Woburn ZBA continues 30 Sturgis special‑permit review after neighbors raise drainage, plan issues

The Woburn Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday continued a special‑permit petition from ZenTD LLC for 30 Sturgis Street to its April 10 meeting after neighbors and board members pressed the applicant for clearer drainage plans and consistent drawings.

Attorney James Giuliano, representing the applicant, told the board the firm proposes to raise the existing dwelling and construct a new single‑family house on a 17,962‑square‑foot lot in the R2 district. Giuliano said the lot has 83.70 feet of frontage and that the proposed design conforms to required setbacks, adding that the applicant will seek building permits and address any conditions tied to review.

Neighbors repeatedly voiced concern that the larger roof and expanded impervious surfaces — including a widened driveway and a front patio shown in one sheet of the package — could increase runoff to downhill yards. Donna Colentino of 36 Sturgis Street asked about the legal hardship for the special permit; the chair explained that special permits permit modification of pre‑existing nonconforming structures when the board finds the change will not be substantially more detrimental. Colentino also said she hoped the project "is not going to create any more water," reflecting repeated drainage concerns from nearby homeowners.

Another neighbor, Brian Bakker of 23 Sturgis Street, said he observed the existing house recently with windows removed and the property "wide open," raising immediate safety and nuisance concerns; Giuliano said the applicant plans to secure the site with fencing and boarding as appropriate while permitting and demolition proceed.

On technical issues, board members flagged inconsistencies between the plot plan and architectural sheets — some sheets label areas as "deck," others as "patio" or "paver" — and noted the package did not clearly show a proposed bulkhead noted by counsel. Giuliano said a Historic Commission review had already been addressed and that he could forward a letter indicating the commission found the property not significant. He also said typical infiltration systems for roof runoff are commonly used on single‑family projects, but acknowledged that, under local stormwater rules, a full stormwater management analysis is only explicitly required for subdivisions of four or more lots; several board members pushed for a professional engineering design or narrative showing roof slopes and collection points.

Given the number of unresolved plan and drainage questions, the board voted to continue the petition to its April 10 meeting so the applicant can provide revised drawings and an engineering narrative or design for on‑site drainage and infiltration. The applicant requested the continuance. No substantive decision on the special permit was made at the meeting.

The board’s action to continue the matter means no building permits can be issued until the board resumes and any required decision and appeal periods have been completed.