Okay, good evening.

Welcome to the Stanford Planning Board regular meeting for Tuesday, May 19th, 2026.

The time now is 637.

We have myself, Vice Chair Jeremy Linder, Member Chet Sallett, Member Ravi, Subverminier.

And I'm drawing a blank here on the terminology.

Alternate.

Lay and Drew McKay.

The first uh item of business on our agenda is the review and approval of the meeting minutes from May 5th, 2026.

Who the members that were present are able to vote.

Is there any comments, questions, or amendments to those?

No.

No.

Great.

Do I have anyone willing to make a motion?

Chet.

I'll move approval of the minutes.

I will smell a person, so I absent myself.

I'll second.

It was absent from that meeting as well.

So do we have a quorum?

Uh if Jeremy, if Jeremy involves himself in approving, then yes, that that's sufficient.

All in favor to approve.

Great.

Great, thank you.

Moving on to the next item of business is subdivisions.

Subdivision number 4056.

Sanford Lane.

Request for a 90-day extension of time to file the final map with a new expiration date of August 19th, 2026.

Alright.

And the applicant, I told them that they did not have to come.

This is not really that big of an issue.

And in fact, with our revision of the subdivision regulations, we might look into making this an administrative approval.

So it doesn't have to come before the board.

It's just something that they can run by me or the land use bureau chief.

And yep.

So that's it on that.

If you have any questions, happy to respond.

Great.

Thank you, Lindsay, for the explanation.

Yeah.

So given that there doesn't appear to be too much discussion or question.

And we still need to um take action on it.

I'll make a motion to uh to approve the um request for 90 day extension.

And seconded.

Great.

Thank you, Chet.

Ravi, all in favor?

Yeah.

Great.

Passes unanimously.

Moving on to the next order of business, zoning board appeals referrals.

CBA application number 028-26.

Cliff and Anna Blaze 75 C Beach Drive variants of section 5.x.4 development standards.

Applicant owns a two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage, pool, and deck, and is proposing to construct a 374 square foot addition to the existing dwelling to provide an accessible first floor bedroom and bathroom.

Applicant is requesting an allowance for lot coverage of 51.6 49.5 is the existing in lieu of the 40 maximum allowed in a R10 zone.

And uh friendly reminder before we um let the applicants speak.

Uh the planning board recommended that the zoning board of appeals approve this application um at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 24th of 2026.

The ZBA denied the application without prejudice.

So they could come back within the 90 days, um, so that they could see if there's any alternatives that were possible.

Um, so the uh applicant can address that um if you are interested.

Um so with that, I'll pass it over to the applicants.

If you want to say anything, of course.

Um they're unmuted, but we can't hear you.

Um, I just pressed ask to unmute to see if that might do anything, although I doubt it.

Um, it could also be your audio connection.

Do you want me to talk if we hear yes, now we can go technology?

Perfect.

Now it's a good test run for the ZBA.

I know.

Well, they do teams, so they're still on teams, okay.

So we had a whole problem with that the other day.

But anyway, so we took into consideration some of the things that they wanted us to change in the plan, such as a door.

So uh we took out the door and put just windows, because they didn't want what you know, they didn't want the house to look like a two-family home, so which was fine.

Um, but we also sent more pictures of the property and how it slopes, so it needs to be on one level for um for my parents.

They wanted to show have us show more hardship on the property, even though it's for my parents for for them to have a bedroom on the first floor.

So that's why the application now reads a lot more legal jumbo stuff that says you know, but this is where uh the um the the building could could support the addition in the one level.

We're also we also met with the engineers for uh water remediation.

Um to uh the coastal art area management, so that's in progress, so that can be done.

Um I think we need approval first, and then that can get set for then be permitted.

Thank you.

Um for that.

Uh are there any questions from the board?

Robbie.

So Anna Lindsay, uh, what are the specific uh rationale for the zoning board of appeals to deny this?

We told prejudice.

Was there any, you know, what was the specific request of the minutes of the of those?

I mean, can we?

Well, we listened to the board and they didn't really say anything specific.

Um they just thought we focused too much, you know, on my parents not being able to use the stairs.

So I think they wanted us to focus more on the fact that the construction of the house was such that um there was no place else to put the bedroom and bathroom uh but on that side of the house.

But no, unfortunately we didn't we didn't get like a they don't leave any minutes as far as we could tell.

