project scope. So essentially what I'm trying to do is install a covered porch in the

front of my house. We have kind of like a weird entryway where we have a front door in the front of the house, and then it's like a front door a and then a front door B. It's kind of like on the side,

but technically it's still in the front of the house. If we can get the presentation up, I'll kind of be a lot easier to see when I show the photos, but essentially we're going to try to build a porch

that goes from both doors. To connect into one giant kind of porch landing covered in front of the house. It will be about 111 square feet. This is exactly right here. So as you can see in the photo

on the left here, that's our front door in the blue. And then we kind of have this side door on the right hand side here. And the goal is to kind of create a deck just like this image that I included

in the presentation here. So it's just one giant landing way covered with the roof there. The image is kind of what the finished product will look like, but in the image right above the AI rendering,

that's the exact layout of the proposed porch. So like I said, it'll be about 111 square feet, 15 feet wide, 6 feet deep, and it'll be a shelter transition at the existing front doors facing Oakland

Avenue. Could you go to the next slide, please? Okay, cool. So existing site conditions and hardship. So we're requesting a 25.5 foot setback from the 30 foot requirement in the R7.5 district. And

requesting the 26.8 coverage allowance of the 25% maximum. Why the relief is being requested. So our front entrance basically faces a super busy street, Oakland Avenue. More speeding is a really big

concern. Although the posted speed limit is 25 miles an hour, traffic often appears to be traveling closer to like 30, 35 miles an hour, sometimes in the 40 range. With two young children getting in

and out of the car safely and entering a home has become a daily concern. The proposed porch will provide an additional buffer between the front entrance and the street, creating a safer, more

sheltered entryway while remaining consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood. We will also add some weather protection because right now there is no cover on either

entryways. And you guys can correct me if I'm wrong here, but the existing residence, I know it was built in 1952, which predates the established 30 foot front yard setback requirements. So

essentially the main concern here is Oakland Avenue is super busy. What me and my wife really want to do here, we do have a fence front yard. We want to add in basically a second layer of protection

to make sure our kids can't just sprint out the door. There's a lot of foot traffic on the weekends, really concerned about them opening the front door and just being able to sprint out. If they see a

dog walking by or a friend walking by, this porch will add a second layer of protection there and really give us that peace of mind. On to the third side, we did receive a pretty good number of

support from our neighbors. As mentioned before, we received three signed letters from neighbors just around the property. And then I also did receive one support text message from a neighbor from the

butters list. And the last thing I want to point out was all the neighboring properties. So 114 is to my left, 117 is across the street, 123 and 125 diagonal for me, and 126 is to my right. All have

some variation of a covered porch. So our goal with this project is to, you know, if you're new to Stanford, you're driving down Oakland, and you look at our house, you're not going to say, wow, that

porch is out of place. We want it to be conformed to the neighborhood standards and really blend in so nothing will stand out with this addition. And that's it for my presentation. I'll try to answer

any questions. Yeah. Thank you for your time. You're muted, Lauren. Sorry. Thank you, David. Any members of the public that would like to speak to this application, please raise your hand. All right.

I don't see anyone. You can start speaking if I haven't called on you. All right. We will open it up to board member question storage. Would you like to lead us off? Yeah, David, that looks great

presentation. It makes a lot of sense. And the fact that you're sort of out of compliance already because of when the house was built. Yeah, exactly. Makes a lot of sense. So good for me. Thanks. Name

storage, Alan. I think I'm good. I'm just kind of curious. Which door do you go in? You have one A and one B. One B because one A I don't have a key for. I bought the house, and then the keys for the

front front door. They both go to the same place. Yeah, same house. I don't know. Well, I'm in the same room. No, different rooms. No. So one goes into like a mud room. And then so one B goes into the

mud room and one A goes into the living room. Gotcha. Okay. That was it. Thanks. Good questions, though. Matt? So just to be clear, we're only talking about a covered porch. We're not talking about

building above the porch or anything. And this covered porch is open on three sides. Uh-huh. Yep. There'll be there'll be like a three foot railing and then two openings. And does it extend more than

six feet into the front yard? I think yes. So I think it's six feet flat. So it's that's I don't think it's more than six feet. I think it is six feet. Yeah. The only question I have, Lauren, is I

thought porches can go six feet if they're, you know, not if they're covered, if it's three sides and, you know, they don't need a harsh variance. But we could talk about that in the board. Probably a

question for Monica or Kendall if they're on and want to opine. Monica, you're on, right? Yes. It can go five feet into the yard setback. Can you say that again? You're a little echoey at the first

time. It can go five feet into the setback. Oh, five feet. That's not six. Right. So we're really only talking about a one foot variance here, really, because he's allowed five feet. Understood. Okay.

