Okay.

Good evening.

This is the March 24th meeting of the Stanford Planning Board.

And we have a full house of our membership today.

The first item on our agenda is the planning board meeting minutes from March 10th.

Are there any questions or clarifications about the minutes?

This is the mask.

So I'm maybe looking at the wrong bit.

Yeah, the minutes from uh March 10th.

Um I don't see it, but maybe please go ahead.

Okay.

Uh well, um, so we uh all were present, um, so can vote.

Um do I have a motion on the minutes.

Uh chat motion for approval.

Do I have a second?

Second from Jeremy.

Um Ravi, do you want another minute?

Or yeah, I'll abstract because I somehow don't have the top yet.

Okay, sure.

That's fine.

All right.

Uh so all voting in favor, please raise your hand.

Thank you.

And uh we'll have the abstention from Robbie.

Uh next on the agenda, uh zoning board of appeals referrals.

Uh first to ZBA application 1526.

Nicholas L.

Faustini, architect PC representing Mari Ruiz, 29 Congress Street variants of appendix B.

Table two, schedule of requirements.

Applicant owns a single family dwelling with a detached garage and is proposing to construct a one-story addition to connect the existing basement to the first floor residence.

The applicant is requesting a front street setback line of 5.1 feet in lieu of the 25 feet required and a front center street setback of 30.1 feet in lieu of the 50 feet required.

Um do you have a presenter on this item today?

I know we don't always for ZPA.

Uh I did see that Mr.

Faustini is here.

He's allowed to just unmuted himself.

Um so if uh Nicholas, if you'd like to say a few words about your application, you're welcome to do so.

Um, but it is not necessary.

Certainly.

Um just attending to answer any questions the board might have.

My name is Nicholas Baustini, I'm the design architect for the project.

Um, it's a rather small addition.

Um essentially squaring off the rear corner of the house.

Um it's a front side yard.

I'm sorry, it's a corner property.

So there's a front yard setback request or variance requests.

And the intent behind this project is to align the addition with the existing wall, which is already um existing non-conformity.

If the board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Um are there questions from the board?

Again, this is aligning with the existing non-conformity.

Um seeing no questions.

Uh do we have a motion on this item?

Uh Bill.

Uh are you uh approve.

I don't give a second.

Second from Ravi.

All in favor, protect your hand.

Uh and it passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

The agenda is ZBA application 0162C26.

Arsim Hadari representing Roberto Bravo and Marcella Barza of 245 Skyview Drive.

Variant of appendix B table two, schedule of requirements.

Applicant owns a single family dwelling with a garage and deck and is proposing to construct an addition over the existing garage.

The applicant is requesting a side yard setback of 8.1 feet in lieu of the 15 feet required.

Uh Lindsay, do we have a presenter for this item or no?

Yes.

Uh the applicant our sim Hajdari is uh able to speak, and it seems like he's they've unmuted themselves.

Hello to everyone.

My name is Arsim Haidari, and uh I'm contractor in charge, which were uh we pretend to build something about the garage.

And uh we come to the variance because we are uh maybe as you see in the drawing, uh we are just eight feet and one inch uh close to the property line uh from this side of the house.

Uh we're gonna build that additional on top of the garage.

We're not gonna do any extension.

Uh so we're gonna stay in the same in the same foundation, but uh that that additional legal service just like an office.

Uh uh, I don't know what to say more, just I'm here to answer to any question if uh any of you have.

Okay, I agree.

Thank you.

I mean, I need the ZPA referrals are often quite straightforward, so no need to go on at length.

Um, so like the previous application, uh there is no um it's staying within the existing non-conformity.

Um unlike the previous application.

I wondering whether like the necessity of of this variance, um, and question whether or not there's ability to do this work within the setbacks, such as the other work that's being proposed that's being built as of right within the setbacks.

Uh so the property is built like that.

So the structure of the house uh is just it do not let them uh build a big office how they want it because there are three people in the house and uh three of them they're working from home and they need a big office, and uh close with that additional because it's a centrum from the back side, which is inside of the property line.

