2026-10-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals

00:13as long as everyone is with them.

00:15>> No, I wasn't I wasn't at the last

00:16meeting. So, we don't have

00:18>> Okay.

00:19>> We don't have all

00:21>> We didn't re You don't have to be at the

00:23last meeting, but

00:25>> yeah, we can continue that to the next

00:27meeting.

00:28And at 6:35 we have public hearing a

00:32variance 108

00:35MP road Kevin LeBlanc

00:40and then 6:45 another public hearing

00:44variance

00:46152 Main Street

00:49and that's for NBM Reality LLC.

00:54Uh we have town planner updates,

00:57old and new business and John Men.

01:03>> I'll have the board introduce

01:05themselves,

01:06>> Steven Basamato, [clears throat]

01:08Tom Welch,

01:09>> Dallas,

01:11>> Liz Banks.

01:15>> Okay. Um

01:18this new with the

01:21>> Are we going to do the minutes or not?

01:23We'll wait till the next meeting.

01:24>> Yeah. Yeah. Because you know I wasn't I

01:27wasn't

01:28>> the last This is minutes from June,

01:31right? June or July.

01:32>> June 17th.

01:33>> June 17th.

01:36>> So move that to the next.

01:38>> Wait, are you going to find it?

01:44Looking for Yeah. Yeah.

01:52Thank you.

01:56And it's

01:58>> What time is it?

01:59>> We have a few minutes.

02:02>> 6:35. [clears throat]

02:05>> I can um I'll save the town planner

02:08update until the end, but I can briefly

02:11introduce myself and um

02:13>> just give a brief context for the

02:16meeting this evening. Um so I'm Aiden

02:18Adams. I'm the new town planner. It's my

02:20first meeting with the ZBA, of course,

02:23taking over for long-term planner Jean

02:25Bubon. Um, this evening we do have a

02:31quorum present. Um, so we have four

02:33members uh out of seven total. Um, which

02:36means we're able to open the meeting and

02:39open the public hearings.

02:41uh but we do not have what's called a

02:43super majority which is a 23

02:48um majority of the members. We would

02:50need five members present for a super

02:53majority. Um and a super majority is

02:56required to take any action on a

02:58variance request. Um it's longstanding

03:02law uh just to ensure that you really

03:05have full membership present when you're

03:08acting on uh these variances. Um, so we

03:11do not have that present tonight, which

03:13means um there will be no um action

03:17taken on either of these variance

03:19requests. Um, but we will open the

03:23public hearing as soon as uh the time

03:26allows us, which is 6:35 for the first

03:28one and 6:45 for the second variance.

03:37All right.

03:43And just because we still have another

03:4530 seconds, um I'll say when we open

03:48these uh public hearings,

03:51um I would encourage any public comment

03:55um that anyone wishes to make. Um, and

03:59the Mullen's rule allows any members

04:01that aren't present to review all of

04:03that public comment and um, it would be

04:06a part of the record for the next

04:08meeting when the meeting is continuing.

04:10Um, so we won't prohibit anyone for

04:13making public comment, but I would still

04:15encourage anyone who makes public

04:17comment tonight. Um, if you can make it

04:20to the next meeting, um, when this

04:22matter is, uh, eventually continued, um,

04:26then we would encourage you to attend

04:28that meeting as well and make that same

04:30public comment when there's full

04:32membership of the board present.

04:35Um, so I will turn it back over to the

04:37board.

04:38>> Okay.

04:40Um, in accordance with the provisions of

04:42Mass General Law, Chapter 4A, section 10

04:45and section 11, the zoning board of

04:47appeals will hold a public hearing on

04:49Wednesday, October 21st, 2026 at 6:35

04:54p.m. at the center office building

04:56located at 301 Main Street, Sturbridge,

04:58Mass 01566

05:01and or by virtual means if circumstances

05:04warrant in accordance with the

05:07applicable law on the application of Ken

05:10Leblanc for the property located at 108

05:12Mashbog Road. Pursuant to section

05:15300-18.2

05:18two of the zoning bylaw. The applicant

05:20is requesting a variance from article 14

05:23intensity regulations section 300-14.2

05:29table of standards which requires 150 ft

05:32of frontage in the rural residential

05:35district to allow the division of 108

05:38Mashpag Road into two lots. the existing

05:41house lot having 150 feet of frontage

05:44and the new lot having 131

05:49feet of frontage for the building of a

05:52new house. All other zoning requirements

05:54and setbacks are to be met. The proposed

05:58requests may be viewed at the town

06:00website or arrangements can be made to

06:03view the application

06:05and plan by contacting the Sturbridge

06:08planning department. Any person

06:10interested or wishing to be heard on

06:12this proposal should be appear at the

06:16time and place designated. This meeting

06:18will be conducted in person and may be

06:22conducted via remote means if

06:25circumstances warrant and in accordance

06:28with the applicable law. This means that

06:31members of the public body as well as

06:34members of the public

06:37may be may access this meeting in person

06:40or via virtual means. Every effort will

06:43be made to ensure that the public can

06:45adequately ac access access the

06:48proceedings in real time via

06:50technological means. In the event that

06:53we are unable to do so despite best

06:56efforts, we will post

06:59of the town's website an audio or video

07:02recordings, transcript or other

07:04comprehensive record of the proceedings

07:06as soon as possible after the meeting.