We should do that because then we would have just went down to five feet. Yeah. You might be already out of variance. So you're saying five feet into the variance. So he might already be a few. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you very much. Thanks, Matt. David, you thank you for submitting the letters of support. And it seems like your neighbors are a fan of you and of the project. Anyone

that you've heard that is opposed to us or had any concerns, questions? No, one of them basically said, why don't you just build it? And I was like, well, I can't do that. So everyone was important.

Sounds good. And okay, great. Any other board member questions before? All right. And David, you'd like us to deliberate on your application tonight? Yes, please. Thank you. Perfect. All right. We

will if no other questions, we will close this out and proceed to our deliberations. So just a reminder to the public, you can observe this process, but just please put yourselves on mute. Only board

members and Kendall and Monica will be our administrative staff will be able to speak. Yeah. All right. And Kendall is already getting me on track as to which application. Thank you. All right. So our

first one was Shadow Ridge. Right. Perfect. Great. And so this was the one that we had heard in June or July. Right. I don't know if I don't know if you all were on it, but I definitely was. I was

pleased to see that they narrowed the variances. There were, I think, five or six that they had previously come before us on. And now it's only it's only four, I think, three or four. I'd love to hear

all of your opinions as to this one. Yeah, I wasn't there at the June or July meeting, so I don't know what they previously did. But I will say I don't always agree with the planning board. But the

two planning board members who said that they're concerned about finding a hardship here, I tend to agree with. It leaves a less than six foot side yard, which is very narrow. And you'll have a twenty

one foot, you know, structure is just five feet from the five point nine feet from the neighbor when there is other buildable property. I understand it may not be the most convenient, but I do have

serious concerns about hardship here. And I'm, you know, curious to hear what my other board members feel. Well, the fact that the neighbor the neighbor had some some thoughts on it, I think it is a

little close to me. Right. It sounds like they're willing to work together to try to resolve the issue. So I don't know if there's something we could do in approval or not approval, but that is just

sort of a contingency to to sort of get that agreement in place. It is a little close. I agree with you. But if you look at some other homes on that road, they also are pretty close as well. So I

don't think it's that far out, but the neighbors concerns are are important to take into consideration. You know, I'm I'm with with Matt and and Alan met from the perspective of having having a tough

time seeing the real hardship there. But the fact that the neighbor expressed concern and the owner said we can work together, including a, you know, different windows and planting and whatnot. If we

could approve with, you know, those considerations as as rules for moving ahead. Hey, I think there's a possibility, but I'd like to hear more. Okay, Lauren, I'd like to hear, you know, how you're

thinking about that. Yeah, so I agree with your sentiment and in a perfect world, the applicant and neighbor would have discussed the issues before us before today's hearing and came to us with an

agreement. Right. All right. This is what we're asking for and we're agreeing to do it and we would build it in as a condition so that it wouldn't be enforceable. I'm zoning officer if if they so

choose with someone trying to speak. No. Okay, I thought it hurts. Maybe it's my own echo. No, sorry. No, my phone score. Sorry. But since there is no agreement and since the neighbor, right, really

doesn't know what the proposal is any conditions we would build in may not be sufficient to the neighbor or to the applicant, right? It would just be us kind of picking things out of thin air. So an

option could be we could continue it so that the applicant and the neighbor could try to discuss and see if there is some type of resolution here. Or alternatively, we could deny it and then they

could do that and come before us again. Right. I don't know. I also think there is an issue with hardship. So even if the neighbor is able to work something out, I don't know if I would even approve

it. So I think I'm leaning towards the side of just denial. Those are my thoughts. Yeah, I tend to agree. I mean, I lean towards denial here, even if they had an agreement. I appreciate Alan's point

about some others in the neighborhood having it. I was worried about creep though. Well, this guy had just then we give to the next one, to the next one, to the next one. You know, I have concerns,

like I said. All right. Anyone else have any further thoughts before it sounds like we know where we're voting or George, did you have further questions or wanted to propose an approval with

conditions? No, I always like following Matt because he comes up with terms that I couldn't remember, which is creep. Okay. It just it lays the foundation for further creep. Okay. With approval. And

that's a concern. You can call it a creep. I view it as fairness. It's like, you know, the timing thing that you're denied because of a new zoning regulation. I understand why those are put in place.

