Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woburn ZBA continues special-permit hearing for proposed two‑family at 162 Montvale Ave.
Summary
Applicant John Vining asked to replace an existing two‑family house with a new two‑family on the same lot; the Zoning Board of Appeals continued the hearing after finding the submitted plans lacked a rear‑lot measurement and average‑grade calculations.
The Woburn Zoning Board of Appeals on the evening of the hearing continued a petition by homeowner John Vining seeking a special permit to replace an existing two‑family dwelling at 162 Montvale Avenue with a new two‑family structure.
Vining said the existing house violates front, side and rear setbacks and that his proposal would comply with current setback, lot‑coverage and height requirements except for the continued nonconforming frontage. He told the board the proposed building would contain five bedrooms per unit (ten total) and about four to four‑and‑a‑half bathrooms per unit (the plans later were read as six full bathrooms and one half across the two units). He said each unit would have a two‑car garage and two additional exterior parking spaces, for up to eight vehicles on the property.
Board members pressed the applicant on missing details. The chair and other members said the submitted plot plan did not show a measurement between the proposed structure and a rear lot line at a jog in the lot, and the board asked for the average‑grade calculation that determines building height. The chair said the plan must show the measurement at the jog so the board can tie any approval to the drawings filed with the ZBA. Concern was also raised by members about the number and location of bathrooms and basement egress windows, with one member and another (Member Ryan) saying multiple full bathrooms and direct basement/attic access could make it easier for future owners to convert spaces to additional rental units. Vining responded that the design was aimed at extended‑family use and market demand but agreed to revise the plans.
Because the materials lacked the rear‑lot measurement and documented average‑grade calculations, the board did not vote on the permit and accepted the applicant’s request for a continuance. The board set the continuation for Aug. 6 and asked Vining to submit a revised plot plan with the rear measurement and the average‑grade height calculations; the board also asked for clearer plans showing window wells and any basement egress features. A motion to continue carried unanimously.
The board’s request for those plan revisions ties any future action to the drawings filed; members said they could not render a decision without the measurements and calculations on the record.