Yeah, it was just the video that they sent us the link and we could listen to it, but they didn't really except for mentioning the secondary door.

They just, you know, kind of said that you know, we didn't really prove our case.

So in rewriting, we didn't prove our case for hardship.

So in rewriting the application, we were focusing more on the hardship of the structure of the house.

Well, so any uh mention about the lot coverage being higher than what is allowed in the zone.

Um, I'm just I'm very sympathetic to the uh to the request.

I'm just I don't I just want to avoid up, you know, second guessing what on the town board has gone, you know, as this is as I commented.

So and uh I also see uh Leslie in your email you talk about the um coverage, the lot coverage being higher than what is allowed in the zone.

I think 40% maximum allowed was a setting fifty-two or even higher.

So was there any specific concern around that?

So if I may, um the zoning board of appeals, as you know, Robbie, the the planning board has um you know thinks about the comprehensive plan and compliance with the comprehensive plan, the zoning board of appeals has to think about um certain criteria, hardship hardship of the land, and um that's why Anna, that's why they're making you you know asking you to focus on the hardship of the land.

Right.

Um at the planning board here, um, we think about the comprehensive plan.

And so Ravi, there's a few things in there regarding um coastal area management um and um continuing to look at our low impact development guidelines to increase to um increase resilience to future flooding.

Um so and continue to make sure that we're doing the best that we can.

Um so increasing law coverage is something that uh you know that I would take uh that's that's kind of something I would focus on.

Um thinking about the comprehensive plan um and the cam area.

Um at the same time, there is discussion and the conversation about allowing first floor bedrooms um helps because we have the whole aging in place discussion in the comprehensive plan.

So um that does work here at the at the planning board, maybe not at the zoning board of appeals, um, but we're you know weighing that against um block coverage and and flooding.

One last question, one last question, Lindsay.

In your uh note, you mentioned that the current building is greater than twice the maximum permitted lot coverage.

Is it right?

That the current building is twice what is allowed in the I need to double check R10.

I can pull that up right now.

Yeah, we're only going, we're only in our own property setbacks.

Um, and for um the hardscape is what's allowed for 40%.

We are already existing at 49%, and we're asking for 51.

Yes, it is, it's 40% lot coverage.

Right, so and they're at 50.

So that that's wrong.

There was there was a time when I thought it was 20%, but that's that's building coverage building coverage.

And we're at 19 and the building coverage the addition.

Okay, thank you.

The um it is interesting to note, uh, I'm recalling since I also live in an R10 zone, that um the issues involving uh lot coverage uh also gets in uh into the balance between pervious and impervious surfaces and and water absorption and storm management and and things of that sort, such that when I I believe there's a regulation that that suggests that when you add more than 400 square feet of of additional impervious area, you now have to provide an engineered storm water capture system.

Did any of that come up in discussion as well?

Uh yeah, so that's the coastal area management um that being close to the water, it even anything added even less than 400 feet, you're required to do that.

So even though ours is um under four, it's under 400, we are required to do that.

And we have engaged uh local engineer and a local company who did our neighbors uh to they already came and they did proposals on what to do um when after we get the um the variance and we have to have that done before the permit got it okay thank you that's the coastal site plan review you have to go through coastal side plan review okay and so epb will be taking a look and then zoning board as well so right or just epb I'm not yeah they're not my board to do it or they said you would have to do it after you get the okay from the zoning board that's helpful yeah ashley I know you had your Andrews um no I was gonna ask if if there was any discussion of changing the driveway to an impervious material but I just looked up the definition of lot coverage and I see that even if it's an sorry even if it's a purbious material like a gravel driveway still counts for lot coverage so it's not gonna we we asked about that too and that's exactly what they said yeah because we would have changed it to gravel yeah and just looking at the layout of the site it it makes sense to have the driveways the way you have it.

Yeah because we have a shared driveway uh with our neighbor so we we can't do anything about that driveway.

And the lot coverage has been the same since 1987 as far as we know yeah.

Um that's that is a good note um so the lot coverage is a new I think that was newly added yeah um yeah about two years ago so it's it's not it hasn't always been a regulation um so it's new and I'd like to note that uh Jennifer Godzano joined the meeting at 650 okay Jeremy I think you could still close out this agenda item since you've been here the whole time yep that's a was sort of what I was planning to was close this one out.