But from a fairness point of view, I don't view it as creep. I view it as not fair that my neighbor has it. I can't have. All right. Does anyone want to make a motion for a vote? I also move. Anyone

seconding? I'll second. All right. Matt, how would you vote? How do you vote? I vote to deny. Alan? So can I vote to continue it or what are the options on that? Yeah. So you can. You can. Well, you

would have had to move to not take a vote. So you seconded the motion to take a vote. And so, do you want to withdraw? What's that? Kendall? I said you can abstain, but you have to either say yes, no,

or abstain. Don't we use the... Wait. There's approval with... I'm sorry. Go ahead. Alan, I don't want to put words in your mouth. I thought you said you were trying to continue the application. Well,

I would have them bring it back to us. Yeah. I don't know if the denial requires a longer time period versus... I forgot what it is when we tell them... Yeah. An outright denial is six months. Right.

It's shorter for denial without prejudice. And if you continue, then it would be eligible to be reheared at the next meeting. But I think because we already motioned and seconded to vote, I don't

think we can continue at this point. Can I speak for a second? Yes. So what was the motion? Was the motion to approve? No, the motion to vote. It was a motion to take a vote. Okay. And correct me if

I'm wrong, Lauren, in order for this to move ahead one way or the other, it needs to be all four or gay, just... Okay. Correct. In order for it to be approved, it would have to be unanimous four in

any case. Okay. So I will vote to... What was, again, denial with prejudice? So they can bring it back. Can I ask a question to Kendall if she knows with regards to denials without prejudice? Sorry.

Since we denied this one in the past without prejudice, is there anything preventing us from doing that again? Not to my knowledge. No, you definitely... I think you can. And there are certainly no

limits to the amount of times that someone can apply. It's really more to their own time and expense, whether or not they want to apply again. Yeah. I just don't think it should be six months for them

to come back if they can come up to some resolution with the neighbor. That's kind of where I'm going with it. So I deny without prejudice. Okay. Matt, is your denial outright or with prejudice? I'm

fine doing it without prejudice, so they can come back sooner. The only thing I would note is I don't know that an agreement with the neighbor alone is going to be enough to move me. And I think you

kind of suggested the same thing for you, Lauren. But I have no objection to let them come back sooner. I'm always happy for people to rethink things and come back. Thanks. All right. So we have two

denials without prejudice. George? Denial without prejudice. Okay. And I'm also denial without prejudice. So that is a unanimous denial without prejudice for application 036-26. All right. The next

one is 042-26, 30, Denada Lane. This is the cantilever addition and the deck off the rear of the property. Anyone want to start off on this one? Yeah, I mean, I'm happy to always start whatever you

need to volunteer. My concern here is kind of what I asked Kenny, which is, you know, is there anything in the property that doesn't comply? And now the property is completely compliant. There's

plenty of space on the sides, either side. It doesn't want to move the AC units. I don't think that creates a hardship. I always want to tell everybody at the beginning of these meetings, like,

listen, you know, we have to find something that runs with the land and is not peculiar to your house or how you want it laid out or even green concerns, just that's what Connecticut law is. So it's

not that I don't like the proposal and I don't appreciate what she's put forward. I do. But I feel like to follow the law here, I think I'm opposed. Thank you, Matt. Yeah, and I'm looking at the

neighbor's house, which has a pool right under the property line, which is going to be a lot, is already a lot worse than what they're proposing. I believe this, I think that I understand the setback

from the rear property line is the issue with the zoning regulation here, but there's quite a lot of room with the space behind them with the other houses as well. So I don't have as much of a problem

with this one. And the neighbor to the left also has some sort of deck. Yeah, I wasn't hearing that there was any neighbor opposition to this one. And I agree with Matt that the applicant's

motivations for the proposal, you know, are sound great, right, to preserve the green space, to preserve the AC units and all of that, right. But that's unfortunately not what we're deciding here

today. So I just don't see a hardship as much as I, you know, would want to grant this application. There's just there's not an unusual hardship here. Honestly, if you if you built on either side of

the house, you'd be closer to the other houses than if you built out towards the back. And you probably would be, I don't know what the setback is, the requirements on the sides, but it seems just

about the same as the back. I'm looking at the house here. It's right in the middle of the square. So I'm not sure that you can build on any side of it without a zoning issue, without a setback issue,

