Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woburn ZBA approves special permit for two‑family replacement at 160 Montvale Ave with conditions
Summary
The Woburn Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4‑1 to approve John Vining’s application to raise and replace a two‑family house at 160 Montvale Ave after hearing revised plans addressing height, drainage and parking; the approval carried conditions including a building‑inspector review and limits on future conversion of garage space.
The Woburn Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4‑1 to grant a special permit allowing John Vining to raise and replace a two‑family structure at 160 Montvale Ave, subject to conditions the board added on building‑height verification and future use of garage space.
The petition drew close scrutiny over how the applicants measured average grade and whether cellar spaces would be counted as stories under the zoning code. Vining told the board he had submitted updated architectural drawings, revised plot plans, and civil engineering drainage calculations to show the project meets the height and story limits and that rooftop runoff will be retained on site.
“The updated plot plans include the dimensional table of all the existing conditions including the existing average grade and the proposed plot plan has an updated dimensional table that now includes the proposed average grade,” said John Vining, the petitioner and property owner. He added that civil drawings show a water‑retention system and that the project reduced driveway impervious area by 880 square feet.
Board members probed how the average grade was calculated, and whether spot grades on the entire parcel — which contains two attached units the petitioner labels Unit A and Unit B — could be used to determine whether the ground‑level spaces are cellars (not counted as stories) or basements (counted as stories). A member said he remained unconvinced the math matched the definition in the code; Vining responded that the surveyor and civil engineer coordinated the spot grades and that the measurements on the certified plot plan support the petition.
The board also examined parking and circulation. The plan identifies four off‑street parking spaces — two for Unit A in a garage and two associated with Unit B (one shown interior and one exterior) — and shows the driveway enters at 24 feet and does not narrow below 12 feet. The petitioner said he had moved the driveway away from an easement and that guest parking is not a zoning requirement.
The motion to approve carried on conditions that the building inspector review the submitted documents, particularly the vertical‑height and grade calculations; that the units remain limited consistent with R‑1/R‑2 occupancy expectations (intended to avoid future conversion to a boarding house or higher‑density use); that the proposed garage not be converted to living space; and that if public‑works departments determine the local infrastructure cannot support the sanitary servicing implied by the current number of bathrooms, the number of bathroom fixtures be reduced accordingly.
The board clerk was directed to prepare a written decision for filing; a building permit may not issue until the appeal period expires.
Votes: 4 in favor, 1 opposed.
The record for this application includes the petition, updated architectural sheets (A1–A7), civil drawings with drainage and a StormTech retention location, and the certified plot plan with height calculations. The petitioner said civil page 3 shows the StormTech system located in the backyard and that all roof runoff will be collected into the retention system.