Cool whenever you madam chair um are there any further questions if not uh is anyone willing to uh entertain a motion I would like to propose that the planning board replays approval that was given for this application any seconds I'd like to second but I'm just not sure if I'm allowed to vote this round do we have more than a quorum okay um I think since I joined halfway through the item then you that both of our alternates should go okay so I'll second.

Great thank you Ashley all in favor thank you just noting it passed unanimously all right okay great thank you thank you thank you and now I will uh turn it over to Madam Chair Gonzino.

Thank you very much for getting the meeting started um next on our docket is uh CBA application 029-26 uh George P.

Abbot 21 Nichols Avenue variants of section five X4 development standards the applicant owns a single family dwelling and is proposing to construct a 310 square foot addition to the rear of the dwelling the applicant is requesting an allowance for lot coverage of 31.2 percent uh 22 point four percent is existing in lieu of the 20% maximum allowed in the R 10 zone um and I see that we do have the applicant uh joining um if they'd like to speak on the application.

Um while he decides if he wants to speak on the application, um, I will note as you guys kind of figured out from the last application, there's both a lot coverage and a building coverage maximum in the R10 zone.

So this ZBA application recently, the description was revised to include both the building coverage and the lot coverage variants.

Um so let me teams to double confirm it shouldn't change the project still stays the same, it's just um two variances instead of one.

And okay.

Yep, so the building area coverage of 31.2 where maximum of 20 is allowed, like Jennifer said, and then the lot coverage translation is 43.1% where maximum of 40% is allowed.

So you can have clarification.

Okay.

And uh Mr.

Abad, if you want to say a few things, you're welcome to.

Um, you don't have to if you don't want to.

Oh, okay.

Um, well, we when we f I first purchased the house, I didn't know anything of this.

Uh I didn't my intention was never to go up.

Because as we get older, I want this house to come for our family, you know.

So that's why what it seems like what they did, it was a bedroom in the back, which what it used to be the garage looks like to me.

So then they killed the access to the to the basement, so then you have to like kind of crawl under that bedroom that they created.

So what I wanted to do is have an actually access for a mechanical room because there is a full basement down at the bottom, which makes no sense, especially liability for a mechanic to go under a house, you know.

So that was first, and then we um after signing the papers, you know, when we first bought the house, realized on the storm, the snowstorm there was a leakage, and that's what the whole thing started.

It was like, you know what?

Let's try to make this an actually usable bedroom.

You know, we bought the house as a three-bedroom, but it's really not a three-bedroom.

What they did, but I just wanted to make it right.

And it just kept escalating escalate because everything was rotted away.

And we came up with this plan, not knowing that the variance and all of that things we weren't allowed anymore because it's just recently started doing this a couple years ago, and this house is like in the you know from the 30s and it's being neglected.

So I wanted to bring it back to life.

And uh the architect and I um came up with this plan, and I think uh, you know, it's nice to give it an extra bedroom um uh bathroom as well, because it only has one uh one bathroom.

So that's uh that's I think um pretty much explain as much as I can.

Oh, never done this before, so uh yeah.

Did great.

I think one thing to note um is that uh the lot is undersized for the zoning, so the zoning is for you know accommodating a 10,000 square foot minimum lot area, whereas uh there the lot is a little bit over 6,000 square feet, so um that does become challenging to meet um some of the requirements.

So the hardship is the undersized lot.

Yeah, given the zoning category.

Yeah, but the oh go ahead, Chef.

I was just gonna make a comment.

Um the other thing that I think uh, you know, that we look at relative to the comprehensive plan is whether uh the you know, the variances that are requested would have an impact on comprehensive plan issues, um like the character of the neighborhood or the massing of the building and or things of that sort.