I should say. And it seems like the back of the house seems like the best option. Okay, that's your opinion, right? Every applicant is not entitled to a variance or entitled to expand their existing

home. They have to have an unusual characteristic with their land. Can I ask a question? I'm not trying to dissuade you guys any one particular way, but am I understanding y'all's interpretation of

hardship doesn't include like the dimensions and the size of the lot? Because that's, I'm hearing. No, it definitely does include the size a lot. But what what I understood Mr. Frederoli to say is, it

meets everything, right? It meets the coverages, it meets the, you know, frontage, all those things it meets. So it doesn't, here there isn't one, but if there if there was a sub-size lot, it would be

a hardship. No, the hardship he mentioned was it was, it's a square as opposed to a rectangle. If you look at the other lots, a lot of them are rectangular. There's more room in the back. This one

doesn't. No, but it still meets the minimums. It still meets the minimum of the district. That's, it was a square that was smaller in some way, hardship, 100%. I would have to double check. And again,

this is not me trying to persuade, but I thought that there was a conversation about lot coverage and it being very close. But I'm, now I'm seeing not, I don't see a variance for this. Maybe I'm

thinking of something else. Do I have any other, any thoughts? Well, you know, I'm betwixt and between on this. I appreciate the owners, you know, concern about preserving green space and, you know,

upsetting as little of the apple cart as possible. Okay. But our job is to define a real hardship. Okay. Those are the rules. Okay. And there isn't a real hardship here. Okay. And, you know,

emotionally, I would like to say, I see where you're coming from, but you know, we got sort of a set of rules we have to work with. And to confirm this is way, this is well within lot coverage. So

they're good. Sorry, that was my mistake. I was confusing it with something else. Right. Okay. Does anyone have a motion they'd like to make? Sure. I'd move to vote on the application. Thank you,

Matt. Anyone seconding? I'll second. All right. Thank you, Alan. Matt, how do you vote? Against. Deny. Okay. Alan? Approve. And George? I'm almost leaning to deny without prejudice, but, you know, you

know, if she could come back with something else, but can I say deny without prejudice or should I just say deny? It's up to you. I'm not, I can't say you one way or the other. It's your vote. I would

deny without prejudice, which would give her the opportunity to come back sooner if she wanted to. I'll do. I'll do in Georgia, though. All right, Matt. I'll also deny without prejudice. So that is

three denied without prejudice and one to approve. And so that is denied without prejudice. Next up, we have zero four three dash two six. This is 30 Windermere Lane. This one is the four bay garage.

So this one, there is a hardship. Right. There's definitely a hardship with with land. You have all sorts of slopes and wetlands and that sort of stuff. When we grant a variance is supposed to be the

minimum necessary. And, you know, is a four car garage necessary when you could you could build a three car almost four car garage. I honestly don't know where I feel on that yet. I would like to hear

my board members views on it. You know, I'm in favor of finding a hardship. I just, you know, do you grant the full variance requested? I mean, I'm thinking I'm thinking if, you know, the guy really

needs a four car garage, then the way it's been laid out and presented, it makes sense because, you know, the architect has done as much as possible to enable, you know, four cars to get in there if

that's the real need. But if the need is really so I could get four, but I'll use one for, you know, space, you know, that that's sort of another story. Yeah, it would seem like the three car garage

would be would be fine. And that would that would not require a variance. So I don't know. I'm a little on defense on this one. Interesting. I did not see that coming out. So I think I'm a rubber

stamp for them. No, but just, you know, it's an interesting take. So I heard from Ray the architect seems to understand that the applicant needs for or but but he was saying I really wish the

applicant was on. I was almost inclined to say, perhaps we continue this and ask that the applicant be on and actually explain why he needs for base. And then we're able to ask questions to the

applicant, because I feel like our questions kind of put the architect in an awkward position of saying like, well, this is what he asked me to do, but I'm not actually sure if he needs it type of

thing. And I don't know if I'm confident granting that. It would be a minimum necessary. I'm hearing that it may be, but I don't really know. I don't have enough information. So I was thinking maybe

this is one where we could mean obviously it have to be all of us, I think, right. We have to all be on the same page. So, I don't know. Yeah, that would be just that we're continuing to next the next

regularly scheduled meeting. November, they would they could just come and explain why they need it and we could prove it down or deny it them. Okay, I get behind that. I can agree with that too.

