Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

ZBA delays decision on Schubert deck after questioning whether the proposal increases a nonconforming setback

Town of Concord Zoning Board of Appeals · June 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

David and Maryanne Schubert sought a special permit to build a 453 sq ft deck at 111 Pilgrim Road. Board members debated whether the deck would increase a nonconforming setback into a paper road and whether the unique lot geometry justified relief. The board recommended continued review and the applicant requested a continuance to July 9.

The Zoning Board discussed a proposal from David and Maryanne Schubert to build a 453-square-foot rear deck at 111 Pilgrim Road that would change the existing offset from 9.8 feet to 5.7 feet from a mapped paper road. Architect Tom Day said the deck largely reuses the existing patio footprint and that the project included wetland mitigation previously approved by the Natural Resources Commission.

Board members questioned whether converting a patio area to a platform constitutes an increase in a nonconforming structure requiring a variance rather than a special permit. Several members said the 9.8-foot line is a hard rule in the bylaw and expressed concern about setting a precedent. Others noted distinguishing facts: the adjacent road is a paper street that is not currently built out and neighbors had submitted letters of support.

The architect and applicant argued the location was constrained by wetland buffers and the design sought to minimize additional intrusion while providing usable outdoor space. Board members suggested the applicant could reshape the deck, use stairs exempt in setbacks to reduce platform area inside the setback, or show how mitigation creates a net neighborhood benefit.

Outcome: The applicant requested a continuance to review alternatives and the board voted to continue the application to July 9 at 7:30 p.m. The board described three options for the applicant: proceed to an immediate vote, withdraw without prejudice, or continue to the next meeting with redesigned plans.

Next steps: The applicant indicated they would likely return with a redesign or additional arguments showing the unique lot geometry and paper-road condition justify the requested relief.