Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Area Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TRC raises concerns about character and missing survey for proposed second unit at 12 Ton Lonsdale Ave
Summary
The committee reviewed an application to convert a single‑family dwelling into a two‑family at 12 Ton Lonsdale Avenue and expressed concerns about lot area, missing survey data, and whether the two‑family use is consistent with neighborhood character; committee recommended the zoning board consider the application with conditions tied to a verified survey.
The Technical Review Committee reviewed an application by Mohammed Condell on behalf of Jamil Khalil to add a second residential unit at 12 Ton Lonsdale Avenue, a proposal that requires dimensional relief because the lot is shown at roughly 10,000 sq ft while a two‑family in the RL9 district requires 12,000 sq ft.
Staff and members repeatedly noted the application lacks a stamped survey; the applicant has the survey scheduled but, until that survey is provided, setback measurements and exact lot geometry remain unverified. "Nothing will be approved by the zoning board without [a survey]," a staff member said, and the TRC discussed conditioning any recommendation on survey confirmation or requiring return for a dimensional variance if the survey does not match the plan.
A number of members said the proposed two‑family appeared out of character with surrounding lots, which are predominantly single family and modest in scale. "I don't think the two family is consistent with the area," one member said, and the committee discussed whether a smaller accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or subdivision would be preferable. The applicant had been advised of alternatives: seek ADU relief with a different lot‑area calculation or seek 2,000 sq ft of relief to add a second unit.
Other technical concerns included the need for dry wells to handle increased roof and driveway runoff and potential freshwater wetlands jurisdiction (nearby ponds were noted). The TRC discussed making a written recommendation on comp‑plan consistency but agreed the zoning board would ultimately weigh the hardship criteria.
Outcome: The TRC moved to recommend to the zoning board that the application proceed with conditions, including that any approval be consistent with a forthcoming stamped survey and that the board consider alternatives such as a smaller ADU. Staff said they would consult the town solicitor on how adding an enclosed mudroom or other connector between units would affect setback measurement.
Next steps: Applicant to provide the survey, and the zoning board to consider the TRC recommendation and any variance requests.