Okay. I'm just glad we're not having to, this is silly, but that we're not having to approve what's going on Greenwich, the corner of North Street and Maple Avenue, an 18,000 square foot home with

room for 38 cars. Really? Yeah. Yeah, I think that would be denied here. Yeah, I think so. All right, so do we have a motion to continue this one? Continue. Great. So I heard a motion and a second.

So, was it Matt that motioned first? Alan motion I'll second. Alan motioned. Okay, Alan how so how do you vote on the motion to continue. I guess I approved the continuance works in favor. Yep. And

then Matt, I'm in favor of the continuance. Okay, and George in favor to continue. And I'm also in favor to continue. So that's four affirmative votes to continue this to our next regularly scheduled

meeting, which right now is November 18, I believe because our regularly scheduled meeting is veterans day. So it's the following week for everyone's schedules. I don't believe we're meeting again in

two weeks because we don't have anything else. Right. You, Lauren as the chair can call for a meeting on that makeup date of the 28th if you guys want to do that. I don't know if we have enough people

right because I think we still have four I think when I tentatively asked you guys for availability. We only had four for the 28th. I, you didn't. I mean I think you may have asked me and I think I.

Yeah, I know you said yes and I'm actually not available so I don't think you'll have me. I'm sorry to ask I should know that I don't think we have one. So, I would have to point one for that which

I'm fine with. If you guys want to go. We can do that if one of you other three want to be vice chair. I don't actually I don't know man if you can assist your alternate. We don't want to do that

tonight, hypothetically. All right, so I also I feel like it's kind of short notice to say our applicant you have to be available in two weeks. Yeah. Um, so I think it makes sense to just do it the

regularly scheduled meeting in November. Anyways, that's not something that I heard there was any time pressing issues on so, um, yeah, my, my call is next month. Any, um, any. Alright, so those were

our applications any other board business we have one more. The front porch at covered points. New entrance way before the application we have 044-26118 on Oakland Avenue. Yes, the front porch for the

two front doors. Yeah, I'm in favor of this, it seems like it almost could be approved without a variance is it, but for a foot or so and where the current houses. So I think it's entirely consistent

with the zoning regulations. I'm fully in favor. Yeah, I am as well and very good job of the homeowner in prison, presenting this as well. I agree. Yeah, I thought he did a great job. So, I'm in

favor. Anyone like to take a motion. Second, George, I heard you first. How do you vote? Approve. Great. Matt, I heard you second. How do you vote? Approve. Alan. Approved. And I am in favor. So that

is for in favor, zero post. And so this is approved. 044-26 is approved. Great. We get all the applications. Sorry about that. Did not mean to leave that one off. And other board business we have our

proposed schedule of ZBA hearings and regular meetings for 2027. I see as on our other board. Business has everyone taken a look at that and had any concerns or revisions. I'm sorry, what was that? We

have our proposed schedule of hearings for next year. That was published by, I think Siobhan sent that out to us. Siobhan would have sent that. I'm sorry, I should have had that ready to go for you

guys. Give me a moment. Has everyone taken a look at that? I took a look at it. It's the same schedule that we have been adhering to. We haven't changed up in any way. It's the second Wednesday of

every month. The fourth Wednesday of every month is considered the optional meeting. You have to say we have a special application that's time sensitive, you know, zoning enforcement appeal or

something like that. And then we have August off, like usual. But if you all haven't seen that yet, maybe we should continue that until November. If you guys haven't taken a look at it, I would

probably. I don't think it came over just by itself. I want to say she sent it with the with something else. Maybe not. Yeah, I'm not saying I'm going to. Or maybe I only looked at it because it was