07:10Diane Trapaso, chair, Sturbridge zoning

07:12board of appeals.

07:15>> Thank you.

07:19So the the public hearing is is open,

07:22right?

07:23>> Yeah,

07:24>> we are going to

07:25>> and we're going to receive testimonies

07:27as well.

07:28>> The public hearing is open. So, um I

07:30would invite um if they wish the uh

07:33blank family, the applicant um to the

07:36podium um I've spoken with them briefly

07:41um and explained that I will make the

07:43recommendation that we continue the

07:45application

07:47um and that their presentation is

07:49probably best served uh for the November

07:5218th meeting. Um they still did want to

07:56make an appearance. um uh show face here

08:00at the meeting. Um so my recommendation

08:03would be um you have any questions of

08:07the applicant, you can ask and then I

08:09would um ask if there's any public

08:12comment and then at that point my

08:14recommendation would be to uh continue

08:17the meeting and when you're ready for

08:18that you can ask me for a proposal.

08:22>> My name is Kevin B and this is Kenn. So,

08:26we've identified that Massachusetts is

08:28in need of housing with all the recent

08:30changes to submit chapter 4.

08:38>> It's just cuz you're too close.

08:39>> Remote a bit forward.

08:40>> Is this good?

08:41>> It's cuz we're recording.

08:45>> It's a horrible.

08:46>> Yeah, I thought it was someone's phone,

08:48but all right. Um, so we understand that

08:50Massachusetts has a housing crisis.

08:52There's a a need for change, a need for

08:54more housing. We see at the state level

08:56with all the variance changes um the

08:58affordable care act and all the way down

09:00to Sturbridge which came out with their

09:02housing plan where they're saying that

09:03the need for new housing is so we have

09:05108 matchog which uh according to our

09:09our variance we're proposing to split it

09:12such that there's 150 ft. So where the

09:14current house exists that would be a

09:16conforming lot and then the variance

09:17would take care of the second lot which

09:19would be 19 ft short of the

09:22requirements. Um, so we're requiring a

09:25frontage reduction

09:28in order to make that happen.

09:31I

09:31>> think one of the things to keep in mind

09:33is just, you know, sturbage.

09:35[clears throat]

09:36Few years ago, I live in Charlton and in

09:38Charlton they increased the road

09:40frontage from 125 to 175. So on a

09:44particular development, we lost 13 lot.

09:47So they said, "Well, why are the prices

09:49going up?" Well, because you had the

09:51[clears throat] the requirements go up.

09:53So, we lost lots. They said, "Yeah, but

09:55you're you're pricing our police, our

09:57teachers, our firemen, our uh DPW

10:00workers, and everything out of the

10:01market. We like to have them live in the

10:03town that they work in, but with the the

10:06changes in the zoning, they can't afford

10:08it." So, now we're looking at the same

10:10thing. You know, you talk about

10:12affordable housing, which this isn't, by

10:15the way, but by somebody moving up from

10:18a starter home to a second home, you

10:20know, square footage wise and and

10:22bedroom count wise, you're freeing up

10:24the affordable housing unit. So,

10:26although it's not a big huge development

10:29where we're bringing in all kinds of uh

10:31you know, housing and stuff, there's a

10:33need for that medium range housing in

10:36Sturbridge. Sturbridge probably says I

10:38looked at Zillow and uh today and you

10:40know a lot of the houses are priced at a

10:42million dollars. Well,

10:45not a lot of people that can afford

10:46that. Know what I mean? So that's

10:48basically I think what Kevin and I are

10:50asking. Um

10:53I don't know if you have any questions

10:55or concerns about it. It's 19 ft which

10:58is from here to the to the wall that

11:00we're asking for, you know. I mean um

11:05Right.

11:09>> Yeah. Do you do you have any?

11:11>> Uh I don't have any questions at this

11:12time.

11:13>> I don't have any questions either.

11:15>> Uh you have any questions?

11:17>> Yes.

11:19>> I always do.

11:20>> Is Is the lot divided already?

11:23>> No.

11:24>> So it hasn't been divided at the

11:26registry of deeds?

11:27>> No.

11:30>> Um

11:33>> let me see.

11:36And the lot cannot be divided unless

11:38they receive this variance request.

