Woburn Zoning Board continues special-permit review for 162 Montvale Ave amid questions on height, drainage and parking

The Woburn City Zoning Board of Appeals continued a special-permit hearing July 21 for a proposal to raise and replace an existing two-family at 162 Montvale Ave after members said they needed more measurements, drainage calculations and clearer parking plans.

Applicant John Bining, identified on the agenda as the petitioner and saying he lives next door at 160 Montvale Ave, described a design intended to meet setbacks, height and lot-coverage rules except for the property’s preexisting nonconforming frontage. “We are absolutely going to make sure that we work with every department in the city to build something that meets their requirements,” Bining said, adding that he has discussed the project with the city engineer, the building department and the Department of Public Works (DPW).

Board members raised several technical concerns that they said must be resolved before the board can act. Those included: (1) a point‑to‑point measurement from the closest rear property line to the proposed structure after the applicant supplied a revised plot plan; (2) that the submitted drawings show that the proposed buildings meet the 35‑foot height limit using the average‑grade method and that the board see the math used to categorize the basement as non‑habitable (so it would not count as a full story); (3) a calculation and plan showing how stormwater runoff will change with the increase in lot coverage from about 13% to nearly 22%; (4) a clarified driveway width to confirm zoning compliance; and (5) a clearly labeled parking plan that shows whether exterior parking would use an existing utility easement and whether that would violate the easement’s terms.

The applicant told the board the new design would lower the finished building elevations relative to the existing house and that his civil engineer had calculated an average finished‑grade elevation of about 111 feet. He said the front structure’s height from that average grade would be roughly 31.5 feet and the rear structure about 23.5 feet, both under the 35‑foot limit the board discussed. He also described parking and garages: two‑car garages for each unit (20 by 20 feet) plus two exterior parking spaces for each unit, for an anticipated total of four outdoor spaces in addition to the interior garage stalls. He said the proposed driveway surface would be bituminous concrete and that the existing curb cut and driveway alignment would remain similar to what exists today.

Board members repeatedly emphasized drainage and runoff concerns for the steep Montvale corridor. One member recounted recent heavy rain events and asked whether downstream systems — including a culvert and shared drainage system serving Woods Hill Estates behind the property — could accept increased runoff. The board asked the applicant to have a civil engineer produce a comparative drainage calculation (existing vs. proposed) and to coordinate with the city engineer; the applicant agreed to ask his engineer to provide calculations and to coordinate with city staff. The board noted that the city engineer and DPW could impose permit conditions (for example, dry wells or other controls) during the building‑permit review.

Members also asked for precise, legible drawings: an updated plot plan dated consistently, updated average‑grade calculations shown on the plot plan, the driveway width dimension, and a plot plan that depicts the on‑site parking so the board can confirm whether exterior parking would encroach on a 20‑foot access and utility easement that feeds properties behind Montvale Ave.

After discussion, the board voted to continue the matter to its September meeting to allow the applicant to supply the requested materials and for staff to review them. The board recorded a list of items the applicant must provide for the continued hearing: the numerical height/story calculations showing the basement is not a story, a drainage/runoff analysis comparing existing and proposed conditions and indicating required mitigation if any, driveway width dimension, parking layout with cars shown, documentation of easement terms if parking is to be located over the easement, clear dated and signed plans (the board noted confusion between a July 17 and a July 21 plan), and average‑grade calculations on the plan for proposed conditions.

The board also discussed more general procedural matters during the meeting, including legibility of applicant plan submissions and the practical difficulty of reading small or faint drawings; the board asked staff to consider guidance on minimum legibility standards for future submissions.

The hearing for the Montvale Ave petition is continued to the board’s September meeting (the board referenced September 17 as the next zoning date).