on the agenda, which could have been, you know, see that. Yes, yes. There you go. So, yeah, like Lauren said, we stuck with the same Tuesday or second Tuesday Wednesday. Second Wednesday. Sorry, I

served two different boards. They're all blurring together. And we cross track fees again, Stanford Public Schools schedule, major religious holidays, election day, stuff like that. So it's generally

pretty good. It also looks fine for me. Great. Could you just scroll down, Kendall, for November and December? I just want to make sure. OK. Yeah, you may not. At this point, I can't. I don't know my

schedule that well, but it seems fine with me. It's good. Do we not do the board optional meetings for November and December? No, we haven't been doing this. And just as a general note, guys, I think

there was some confusion when people have availability issues. Please try to communicate any anticipated accesses to both myself and Siobhan as well as Lauren. I know some people when they join think

that they have to either communicate it to Lauren or to even the mayor's office. And sometimes communication doesn't make it back to me. OK. And that is kind of how we got in a situation with our

other new members not being appointed correctly, because I have no idea what's happening. But yeah, generally, as long as you guys are communicating proactively about your availability, we're good.

We'll make it work. We have two new appointees in the pipeline right now. Let's just hope they're appointed. So they're going to the board of representatives on October 28th. So hopefully they'll be

able to join us through November. How many how many people will see on totally on the committee or can be handy? They're supposed to be five regular members and we have up to three alternate spots.

But because our quorum is higher than most other boards, that's what makes it so much harder for us to get together. Like even zoning board only needs three. It's five and any and any meeting and then

three can step in if somebody can make it. But the vote is always has to be at least four. Is that correct? At least four to vote. Correct. We can have three. No, no, not to vote to hear things, but

we can't vote. And what I I find that a little bit redundant to like have that meeting anyway and then have a fourth person just come in and vote. Like I would rather just wait until we have the

ability to vote. Yeah, yeah. So the vote has to always be unanimous or can the vote be four to one? It can be four to one. Okay. Okay. Yeah, Alan, you haven't seen I don't think a full board. Yeah, I

missed one. I missed one meeting as well. Yeah. Okay. Do you want to do on a vote on the schedule because I don't have a problem with the schedule if you want to vote on it. If everyone's comfortable

taking a vote on it. Great. Okay. Yeah. Alan, I'm hearing a motion to vote. George, are you seconding? Yes. Yes. Great. So Alan, how do you vote? In favor. George. In favor. Matt. In favor. And I'm in

favor. So the new schedule has been approved. And last but not least, our approval of our September meeting minutes. Um, Kendall, can I make a motion to continue those because of the question that we

are having regarding. I think that would be something. Yeah. All right. So I'm going to move to continue these, the approval of the minutes. And anyone seconding that? Sure, I'll second. All right.

And so I vote to continue. Was it Alan that seconded? Sure. George. Agreed. Continue. And Matt. Agreed. Continue. All right. Great. Any other board business we need to discuss at this time? Yeah, I

was cut out there for a while, so I'm not sure if I missed conversation. Who else, there are two other people who are supposed to be approved by the board? So if you guys recall, Anton, who joined us

last month, there was a bit of a mix up with his appointment. And he was mistakenly appointed to a seat that didn't exist because they didn't they didn't realize that Jerry had been made a full

member. They thought he was still an alternate. So they assigned him to the incorrect seats. So that has not been rectified. He's being reappointed hopefully at the October 28th meeting. We also have

another prospective candidate who's also going to be going out for approval. I've already met her. She's great. So hopefully that works out as well. For a full seat, right? So Anton's going to be

appointed to the alternate seat. I believe so, yes. And then I think our new person will be the last sole member. I should probably double check that. But Jerry is a full member? Yes. Yes, Jerry. He

was made a full member back in like January, February. Right. And Ernie is still an alternate? Yes, correct. Okay. And Matt, okay. Yep. All right. Any other questions before we make a motion to

adjourn? Thank you all for being so flexible and patient with this process and really appreciate Matt, you know, stepping up as an alternate and making this meeting work. I'm glad my deposition ended

early so I was able to make sure. Yeah, thank you so much. Yeah, take care everybody. All right. Thank you, Matt. Seconding. Second. Thanks. So Matt, you are in favor of your journey. Alan. Yes. Yes.

Torch. Yes. All right. Have a good night, everyone. Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. Bye-bye.