11:41>> Cannot be divided into a buildable lot.

11:45>> Okay.

11:53>> Yeah. So this is under the new law. This

11:55is our first

11:56>> Yeah.

11:57>> application under that law. So yes,

12:00>> we're learning the process.

12:02>> Yeah. And it's a change and you know we

12:04are trying to take the first mover

12:06advantage where you know we see the the

12:08housing plan and

12:10the goal is to get more housing and more

12:12options. I mean that the housing plan

12:14you know is trying to get mixed use

12:16housing uh different options and so we

12:19see this as you know the first case

12:21scenario of coming forward and saying

12:24hey this is one of the options that the

12:25varian provide of saying hey this is one

12:28idea to create more housing.

12:31Well, on the ballot question, I think

12:33it's question seven where they're

12:34talking about in the state, you know,

12:36going to uh 50 ft of frontage. Uh, of

12:39course, it hasn't been approved or

12:41anything, but that's the thinking.

12:42That's the general consensus is, you

12:44know, things have gotten crazy out of

12:46hand prices. You know, start a couple

12:49starting out just can't afford an

12:50$800,000 house in most cases.

12:54So with this proposed,

12:58you still you still have

13:01about an acre. You still have about an

13:04acre.

13:04>> Yeah. So it meets all the other zoning

13:06requirements of the rural residential.

13:09>> I think it's

13:10>> So what's

13:13what's currently

13:16why do you need the variance and the

13:19setback? Why

13:21>> the we're in a rural residential area

13:24which requires 150 ft and with the lot

13:28split we only have 131 to give. So we're

13:3119 ft short. So the variance is to allow

13:34for that reduction of the frontage.

13:36>> Yeah. All the setbacks will meet all the

13:38setback requirements. It's just the

13:39frontage requirement.

13:40>> Yeah. Because I'm I'm I'm looking at

13:43that's that's the lock, right?

13:44>> Yeah.

13:45>> Okay. So, what I'm seeing, I'm seeing

13:47all that,

13:50you know, and I'm wondering if you

13:53pushed it back, wouldn't that still No.

13:58What do you have at the back? That's

14:00that's what's what's at the rear of of

14:02the property.

14:04>> Can you say that again? What's the what

14:05>> what's at the rear of the lot? Is it

14:07>> the rear lot line?

14:08>> Yeah,

14:08>> the rear lot line. What's the What's the

14:10measurement in the back?

14:12>> Oh. Uh,

14:13>> not divided.

14:15So, there's nothing behind this lot. I

14:17believe it's it's uh the river that runs

14:20back there.

14:21>> Yeah. No,

14:22>> what's what is the

14:24>> Oh, it's uh 211 ft.

14:26>> That's for the whole thing. What's just

14:27for that one lot that you're making

14:30>> that I don't know because I don't

14:33correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't

14:35know if there's a a ruling on how far

14:37the rear frontage needs to be. the the

14:40rear uh term rear frontage wouldn't

14:44necessarily apply here. It's just a rear

14:47lot line.

14:48>> Um the variance for frontage only

14:50applies for technical frontage, which is

14:53where the access to the road is.

14:56>> So, um

14:57>> I I was just curious how where it was

15:00split.

15:00>> Is the root of your question like why

15:02can't you take the 19 ft from the back

15:04line?

15:04>> Correct.

15:05>> Yeah,

15:05>> that's that's what I'm asking. that

15:07what's what's prohibiting going into

15:09that backside 19 ft more like I guess

15:12that's what his question is.

15:14>> There's no access.

15:15>> Gotcha.

15:16>> Uh because the house of buds uh let's

15:19see you know the name of that

15:21>> what's preventing the back from being

15:22fur. You know what I mean?

15:23>> There's no road frontage back there and

15:24it goes back to what's the park in South

15:27called?

15:27>> Oh Westville. Westville. Yeah. So it

15:30buds Westville. Um so there's no

15:32frontage or anything back there so we

15:33can't take it from the backside. We'd

15:34love to, but can't build a road, Joshua.

15:39So, everything has to be on the Mashog

15:40road side.

15:54>> So, we did get some Do you have Do you

15:56have

15:56>> No, go ahead. I'll ask it after the end.

15:59>> Okay.

16:01Uh we did get some memos. Let me go

16:06through what we have.

16:10So we have a memo from the board of

16:13health

16:15and from their perspective

16:18[clears throat]

16:20all is set from the health department

16:24but they would recommend locating the

16:27private drinking water wells

16:30on

16:32108 and 110

16:38and view the 100 ft the 100 foot setback

16:43new septic systems for

16:47for development visibility.

16:51So that's the comment from the board of

16:53health.