Uh so inside of the setback line, and uh but it's not it's not connected to how they want it.

So that's the reason how they want to they why they want to like to to build that above the garage because uh in the other side they are all the the bedrooms and uh it's it's hard to deal with the structure, definitely to make an big office how they need it.

It's like around 600 square feet uh office.

That's how the garage is okay.

Um Lindsay, did you have any further comment on the application?

Um yeah, I I would recommend that you maybe reach out to um Kendall Richie uh to the applicant, maybe to reach out to Kendall Richie to speak to her before you get this to the zoning board of appeals um to speak to uh hardship of the land that is the basis for requesting a variance.

Um simply because the house is built that way, which I I actually think it's an existing non-conforming, not legally non-conforming condition.

Uh is not grounds for granting a variance at the zoning board of appeals.

Um so I I would recommend that you work with Kendall Richie to develop the necessary arguments that you need for granting this variance.

Um at the at the planning board level, what we're looking for is compliance with the comprehensive plan.

And uh as I stated in my memo, with or without this variance, uh the house complies with the comprehensive plan.

Um there are other homes that have similarly built on top of garages in this area, but I've seem to done it in a smaller uh it's exactly so the neighbor from the from the if I'm not wrong, in front, uh if we if we see in front of the house from the left side, uh it they have exactly the same thing.

So they are uh same houses, just the garage they are in opposite sides, and they build an additional uh exactly on top of the garage.

And not long time ago.

The question is whether or not they needed a variance to do that, though.

So, and also grounds and and this is a little bit for the ZBA.

Um yeah, uh, but because one person did does it does not cause precedent for another person because it's based on a hardship of the land, um, which is unique to each individual property.

But as as we said, so I mean, uh we're not indicating anyone with the without additional.

So we're not bothering anyone, we're not close to the street.

Uh yeah, we are eight feet one inch from the neighbor, but there is a very tall tree between us, and uh I think uh this is this those guys there are people who they like to live forever over there, and uh they will like that.

So they want the house back.

They said on uh soon they start working from home, so they hear each other in the small office over there, and uh they do not have a place when when to work, so that's why that's it's it's real necessary for them.

Otherwise, they have to look for a commercial space and go out to to find out to work.

Um behind the house is built at the deck, actually.

So they they do not have any option, or just they have to uh just demo their master bedroom and do something, but uh it's it's gonna be real hard, and I think the I think and actually I talk with my architect, and that's the best way to make that house works with uh with an additional on top of the garage.

So if we if we try to stay inside of the property line, is not gonna be so is gonna be very tiny.

Well office.

The houses to the two next door have done staying within the property lines, 253 and 261.

If you look at an aerial view, but I'm yeah, I'm I don't have that as I said, comprehensive plan wise, it's gonna be a single family house either way.

Yes, they they do they do not try to to make them to family house.

So as I said, they're uh they they try to keep the house works just for them.

They want a single familiar house, they don't want uh to make the house bigger to sale or rent or nothing, they just want for himself, and that's uh uh I mean the Mr.

Bravo is not here, but uh since I'm representing him uh it's it's a person as I said, he wants to retire over there.

Um so point is taken that the desire to build this is not itself a hardship of the land.

Um, and as the planning board, uh our question is is this consistent with the comprehensive plan?

Which may be a different question than whether the ZBA determines that um the variance is necessary.

Um are there questions from the board or motion on this item?

Uh Robbie?

Uh motion to appoint.

Okay.

I have a second on that motion.

Uh second from Chut.

Um all in favor of approval.

Okay.

So the motion passes.

Um, and then it goes to ZBA.

Thank you.

Um next on the agenda is ZBA application uh 01826.

Um Adrian and Jennifer Arango 3 St.

Charles Avenue variants of section five uh X4 development standards.

Applicant owns a single family dwelling with a shed and is proposing to construct a 400-foot square foot addition.

The applicant is requesting a front yard setback of 17 or 19.7 feet in lieu of the 30 feet required.

