|Home | About Scituate | Town Hall | Calendar|
Printer Friendly Layout
News/Events - Meeting Minutes
Scituate Zoning Board of Appeals, May 18, 2006
Scituate Zoning Board of Appeals
May 18, 2006
OTHERS: Neil Duggan, Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Officer.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM.
First Application: Continued from April 20, 2006: C. John Greco and Carol Greco of 354 Orchard Street, Millis, MA 02054 request an appeal of the Building Inspector’s decision that Lot 100 Cliff Road, Humarock is not a buildable lot.
William Leonard was the attorney representing the applicants.
Attorney Leonard submitted material and photos to the file and gave the history of the lot (see file).
W. Leonard- said in August of 1933 the Land Court issued a certificate to William Schlusemeyer of Providence Rhode Island for a large plot of land in Humarock. In April 1940, a subdivision plan “The Rosenblatt Plan” was filed in the Land Court, which created Lots 99, 100 and 101. In 1947, a house was built on Lot 99. He explained that in 1967 his clients purchased lot 99 along with a Mr. Nicholas Greco. In 1968 John and Carol Greco purchased Lots 100 and 101 next to Lot 99. Mr. Leonard clarified that Nicholas Greco was not on the note for Lots 100 and 101. On November 21, 1975 the Greco’s transferred Lot 101 to Vincent and Irene George. On August 19, 1992 John and Carole Greco transferred Lot 99 to themselves as Trustees of the Greco Realty Trust. Mr. Leonard felt because Lots 100 and 101 were held in common ownership prior to January 1, 1976 before the Zoning Act became effective they were entitled to the grandfathered protection of M.G.L. c.40A, section 6, paragraph 1. He concluded that Lot 100 is a grandfathered buildable lot and ownership of the adjoining Lot 99 should not be considered. Under paragraph 1 of Ch. 40A sec. 6, there is no merger of ownership with Lot 99, since Lot 99 and Lot 100 have been held in separate ownership at all applicable times. He felt that the merger doctrine does not apply to structures or uses legally in existence at the time a zoning ordinance or bylaw is enacted. In 1953, Lot 99 and Lot 100 were each freestanding legal lots and they remained as such in perpetuity. He said there was no provision in paragraph 1 that a legal lot will lose its status if its owner acquires an adjoining lot.
J. Danehey- said he had an issue with the merger of the lots. He said because Lots 100 and 101 had common ownership they would be considered merged, therefore, losing its grand fathered status and in 1975 it’s ability to be a buildable lot. He felt that the Doctrine of Merger applied.
E. Tibbetts- felt because they were held in common-ownership he would deny it.
J. Danehey- read from Preston v. Board of Appeals of Hull, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 236 (2010) (see file).
Agnes Rona- talked about statues existing. She was not in agreement with Attorney Leonard.
Michael Rizzo of 320 Central Avenue- asked what the building permit application was for.
N. Duggan- explained it was an application for a new dwelling.
Tibbetts moved to deny the appeal and up hold the Building Inspectors decision that the lot located at lot 100 Cliff Road was not a buildable lot, seconded by Rona, all in favor, unanimous.
Second Application: Continued from April 26, 2006: Kenneth R. Grondell of 45 Chief Justice Cushing Highway requests a special permit/finding under Section 420.2 to construct a “four-car” private garage.
Brian Sullivan was the attorney representing the applicant.
Mr. Sullivan asked that the application be continued until June 15, 2006 because Albert Bangert a voting member was not present.
Tibbetts moved to continue the application until June 15, 2006 seconded by Rona, all in favor unanimous.
Third Application: Continued from April 20, 2006: Daniel and Jane Hannigan of 10 Thorney Meadow Way, Hanover requests M.G.L, c. 40a, Sec. 6 special permit/finding to raze two non-conforming single-family dwellings on one lot and reconstruct one single-family dwelling at 6 Lighthouse Road.
Herb Kuendig represented the applicants.
H. Kuendig- was proposing a new front setback making the dwelling 8.37 feet further back with a side setback of 1.52. They were also purposing to give walking space around the structure. The building would change from 2,061 square feet to a proposed 2,147.9 square feet.
John Danehey- talked about the options the board gave the applicant at the last meeting. (1) either keep the existing footprint with three stories (eliminating the second dwelling), maintain a 5’ access on the easterly side, and push the dwelling off the public way: (2) build a two-story dwelling with the accessory dwelling attached, however, they would have to push the dwelling off the public way and not be able to any higher than the existing heights: or (3) do nothing.
H. Kuendig- said they were purposing to keep the 570 square foot apartment in the garage.
J. Danehey- explained they could not have both. He asked Mr. Kuendig about the height of the structure.
H. Kuendig- explained it would be 33 feet and 4 inches in height from the ground to ridge. It would be a 20 % increase in height.
The Board unanimously felt the proposed building was still too big.
H. Kuendig- asked if they kept the house the same could they tear it down and renovate it.
J. Danehey- said because they were non-conforming they would still need to go in front of the Board.
Mr. Kuendig asked to withdraw the application without prejudice.