16:55>> I didn't hear you when you talked about

16:59110 that's what what about by

17:02>> Yeah. So it says um

17:06>> so it's just saying that according to

17:08the bylaws the septic field has to be

17:11100 ft away from any well. Um so I think

17:13the board of health is recommending to

17:15locate the wells of 108 and 110 in any

17:18neighboring to make sure that wherever

17:20the house is built plus where the septic

17:22field is located does not interfere with

17:27the well. Does that make sense?

17:31At this point, uh it would be my opinion

17:34the zoning board doesn't have to uh make

17:37that determination.

17:39Um but for us to appropriately subdivide

17:42this lot, um we would need to see that

17:45on a proposed site plan, the location to

17:48ensure that,

17:49>> you know, we're we're subdividing and

17:52creating a lot that is going to be

17:53buildable.

17:54>> Yeah,

17:55>> correct. And we understand that with a

17:56buildable lot, you have to make sure

17:58you're um passing title 5 and that

18:00there's a location for the well. So, we

18:02are we are understanding of that.

18:05>> There's no town water and sewer on Mash.

18:07No, I wish

18:12>> uh we

18:14from the fire department say no concerns

18:19and

18:21conservation

18:23uh say conservation approval is not

18:25required

18:26for the proposed property.

18:30However, any future land disturbance may

18:33require a review from conservation.

18:38And finally,

18:41from the

18:45from the building inspector. No concerns

18:47as well from the building inspector.

18:56You have something else you wanted.

18:57Well, I was just going to ask,

19:00we're not closing the public hearing.

19:03We're continuing it.

19:04>> I would make a recommendation that you

19:06take this time to ask any more

19:08questions. Ask if there's any uh

19:11questions from the public and then I

19:13would recommend you continue this

19:15>> continue. Yeah, we could.

19:16>> We don't we don't have the

19:18>> double check it.

19:19>> Yeah.

19:21>> Yeah. I don't think I have any more

19:22questions.

19:25Are you

19:26about us? You are

19:29>> okay.

19:36>> Okay. Do you do you have questions? Do

19:42>> All right.

19:44You guys

19:49Thank you.

19:55Hi guys. [laughter]

19:59>> Your address?

19:59>> Kristen Clark, 110 Mashup Road. Um, my

20:04concerns are when we bought our property

20:0820 years ago. We bought it for reasons.

20:10We knew we had a house on the right and

20:12a house on the left, never thinking

20:14there would be another house very close

20:17to me. But my concern with this,

20:21if you guys know Mashup Hug Road, we're

20:23at the tippity top of Mashup Hug Road

20:25and it's a hill. It's comes down from

20:28the junkyard down.

20:31We had to put a French drain in front of

20:33our house. We had to put perimeter

20:34drains around our house. There's a lot

20:37of water running off. My concern is if

20:40they're building next to us, taking down

20:42trees, disrupting all that. I have a

20:46septic system pretty close to that lot

20:48and I'm afraid it's going to flood. I'm

20:51afraid my property is going to flood if

20:53he starts disrupting all the the land.

20:58Um,

21:01so I guess that's my concern. Um, there

21:04is a house currently at 108 that is in

21:07shambles. Um

21:10I'm not understanding why that's not

21:13being fixed before they start building a

21:15new one. Um but more my con the biggest

21:20concern is the flooding the disrupting

21:24of my property building so close.

21:30>> Okay.

21:31>> Is can I just is are you if you're going

21:34towards Southbridge is it on the right?

21:36I mean the left. Yes. And it's like at

21:40the very tippity top of the hill.

21:44>> Um Mary and Terry, 102 Master Plug Road.

21:47Um and I I know that I've seen uh my

21:49grandmother's property um when neighbors

21:52made minor changes. It all came onto my

21:55grandmother's propert. We had flooding

21:57problems and water problems in our

21:58basement. We never had it. So with this

22:01land of being settled for so long, my

22:03biggest concern is for Kristen and their

22:05family. They got grandkids all over the

22:07place and just minor changes can make a

22:10big impact on a lot of different things

22:13that people aren't aware of. And I'm

22:14concerned about the after effects if

22:16this goes through changes that are made

22:18all of a sudden even down the road that

22:20she's going to find she's having

22:21problems with the septic or the well or

22:23the redirection of the water and messing

22:25up the drains and just creating problems

22:27that she may not have even been able to

22:30anticipate because nobody expected that

22:32area to be disturbed in that manner.

22:37conservation.

22:38>> Sometimes the effects are down the road

22:41um and they're not immediately noticed.

22:46What what department does that that's

22:49not also right?

22:51>> Um

22:53those usually conservation right

22:56>> DPW

22:57>> or DPW

22:58>> it could uh it would depend on the

23:00thresholds um that would be triggered

23:03based on the placement of um the home.