Um and and in this particular case, uh I I could easily support this uh request because the the requested um addition and the impact on on the coverages is at the back of the house, um, which cannot be seen virtually um you know from the public access way um only from adjacent properties so um in that regard i think it's um i i understand the purpose of of variances and i understand the purpose of the regulations those zoning matters but uh in this particular case um i i don't i don't believe that the um the addition itself um will adversely impact the neighborhood the the character of the house or or have an impact on the comprehensive plan um is there any further comments or questions from the board um i'll just note i think just looking visually at the map as well um i mean this is it looks like several of the properties that um are nearby are also quickly undersized for the zoning category as well so it is not a condition that's particular to this uh one site um do we have a motion on this item all right uh chat move approval we'll move approval of the item and second from Jeremy um see uh um of the alternates um true if you'd like to vote on this item um so all in favor please raise your hand and it passes unanimously thank you thank you um lindsey do we need to make a more specific notation around the rationale I know it goes to the CBA but I don't think so I uh no I the chat was pretty clear uh and we usually it's with a with recommendation for approval we don't usually provide any more explanation but um this is so obvious for us so um yeah uh happy to add that in okay yeah I just I mean given the last item which came back to us as uh yes yeah okay I think we had a clear rationale for um okay happy to okay so we're just acknowledging the hardship of the on the lot being undersized for the zoning category which is consistent with the neighboring properties and that the um visual impact of the variance is not seen from the street as Johnson yeah all right um our next thank you thank you so much thank you very much I'm sorry I wasn't showing if you guys were done so I appreciate it oh yeah thank you too all right um so our uh next item and on this item um ashley will be voting as alternate um is CBA application um 030-26 uh Christian fry architect representing Kamud V Desai of one four four shadow ridge road variants of section five X4 development standards and section 12 C1 parking between building lines the applicant owns a single family dwelling with a shed in the rear yard and is proposing to construct a 468 square foot two story garage addition with new living space on the second level and a 53 square foot entry landing with a portico the applicant is requesting a a front yard setback of 36.5 feet in lieu of the 40 feet required B a combined side yard setback of 16.5 feet in lieu of the um 30 feet required a center line setback of 63 feet in lieu of the 65 feet required a and D a rear yard setback of 20.8 feet in lieu of the 30 feet required um a vehicle parking in the driveway in front of the house where otherwise prohibited in an R10 zone.

Lindsay, do we have a presenter for this?

If not, I know we often don't for CPAs.

No, we do not okay um is there anything you wanted to note um for the record on this item?

Uh sure, it's in a res one uh residential single family future land use category.

Um the applicant was granted this variance in the past in 2005, but they did expire.

Um let's see.

And I would just note that um there are wetlands in the back with an upland review area in the rear of the property.

Um the addition of the size that they're looking to provide would require EPB permit to be located in the upland review area.

So there's that kind of trade-off of you know, bringing the addition up towards the side of the building to bring it away from the wetland.

Um so that's something to consider.

Uh Chet.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Again, just a comment.

Um I mean, I guess I'm I'm a I'm a little troubled um by this application as opposed to some of the others given given the obviousness.

Um of the uh variance requests and and the impact on the house uh compared to the others.

Um and and the addition, uh there are there are two areas of concern, of course, the um the addition encroachment on the side yard setback, which is already relatively narrow, um, and and the fact that the neighbor's property is also right very close to their property, that side property line.

Um, but the other thing that um uh troubles me uh admittedly is is the encroachment on the front yard setback.

Um which in this particular case, I guess their justification is that, you know, they're uh they're not making this the situation any worse, I guess, is part of the rationale.

Um but um I do see, you know, from a from a structural and architectural point of view, that the addition itself um could easily have been, you know, pulled back uh four feet, two feet, four feet, um without any encroachment on or or greater impact on the on the um the environmental sensitive areas at the back of the house.

Um and it would have at least uh eliminated one of the uh variance requests.

Um I'm I'm not I'm not clear myself on the portico um because I was always under the impression that that that didn't count toward, you know, if open on three sides didn't count toward the um, you know, uh building or lot coverage and or building coverage and now the lot coverage perhaps it does.

So um but anyway, um because of that that issue about the addition, um they they could have mitigated one of the areas of concern as opposed to having both of them, so uh so in any minute.

Um there are any other comments from the board.

Um I also share the concern about the side yard setback being too narrow for this location and would like to see an alternative of either narrower addition or seeing if it could be relocated more to the rear of the building.

Um I did just look at the coverage.

Um so it looks like the it's with the addition would be below the maximum lot and building coverage for the site, um, if that is relevant.

I think for the portico um uh Chet was referring to the was you were you referring Chet to the front yard setback requirement that since it's open on three sides would normally be a permitted obstruction?

I believe so, yes.

Yeah, let me double check.

Okay, so procedurally it sounds like it is one element of the variance, which is um a concern to some of the members.

Yeah.

I'll be in agreement with with their concerns as well, Jennifer.