Um Lindsay, do we have that an applicant present?

No, no, we don't.

Um I know there's a call-in number, it does not match the owner, the number that's listed on our application.

So I'm gonna think it's fair to assume that that's not the uh the owner here.

Okay.

Um so no, we don't have anybody here.

Um if you'd like to comment on what's in the memo.

Yeah.

Um, so this one was uh this one was a little tricky.

It needs a few more variances than are what are listed.

Um so to get that on the record here.

Um it also the proposed application requires a variance from the street center line setback, um, in addition to the front yard setback variants requested.

Um given the information that we have, I wasn't able to determine the exact measurement.

Um, but since they don't have the street center line on any of the plans, um, but when they before they go to the ZBA, they will need to figure out that information.

Um, but the variance required from the property line is you know, the building would be the same place, it's kind of the same measurement, it's just taken from different endpoints.

Uh, this is in res one residential single family.

Um this I noted in my um memo that this does appear like a significant extension of the non-conforming setback again.

There's the question of whether or not it could be accomplished within the zoning envelope within the area that's permitted.

It's a little bit more constrained on this lot, um, which is I believe, yeah, which is a corner lot.

Um, and the applicant notes that uh this extension is for to help support uh multi-generational living, which in the past I have noted is aligned with the comprehensive plan.

Questions or comments from the board.

I'm just reading the um application uh motion on this.

Oh, it can you hear me?

Yes, yes.

I was saying I was just reading the uh application and it does talk about it's not infringing into or just not increasing the current enclosure encroachment.

Um it's not you know impeding into the street or anywhere else.

Um this is a 1921 house, you know.

Uh so it's pretty hard to say that whatever helps us to be maintained without any additions and alterations, and uh they're asking for a 10 feet variation, I think, without increasing the footprint of the building.

So I'm inclined to support it.

Uh they they are increasing the footprint of the building here.

Um yes, and I I'm I wouldn't say that they um I'm really just asking if and as we should ask all variants applicants if they can accomplish the objectives within the divine zoning area, they should try to do that first.

Um so that's that's simply what I was stating.

Not that a 1920s home should always stay forever the way it is.

Yeah.

Um any other I'm saying how do we fix how do we assess that whether that 400 square feet can be achieved in a different different manner without any variance.

I mean, is there any should we do it or the owners?

No, the the applicant should should be able to speak to that or um have that in their materials, but they don't.

Yeah, why don't we ask them the applicant to give us the full information before we vote on this?

You want to table the item?

Yes.

Um, so that would so motion to table the item.

Yes.

I have a second on that motion.

Second from Ravi all in favor of tabling the item for the applicant to further review.

Raise your hand.

Before we we vote on it.

Okay, sure.

Can I uh seek clarification on the motion?

Um so what are we asking the applicant to do?

To bring in specifically what information.

Um Lindsay said they're missing some information that would clarify uh why they need this, and there's some other missing information.

We probably shouldn't be approving incomplete application in for uh applications, and we could bring this back next time.

Okay.

I think this was a need that we do achieve the same objective, it'll be coming full dispedience and the one of us to order the presentative is to explain to us why it is possible or not.

I think that is what there.

I mean, there there is.

I mean, it's structurally technically feasible to place this in a different position on the site that would be it appears entirely within the same addition, um, would be entirely within the the existing setbacks.

Um, but whether it maintains the relationship with the existing structure for whatever function that exists that they're trying to accommodate, um, we can't speak to uh or or even conjecture over.

So uh I'd be interested in hearing more if if we in fact do table this uh what whether whether there is a kind of an internal functional relationship that requires them to have placed the addition exactly where they did.

Um I I think that that makes sense um because it does seem like the alternative is a is a bit theoretical at this moment um and as stated having multi-generational living um expanding is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

So again, the the motion is to table the item um with the expectation that the applicant um clarify uh the impact of uh a configuration that uh would uh be within uh existing footprint um or the bounded zoning area.

Okay.