23:06Um at this point in time the request is

23:10solely for the variance of frontage. Um

23:14so we're not entirely [clears throat]

23:15we're not you know at the applying for

23:17the building permit phase yet where we

23:20know um you know where septic system in

23:22a house is going to be located and what

23:24the you know the uh envelope and area of

23:28disturbance would be. But um if that

23:31hits any of the appropriate triggers um

23:33as Lauren uh the conservation agent

23:37indicated in the memo, it could

23:38potentially trigger um a land

23:40disturbance review.

23:44>> And it's not, as you can see, it's not a

23:46very wide strip. It's it's long and

23:47thin, so there's not a whole lot even

23:49with the the driveways and where you're

23:50going to put the well and septic. It's

23:52not like you can spread it out. Um, so

23:54there's there's a lot of chance for

23:56problems to cause and obviously step one

23:58getting the variance would then lead to

24:00the approval for all of these other

24:02things to happen. Um, so trying to stop

24:04the variance so that we don't have these

24:06problems um and her property doesn't get

24:09damaged because of it is what we're

24:11looking to protect. [cough]

24:14>> All right. Thank you.

24:16>> Thank you. Thank you.

24:27Um I think I think they can

24:30>> you you may certainly can you got

24:33[clears throat] you got to come back up.

24:34>> Yeah.

24:34>> Yeah. Uh we understand their concerns

24:37and you know we're conscious of that but

24:40um that's what engineers are for and the

24:42DPW and you study the aquifer how the

24:45water's running. was it running south,

24:47north, east, west, underground and

24:49things like that. So that um all the

24:52anytime you build a house like I built

24:55several houses on South Street just off

24:57of Bash Pog Road and you run into the

24:59same things. Um the frontage is actually

25:03a lot of frontage. Uh Southbridge has

25:06100 foot frontage so that houses are

25:08sitting on 100 foot instead of 131 ft.

25:11So uh but all of their concerns can be

25:14met in the building process. and in the

25:16application in the uh you know the plan

25:19reviews and everything. So uh we are

25:22conscious of that. Anytime you disturb

25:24land or build a house you have to be

25:25conscious of that and uh how you affect

25:28everything the neighbors the

25:30neighborhood and and things like that.

25:32But um that's in any case, anytime you

25:35build a house, I don't care if you have,

25:37you know, 250 ft of frontage, you still

25:39have to go through the same steps and

25:42the diagrams, the engineers, the

25:44surveys, the plot plans and all of that.

25:47So I just um we understand it, but it

25:50happens on [clears throat] every house

25:51that you build.

25:53>> And again, we're we're meeting all other

25:55setbacks. So, the side setback, the back

25:58front setback, all other setbacks are

26:01going to be met with this property. Um,

26:02it's only the change in the frontage.

26:04And so, like you said, we'll we'll go

26:06through the proper steps to make sure

26:07that there's no water that gets into

26:09their house or we'll mediate it if there

26:11is a study that comes out and just says,

26:13"Hey, you may want to create this. Um,

26:15we'll abide by it."

26:17>> Well, in the same thing, I mean, under

26:18different sets of circumstances, you can

26:20now with the new laws on ADUs, you know,

26:23you can put an ADU there. It's a

26:25building structure, the same basic

26:26thing, 900 square f feet. You still need

26:28a septic, still need Well, you can

26:31actually use the septic of the existing

26:33property. But my point is is that

26:35there's, you know, there's other things

26:37that could pop up and, uh, a single

26:39family house is not the worst. It's

26:41probably the best. So, um,

26:45okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All

26:49right. Um

26:53the public hearing is going to remain

26:55open right fortunately we can't vote on

26:59it because we don't have a decision quum

27:04so

27:06uh recommendation is going to be to for

27:10continuation to the next meeting which

27:12is going to be November 18th right

27:15>> recommend continuing

27:18uh the public hearing until November

27:19mber 18th at 6:45

27:22p.m.

27:25>> So, someone wants to accept the motion

27:27and accept the motion.

27:31>> All in favor?

27:32>> Who made the second?

27:34>> I'll second it.

27:38>> I volunteer.

27:40>> What was the date? November what?

27:42>> November 18th at 6:45.

27:43>> 6:45 November 18th. We're going to

27:46continue.

27:46>> Okay. And you can also, you know, Yeah.

27:51Thank you.

27:51>> If you left your email on the signin

27:53sheet, I will email everyone as well.

27:58>> Okay.

28:03>> No problem.

28:03>> Thank you so much.

28:05>> Appreciate you guys coming.

28:20sold

28:22and run right into the next one.

28:25>> They're not here.

28:27>> The applicant is not here. Um, but that

28:29is because I advised them they did not

28:31need to attend if they did not wish to.

28:35>> Um, they would have made every uh intent

28:38to appear, but I said it just wasn't

28:40necessary.

28:41So, we're going to open and continue

28:44right away.

28:45>> Y read the legal notice.