And just you know it there's no dimension here, but you know in looking at the you know backyard setback and in the width of the proposed addition, you know, there does seem like there could be a possibility for that to be rotated in and within the the setback lines.

I can make a comment on the permitted obstructions if you guys want me to.

So where did it go?

Porches one story permanently unenclosed projecting no more than six feet into the required yard and this is four feet.

So that is a permitted obstruction could fall under that I think that's the closest one in permitted obstructions.

So I can bring that up to the Kendall the ZBA planner um for for the ZBA or it could be included in your comments.

Yeah so so um I mean to the extent it's it's hard to read the site the site plan of course uh on paper that's the help of the uh the digital copy um the the addition itself I think is forward of the main mass of the house um by three something feet I don't know if you can verify that um yes um so it if that could have been pulled back uh certainly uh that would have eliminated uh you know that that as an issue um and would have made the addition um a little bit more um um in aligned with uh the um the the main massing of the house which in that regard would have potentially helped um to it would have been uh extremely difficult um to narrow the addition especially given its function uh sufficiently to be able to stay within its side yard set um side yard uh or to avoid it uh completely but they they um uh the addition I think is 16 feet and change in width um and for that function it could have been narrowed you know potentially a couple of feet uh to have aided that so um you know based on those concerns uh you know i would i would um have a hard time kind of supporting this as is unknown color so just that comment okay other comments from the board um just a quick question in considering a recommendation are we able to uh do we have to look at it as a whole or can we give recommendations on the individual requests um so the item is as presented and given that we're on referral um i think we can determine if the um the one setback of concern is sufficient to deny the item or if we want to recommend approval with a with a note to the zba to consider um any possible mitigations uh on that um on the side yard subtract um i think we can also recommend uh denial without prejudice to encourage the applicant to come back with a um a revised proposal those are three options lindsay i think given the um the redesign that may be needed to consider this recommendation um the denial without prejudice to encourage uh a redesign would be most appropriate um i'm curious uh actually before i lindsey um the the prior granting of these variances do we have um uh it was a long time ago at this point over 20 years ago so it may not be relevant but do we have any notes on the rationale for recommending the variances previously i'd have not looked at them but i bet you we do i bet you yeah that so i can go and i can go and you know ask candle if she pulled them and um yeah i can go and go and find them i'm not yeah i'm i'm curious about um uh the the relevance of that only from one perspective do we know that what was submitted in i think you said lindsay 2005 um you know that variance request was for the same design as it is currently being depicted let us see looking through the paperwork i mean i my my only point in bringing that up if if it is precisely the same design then then the rationale is is relevant if if the design has evolved you know in the intervening years um then the rationale from then may not no longer be relevant okay so it was included in the narrative the description that the property owner seeking the variances um she was granted the same variances in 2005 so it was more of uh a narrative so if you would like me to look up uh the the old plan and see if they were similar or the same if they are if they are exactly the same I can provide the file if they're not exactly the same and they're determined to not be relevant then I won't share.

Okay.

Um I think if the board members deem that relevant information we could also table the item uh until we have the um the information on the rationale for the past approval.

Well just one just one uh curious question uh do the approvals we give do they expire I mean like I understand this is in this case it is 22 years but what happens if it is two years or three years yes they do expire variances last five years I think five years these ones.

Well in in which case then we I don't we don't even need to check what the earlier approval said because it's much much beyond the five year period.

Yeah right.

And and we even though uh excuse me I was going to simply uh add in um that even though they don't uh cite it as an issue um there there's a new concept like lot coverage that is not addressed as a part of this um this information which was just enacted two years ago so yeah so I would if it is a load uh support what Ashley was saying about uh denial with or prejudice uh giving the applicant a chance to incorporate all comments and see if suitable changes can be made in the application or in the design type and come back again if we could okay and that's specifically addressing the side yard setback setback as well as the front yard setback is I to confirm.

Yes, but I think the bigger concern is the side yard setback.

At least in my mind.

No time.

So that is the motion that Robbie has put forward um is there a second for that motion?

Second from Ashley.

All in favor, trace your hand.

And it passes.

Okay.

Um those are all of the items before us and this evening.

Our next regularly scheduled meetings are in June, June 9th, and June 23rd, after which we have a hiatus in July, and we'll return on August 11th.

Thank you all.

Have a good evening.

Thanks, everyone.

Good night, everyone.

Good night.

Bye.

The time is 7.18.

Bye.