TRC asks developer for elevations, per‑unit setbacks in Terrapin Properties’ Lonsdale Main Place review

At its Dec. 11 meeting, the town’s Technical Review Committee reviewed Terrapin Properties’ Lonsdale Main Place application — a proposal to redevelop a roughly 30,000‑square‑foot site into nine residential units in three 3‑unit buildings — and focused on dimensional variances for rear decks and architectural overhangs.

Staff summarized the variances and measurements that triggered review, saying Unit 1’s deck is about 29.1 feet from the rear property line, an overhang measures about 33 feet where the standard is 35 feet, and Unit 4’s deck sits about 34.2 feet from the rear line. “They’ve provided a memorandum that addresses each of those standards,” Staff member (Speaker 1) said, adding the lot’s narrow southern end and steep slopes make the constraints appear unique.

Why it matters: the deck and overhang projections affect required rear setbacks and could force the developer to seek both dimensional variances and, depending on final elevations, additional side‑yard relief if a building’s average height exceeds the 25‑foot threshold in the town code.

Committee members split on how necessary the decks are. “It’s not a requirement to have a deck onto a condominium…so it’s self inflicted as far as the variance needed,” said Committee member (Speaker 2). Other members said modest decks may be the only practical outdoor space for units whose main floors are elevated above grade because of steep rear slopes. Committee member (Speaker 4), who visited the active site, said decks balance functionality and aesthetics for those rear‑sloped lots.

The TRC also debated whether any relief should be written per unit or per structure. Several members noted that relief typically attaches to the structure and suggested the applicant provide a clear, per‑unit dimension table so any relief granted cannot be used to expand other units later if the property is condominiumized. “We could ask them to provide the dimensions for each [unit] and just specify that,” Staff member (Speaker 1) said.

Height and side‑yard questions dominated the latter discussion. Members asked staff to require architectural elevations showing front and rear heights and to compute the average height so the town can determine whether a side‑yard setback of 10.2 feet will be adequate or whether additional relief will be required. Staff noted the town’s interpretation of the height‑to‑setback relationship can add feet to the required side yard if a building exceeds 25 feet in average height and recommended the applicant show the elevations before the planning board hearing.

On construction sequencing, the applicant asked for a foundation permit for the first building so it can construct and backfill the retaining wall and complete necessary stabilization. Staff recounted prior TRC conditions that had required the retaining wall and riprap swale be built and inspected before any building permits and that a structural engineer certify the retaining wall. Committee members said they were inclined to allow a limited foundation permit to let the developer complete the retaining wall, provided the TRC report and subsequent permits require the final elevations, inspection certification, and posting of the infrastructure/improvement guarantee.

Other conditions staff said would remain or be clarified in the TRC report include verifying infiltration rates for stormwater basins or underground structures, on‑site witness inspection and signed/stamped letters from the project engineer, installation of concrete sidewalks and granite curbing prior to occupancy permits, private rubbish and recycling collection, an NVC permit for the sewer extension prior to construction, and the developer’s posting of an improvement guarantee for public improvements (the amount had been calculated and approved by the planning board but not yet posted).

The TRC agreed to list the TRC requests in its report to the planning board and recommended the applicant provide per‑unit setback diagrams and full architectural elevations for review at the planning board public hearing expected in January if the planning board votes to move the item to a public hearing. After closing discussion the committee took a voice motion to proceed with the TRC recommendations and subsequently adjourned.

What happens next: staff will post the TRC report and requested clarifications to the project portal and the applicant must submit the required elevations and per‑unit setback documentation before the planning‑board public hearing. The planning board will be the body to consider any dimensional variances and to make a final determination.