28:47>> Wait, [clears throat] is it 6 what time?

28:50>> 659.

28:51>> So, we're going to open the public

28:53hearing for another variance. And this

28:55is 152

28:58Main Street

29:00>> and it's for NBM Reality LLC.

29:07So, if you can read Yes, you can read

29:09the

29:09>> In accordance with the provisions of

29:11math general laws, chapter 4A, section

29:1310 and section 11, this zoning board of

29:16appeals will hold a public hearing on

29:18Wednesday, October 21st, 2026 at 6:45

29:22p.m. at the center office building

29:24located at 301 Main Street, Sturbridge,

29:26Mass 01566,

29:30and or by virtual means if circumstances

29:33warrant. in accordance with the

29:36applicable law on the application of NBM

29:41Realy LLC for the property located at

29:44152 Main Street. Pursuant to the section

29:47chapter uh I'm excuse me section

29:49300-18.2

29:51of the zoning bylaw. The applicant is

29:54requesting a variance from article 4 use

29:58regulations

30:00section 300-4.3B

30:042A and a section 300-4.3B2B

30:10multifamily dwelling allowing via

30:13special permit provided that it does not

30:15exceed four dwelling units

30:18and provided that there is not less than

30:2220,000 square ft of lot per dwelling

30:25unit to permit the construction of two

30:27multifamily buildings each containing

30:29seven dwelling units with 19,418

30:34square ft of lot area per dwelling unit.

30:38The proposed requests may be viewed at

30:40the town website or arrangements can be

30:43made to view the application and plan by

30:46contracting the Sturbridge planning

30:48department. Any person interested or

30:50wishing to be heard on this proposal

30:52should appear at the time and place

30:54designated. This meeting will be

30:57conducted in person and may be conducted

30:59via remote means if circumstance warrant

31:03and in accordance with the applicable

31:06law. This means that members of the

31:08public body as well as members of the

31:10public may access this meeting in person

31:13or via virtual means. Every effort will

31:16be made to ensure that the public can

31:18adequately ac access the proceedings in

31:22real time via technological means. In

31:26the event that we are unable to do so

31:28despite best efforts, we will post

31:32of the town's website an audio or video

31:36recordings, transcript, or other

31:39comprehensive recording of the

31:40proceedings as soon as possible after

31:43the meeting. Diane Trapaso, chair,

31:46Sturbridge zoning board of appeals.

31:49>> Thank you.

31:51Um,

31:54so we

31:56essentially have the same issue as the

31:58first one. It's a variance. We don't

32:00have

32:02we don't have uh any decision forum and

32:05the applicant isn't here.

32:10So,

32:13we're recommending that, right?

32:17>> Yeah. If there's no public comment, um,

32:20which there doesn't appear to be,

32:21>> okay,

32:25>> then uh I would recommend uh that the

32:28board continue um this public hearing to

32:32November 18th at 7:00 p.m.

32:36>> Before you do that, I have a question.

32:39Um, is it can you before the next the

32:44continuation of this hearing, can they

32:47have a plot plan showing where these

32:49apartment buildings are going to be on

32:50their lot

32:53cuz it's not in any of the stuff that I

32:55couldn't find it. Um it should be

32:58contained within but I can confirm that

33:03I've reviewed multiple iterations.

33:10>> We have this but it's not it doesn't

33:12have all the buildings. It just has two.

33:17>> There is an existing condition 104.

33:22the closest thing that I saw.

33:34[clears throat]

33:39I would feel that your question is

33:41answered by a combination of the

33:43existing conditions plan and the layout

33:45plan.

33:47Um, the layout plan sheet C104

33:51has the

33:53uh detailed site plan for the location

33:56of the two new buildings.

33:58>> It doesn't have the what's existing on

34:00the property right now though.

34:02>> That is indicated on the existing

34:04conditions uh two sheets prior. I don't

34:08know if they have a single sheet that

34:14>> Yeah. Like, are these two going exactly

34:16where the buildings are now?

34:19>> No, they're going to the rear.

34:22>> Wait a minute.

34:26>> What's the second page that you

34:30>> So, first you want to look at sheet

34:31C102.

34:35>> Okay.

34:41>> Sheet 102. C102 is the existing

34:45conditions.

34:47See the two apartment buildings uh that

34:50are there

34:51uh currently each with six units

34:57>> and then if you turn two pages to see

34:59what

35:00>> I I see that can be can they just have

35:03it on one sheet

35:07>> with the existing and the new?

35:09>> They should be able to do that. We can

35:11make it a lot easier for us.

35:14>> Yeah, we can request that they make that

35:16a bit more clear. Um I can see that

35:20>> on further sheets they are overlaid

35:23together but um

35:27it just due to the shading it's uh can

35:30be a bit difficult.

35:31>> Yeah, the topography and the

35:33>> Yeah. without all stuff.