Tibbetts moved to allow the applicants to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Rona, all in favor, unanimous.
Fourth Application: Michael Vazza of 30 Marion Road Extension requests special permit/finding or variance to re-build a single-family home on a lot of land at 29-30 Marion Road Extension.
Brian Sullivan was the attorney representing the applicant.
B. Sullivan- explained the applicant’s lot was only 9,732.5 square feet but the applicant did have the required frontage. He stated his client was seeking a variance or special permit/finding for the lot size deficiency. Mr. Sullivan explained that there was a house located on the lot, which was built in 1955 but it burned down in 1976. He said the lot was combined with the adjacent lot to create the current lot. Mr. Sullivan explained that the abutter to the west was Junie Rodriquez who did have a surplus of 267.5 square feet but could not convey out any land to Mr. Vazza because he was in the process of seeking a sewer connection from the Sewer Commission. Mr. Rodriquez could not have a septic system due to the soil conditions. He felt his client met the requirement of hardship because of the position of the lot. He said the owner is unable to acquire more land, which would render the lot unbuildable, also he felt the lot would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. He stated both neighbors were present and would speak in favor of the application.
N. Duggan- suggested that it would be a dimension variance. He would prefer not go the special permit route but was in favor of granting a variance.
J. Danehey- asked if he was building a single-family home.
B. Sullivan- said he was proposing to build a single-family home and showed the Board a design of the building.
Stephen Cronin of 47 Marion Road Extension- spoke in favor of the application.
Kathryn Prouty of 35 Marion Road Extension- spoke in favor of the application.
Junie Rodriguez of 21 Marion Road Extension- spoke in favor of the application.
The Board felt the applicant met the requirements for a variance.
Rona moved to grant a variance with the conditions that only a single-family dwelling could be built and that the road would be paved to Lots 924 and 925 at the applicant’s expense, seconded by Danehey, all in favor, unanimous.
Fifth Application: Julie Johnson from Sandcastle Group Inc. of 600 Plain Street, Marshfield requests M.G.L, c. 40a, Sec. 6 special permit/finding to raze and reconstruct pre-existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 149 Turner Road.
Michael Loren was the attorney representing the applicants.
Julie Johnson from Sandcastle Group was present.
M. Loren-said the proposed building would have a concrete pier structure. He gave a description of the lot.
John Danehey- asked if they were proposing to go beyond the existing footprint.
M. Loren- said they would be extending a portion of the foundation.
E. Tibbetts- felt the proposed farmer’s porch would be creating a larger footprint because it had a roof on it.
M. Loren- showed pictures to the board that showed the deck had been covered in the past.
E. Tibbetts- felt the roof area had been abandoned.
J. Danehey- suggested building a deck above the existing deck on the seconded floor to provide the shade they were seeking.
N. Duggan- did not like the encroachment on the street and felt they should shrink up the house a little.
Julie Johnson- suggested making the 3’ extension a trellis on the front side.
J. Danehey- talked about storms in the area. He felt because it was in a Velocity Zone the first floor would need to be 5 feet above the seawall.
The Board felt the application met the Powers Test.
Tibbetts moved to grant the special permit with the following conditions: the proposal would need to meet the height restriction imposed by the Conservation Commission and a deed restriction that the porch on the southerly side not be habitable space. The Board found the proposed construction would not be more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood, seconded by Rona, all in favor, unanimous.
Sixth Application: Joanne O’Donnell of 551 Plain Street, Marshfield requests a variance or special permit/finding under M.G.L, c40A sec. 6 to extend pre-existing non-conforming single family dwelling with a single story septic tank enclosure 5’ from the side property line at 280 Central Avenue.
Darren M. Grady from Grady Consulting, LLC represented the applicant.
Neil Duggan- said that the Conservation Commission was interpreting DEP regulation that no structure could be added to a barrier beach. He asked if the building was a pre-existing non-conforming.
J. Danehey- said it was. He explained he should have asked for special permit/finding not a variance.
Darren Grady- clarified he was asking for a special permit/finding. Not a variance.
Rob Conte represented his father who lived at 282 Central Avenue- he wanted to see the plan and asked how the system would be pumped.
D. Grady- explained how the system would work. He said the bottom of the tank would be at the deck grade. The tank would be enclosed within a shed like structure. The deck would be on pilings and the tank would be mounted to the decking.
N. Duggan- asked where the leaching field was located.
D. Grady- said the leaching field was in the barrier beach.
The Board felt the application met the Powers Test.
Rona moved to grant the special permit and allow a side setback of 5 feet and that the proposed would be an intensification but not more detrimental to the neighborhood, seconded by Rona, all in favor, unanimous.
Tibbetts moved to accept minutes from March 16, 2006 and April 26, 2006, seconded by Rona, all in favor, unanimous.
Danehey moved to adjourn hearing at 9:40 P.M., seconded by Tibbetts, all in favor, unanimous.
|Scituate Town Hall—600 Chief Justice Cushing Highway, Scituate, Massachusetts 02066 - firstname.lastname@example.org|