Um, because there's not there's not a hardship of the land that is pushing the property in a certain way, right?

Okay, so that is a motion on the table.

Um so with that clarification.

Um can we vote on the motion?

Okay, uh, and so I'll move approval to table the item uh for the applicant to return with.

Okay.

Um next on the agenda is ZBA application zero two zero uh two six.

Oh wait, actually, this one was this one pulled.

Um yes, that was the one that was pulled.

So now I was looking at the memo instead of the updated agenda.

All right.

Um next, uh ZBA application 02126.

Um Michael E.

Johnson representing Nestor Pasmino 47 Ferris LLC at 47 Ferris Avenue variants of appendix B, table two schedule of requirements.

Um applicant owns a single story 1,230 square foot uh commercial slash industrial building and is proposing to construct a second story addition.

Applicant is requesting a lot coverage allowance of 28.1% in lieu of the 25% maximum required allowed, b a front yard setback of one foot in lieu of the uh 25 feet required, uh butting Harvard Avenue, C a front yard setback of 19 feet in lieu of the 25 feet required.

Um existing vestibule Ferris Avenue and D a rear yard setback of 23 feet in lieu of the uh 30 feet required uh at the rear stairs to the property line.

Uh is the applicant present to speak to this item.

Uh no, the phone number does not match either of the phone numbers listed on the application.

Um I will note that there are a few variances that need to be added to this application before it gets to the zoning board of appeals.

Um that's two variances from the street center line setback on Harvard Avenue and Ferris Avenue, respectively.

Um variance to allow for three off-street parking spaces to be in the front yard between the building lines, and a rear yards, the rear yard setback that Jennifer, you noted in um letter D of the agenda item.

Uh should actually be a front yard setback variance.

Umilar to the last application that we heard.

This seems a little bit unclear uh as to what's happened on this site.

Um, so this is a his is an old building on a corner lot built right up to the property line.

So they're really really in the setbacks, extremely legally non-conforming.

Um essentially they want to just build right up.

Um however it is currently used as a rug cleaning business.

Um, it's in the residential two neighborhood future land use category.

Um, whereas a dry cleaner might be considered a good neighborhood use, a rug cleaning business might not.

Uh, it's got large equipment and machinery.

Um like a neighborhood amenity.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, and in addition, it appears that they've made some modifications to the building without any approvals, including widening the curb cut, um, paving over and adding parking spaces where they're not permitted.

Uh enclosing uh what used to be an entry vestibule and adding in garage doors into the side of the brick building so that they can back up a van to get the rugs in and out.

Uh so I think this would much be better suited as a use for commercial large format retail, which is right across the street, which kind of helps this application a little bit.

Even there's some industrial flex up nearby.

Um, you know, it's hard.

This is this has obviously been a semi-industrial building used for a very long time.

It's an established neighborhood, so this is kind of a well-established relationship.

But whether the question of whether we or not we want to allow that use to expand, which they would be expanding their operations, that's the question.

And whether or not expanded operations of this use in an R2 area is aligned with the comprehensive plan.

That's really the the question here.

Um I I think be uh I think because they've done some things without asking permission, it does not speak well to the uh to the neighborlyhoodness of the business.

Um having a curb cut that is so large, paved over with front yard parking spaces is a pedestrian hazard.

And people could be walking to the grocery store that's in the large format retail across the street.

So it's just uh it does not uh does not make me think that it's going to be really that kind of neighborly business that is what the future land use category calls for in this uh in this neighborhood.

Um it sounds like given the errors as well as what you've cited about the uh expansion of this use.

I think our options are either a move for denial or a move to table the item.

Jen, what would be the basis for tabling?

Uh well, I mean, I'm not saying that there necessarily is any.

I'm just noting that approval does not seem like an option.

I mean, in the last application, the applicant wasn't here to speak on the application.

So that was that was the little bit of the basis.

Right.

Well, I mean, I think that was like necessary.

This is more egregious than the other.

I think the other we could see a possibility of like a functional reason why the variants would be needed.