35:35>> Yeah. It's their their site plan is so

35:39detailed,

35:40>> right? Uh that it can be a bit see the

35:42shading

35:47>> and that was my only request for the

35:52>> So there's four of these going up,

35:54right? Is that what their plan is now?

35:57>> Um there's two existing and they'll be

35:59putting up two more buildings.

36:00>> So the two existing that are there now?

36:03>> They don't look like that.

36:04>> No, they definitely don't. two sixunit

36:06buildings now and they're going to add

36:08two seven unit buildings to the rear.

36:11>> Okay. But

36:12>> to the rear?

36:14>> Yeah, that's what I'm you know

36:15>> that doesn't make sense.

36:16>> Yeah, I behind them, but I don't know

36:18how you would get

36:19>> it. It's a cliff behind them.

36:22>> They're built into the grade. I've been

36:24to the site. Um

36:28but

36:28>> across from Derraria we're talking

36:30about.

36:30>> Yeah,

36:32>> I thought they were building them in

36:34front. Yeah, me too.

36:35>> They're not putting them in the front.

36:37>> No, they're they're to the rear of the

36:39the part of the the buildings that are

36:41existing.

36:45>> Then they definitely need to have a

36:46sheet with existing and the new on one

36:51plan, one sheet.

36:53>> We can look at it together um after the

36:56meeting and see which sheet would be

36:59most helpful to highlight.

37:00>> Um it is shown. It's just uh shaded a

37:04bit uh different.

37:07>> Okay, that was

37:11>> so now we've got a close I mean continue

37:14>> the continuation

37:16>> to No, I think you're ready. So

37:18continuation to November 18th at 700

37:22p.m.

37:22>> Right.

37:25>> Uh motion to

37:30second.

37:30>> Second. Okay. All in favor.

37:39>> Okay. So, next on the agenda is uh comp

37:43plan update.

37:46>> Okay. So,

37:48as we are all aware now, there are new

37:51variance criteria.

37:54Um so

37:56the two materials that I've included in

37:59here are um first this info pass from KP

38:05law um which details

38:08um all of the amendments to chapter 4A

38:13that were uh recently

38:16um changed in the fiscal year 2027

38:19budget bill. And the second document is

38:25um that I included was the actual track

38:28change version of the variance

38:31standards. So you can see on sheet one

38:35is what was there historically it's been

38:38crossed out.

38:40Sheet two shows the track changes uh and

38:43then sheet three shows how it's written

38:46today. So you can read the variance

38:49standards uh however however way you

38:52prefer. Um but what both of these

38:55documents show and what's most important

38:58for uh the ZBA right now

39:02is that the um variance standards have

39:06been completely changed. Um

39:10so historically um variances could only

39:15be granted based upon significant

39:18hardship and there were set criteria

39:20that are you know detailed and now your

39:24key ruling um and the the variance

39:29standards favor the well the the

39:32language says the ZBA shall grant the

39:36variance as long as it can

39:38standards whereas it used to say the ZBA

39:41shall deny if it you know has any of

39:44these you know soil or topography.

39:49Um and that balancing test now is

39:54um that the zoning board of appeals is

39:57now required to weigh the benefits to

39:59the applicant against potential

40:01detriments to um the public.

40:05And that is done by showing whether

40:07strict enforcement of the um zoning

40:10standards results in practical.

40:14So that's your key finding is this is

40:17granting

40:19um sorry not this granting the strict

40:22enforcement of

40:25um the bylaws or ordinances result in

40:28difficulty for the and if you can prove

40:31that uh that strict enforcement

40:34uh say the example of frontage variance

40:39request um if the board finds that

40:42strict enforcement of um our frontage

40:46requirements results in a practical

40:48difficulty then you have to grant the

40:50varant.

40:52Um that's not to comment on that

40:54application this evening. Um but that's

40:57just an example.

40:59Um so this is confusing uh even for

41:04planners

41:05uh and I'm I'm sure that there's going

41:08to be a lot of debate over this in the

41:10coming years. Um, I am willing to answer

41:13any questions you may have. Um, but at

41:16this point, I think the best advice I

41:18can give is to, um, sit down with this

41:22KP law um, info pass and then sit down

41:26with this track change version and read

41:29it a few times between now and the next

41:31meeting. I know myself, I've read this a

41:34dozen times before it really started uh,

41:37to make sense. So, um, that would be my

41:41recommendation. Um, whenever you have a

41:43little bit of time, read this through.

41:45If you have any questions, let me know.

41:47And obviously any questions right now.