It just wasn't clear in the application.

This has a lot of other elements going for it that yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, like they there's a chicken coop in the back corner that's non-conforming that they're gonna take away, which is a good thing.

Um 47.

Is there no one right here um available representing the uh applicant in this case?

No.

Okay.

And again, no, you know, uh we're on referral, and it's ultimately the final decision in the ZBA.

So the question is with the information we have before us, is this consistent with the um with the future land use category?

Well, staff seems to suggest um that it is not if I if I've understood the the both written and the oral commentary.

Bill, I saw your hand.

I was gonna move denial based on the various reasons that Lindsay gave.

Okay.

Um denial due to incompatibility with the comprehensive plan category and the number of zoning related violations.

Um that motion.

Um second from chat.

Uh all in favor, take your hand.

And the motion carries for denial.

All right.

Um next on the agenda is ZBA application 022-26.

Um, Lyle Fischle, um official architecture representing Paula W Green, uh 53 Archer Lane variants of appendix B, table two schedule of requirements.

Appendix owns a single applicant, apologies, owns a single family one-story dwelling and is proposing to construct an addition to the dwelling.

Applicant is requesting a side yard setback of 14 feet in lieu of the 20 feet required and a total side yard setback of 31.9 feet in lieu of the 35 feet required.

Uh, do we have a I'm here.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

All right, excellent.

This should be an easy one after the ones I've just heard about.

Okay.

Uh this woman has a mobility problem.

And if you look at the plans, I put an existing plan of the condition of the bathroom, which is got a shared tub and a sink and toilets kind of separated by a wall.

Um, so she just is really looking for a little more mobility, functional bathroom, and also a little privacy from the rest of the house because this is the main bathroom.

And hence, I guess the way it was designed that way.

I've never seen a bathroom design this way before.

Okay.

So um really uh and it's it really is the minimum that we could do to give her that off of the existing master bedroom.

We are only uh when added together just a couple of feet off the total uh setbacks that would be required from both sides.

And um we've already come to you once with this long ago, but you didn't have enough people to vote on it.

So we're back to and we have reduced the size.

We were going to also increase the bedroom that was the front of the house, but we have now reduced the size just to um add some a little walk-in closet for her, uh uh some linen space and a bathroom that would be functional.

So it's uh pretty simple, straightforward.

And she has no previous violations as far as I know.

Okay, so we're good to go.

I would have made sure to get them while I know you would have no doubt.

No doubt you would have been on top of that.

Okay.

Uh questions or comments from the board.

Jeremy.

Yeah, I I do have one.

Um, you know, it it looks like that this addition in in its scale, and and now that it's just a a bathroom could be you know brought within the setback lines on the property.

So the question of what would be the impact of doing it within the existing setback?

Yeah.

Okay.

one um you know it it looks like that this addition in in its scale and and now that it's just a a bathroom could be you know brought within the setback lines on the property so the question of what would be the impact of doing it within the existing setback yeah okay um we have looked at the cost uh ramifications of going out to the rear um and also the fact that um it would be much more difficult to tie into the existing plumbing because where we're putting her shower is now where the existing tub used to be and then we're moving the tub over so we're just trying to pick up some existing utilities and and not lose a master bedroom with a beautiful window that looks out to the west so um you know this is this is her goals and uh her wishes so we looked at the different options and said this is the best option let's go with it and and see what we can do with it okay thank you you're welcome um any further questions um do I have a motion on this item uh Robbie uh what do approval move for approval um lindsay since there is not a hardship of the land do we need to cite a specific reason for uh recommending the variance we just care that it complies with the comprehensive plans all right yeah so um so it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and uh supports uh a objective in the plan of promoting aging in place and the variance also is um it's not a huge variance uh do we have a second on that item second from chat all in favor trace your hand and it passes unanimously thank you all right thank you okay so that brings us to the end of our agenda this evening um the next regularly scheduled planning board meetings are april 14th april 28th uh and may 5th uh with that we adjourn everybody thank you good night it is 7 eleven bye