41:51>> Okay, that's well said. So

41:54just to further your example,

41:58if the applicant

42:02can't meet the

42:05minimum setback

42:07because if it does, it would mean maybe

42:12building over a cliff or maybe encroach

42:16encroaching on wetland or stuff like

42:19that. That that would be that would be a

42:20difficulty, right? I mean those be

42:22considered difficulties if there's

42:24something that prevents him

42:29from

42:31using the example of a setback right if

42:34we have a minimum setback of

42:37you know 150

42:40and

42:42>> mean frontage

42:43>> frontage yeah you know minimum minimum

42:47frontage of 150 and they are requesting

42:50a variance of it example because if they

42:53were to push it back

42:56they're going to be encroaching on

42:57wetlands or maybe there's a rock behind

43:00or something that just makes it really

43:02difficult for them to do that that would

43:04be an example of one of these conditions

43:06right

43:07>> I I would say it would be an example and

43:10um a way to kind of think about uh

43:14whether it's example or not is um in the

43:18variance standards uh it says the zoning

43:21board to make this determination.

43:24Uh a board may also consider and then it

43:27gives you um these four um points of

43:30consideration. And I think when you're

43:33unsure and it's not a determination is

43:35not immediately clear, it is very

43:37helpful to take the variance request and

43:42weigh it directly against each of those

43:44four requests.

43:46Um, so when we're thinking of an

43:48example, I don't want to use either of

43:50the two tonight, just so we're not

43:53discussing them

43:54>> after the public hearing has been

43:56continued.

43:57>> Um, but some more straightforward

44:00examples that I've been using are um,

44:05you know, uh, I'll I'll give two

44:08examples of

44:10um, practical difficulty because that's

44:13kind of the key word here. strict

44:15enforcement result in practical

44:17difficulty.

44:18That's an easy finding to make, but it

44:21changes based off of what your

44:22definition of practical.

44:25Um, so I think a a good example of this

44:30is when we're thinking of practical

44:32difficulty,

44:34um, is this self-created?

44:37Um so if someone is requesting a

44:39variance

44:42um and it's this variance is due to a a

44:45condition a site condition that the

44:48applicant has created because of prior

44:50applications

44:52um you know prior subdivisions or prior

44:56um variances or special permit requests

44:59and now they are left with this

45:02technical difficulty that's you know a

45:04dimension whether frontage or minimum

45:06imum lot size um then a further variance

45:10I would say in most cases is not a

45:13practical these should have been

45:15considerations that they had at a prior

45:17point in time whereas your example um

45:21Fidelis

45:23if we're enforcing this bylaw and there

45:25has been no other prior action and you

45:28know we're forcing them to develop

45:30further back in the site but there is a

45:32natural wetlands there we are

45:36potentially creating practical

45:38difficulty for them um by not allowing

45:41them to develop

45:43uh naturally if there if there wasn't a

45:46zoning.

45:48Um and another good example would be

45:50economic incentive. Um, so just because

45:53a developer has economic incentive um to

45:57build something more efficiently,

45:59obviously it's much more cost effective

46:01to put 10 units in one building as

46:04opposed to 10 single family homes. Just

46:07have your, you know, your marginal

46:09utility by,

46:11you know, building efficiently.

46:14um just because that benefits a

46:16developer's cost uh sheet and you know

46:20they may make the case that um we don't

46:23receive this variance

46:25um

46:27uh for XYZ then it's you know it's going

46:29to make this project financially

46:31unfeasible. um that's not a practical

46:34difference. But if um you know the

46:38enforcement we're placing upon them by

46:40applying our our zoning bylaw

46:44um forces them into some other

46:46constraint um such as a wetland or

46:49environmental feature

46:51um then I would say that is a practical

46:54difficulty because we're imposing this

46:56upon them and um they wouldn't be able

46:59to develop otherwise which is a

47:01different type of

47:02um development as you know this is not

47:06financially

47:08it's the developer's responsibility to

47:10prove that a project financially for

47:13them and that does not always have

47:17very long- winded response but and I'll

47:21be able to make these uh recommendations

47:24more clearly in the future but uh just

47:26for me those are the types of um

47:28examples that are going through my head

47:30as you're really you're taking the

47:32application in one hand and you're

47:34taking these standards um and even now I

47:37just side by side I'm just comparing

47:40them.

47:42>> All right, sounds good. Thank you.

47:53>> Okay, so um

47:56that's it. Do you have any other

47:58updates? That's

47:58>> No, no other updates. Um uh in the

48:01meantime between now and um the next

48:04meeting if anyone uh has any questions

48:07about the variance standards or any of

48:09the other updates uh in the KP law info

48:13pass I'm willing to discuss them. Uh the

48:17last update I would have is obviously

48:19our next meeting is November 18.

48:23>> Any old business? New business? Nope.

48:26No.

48:31Um, someone want to move for motion by

48:34John Bank.

48:35>> I'll make a motion we adjourn.

48:37>> I will second that motion, Liz. All in

48:39favor?

48:45>> All right. Thank you.