Printer Friendly Layout

News/Events - Meeting Minutes

PRESENT: John Danehey, Chairman, Albert Bangert, Agnes Rona, Brian Sullivan and Sara Trezise.

OTHERS: Neil Duggan, Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Officer.

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:

Meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM.

Jeffery Delisi from Ohrenberger Associates represented the applicants.

J. Delisi- gave an overview of the applicant’s request. He explained that the applicants were seeking relief from the easterly 25.5 wide, right of way along Lot 2. He explained that the board at the first hearing requested that the owner not access Lot Two by way of Lot One. The applicant received two curb cuts from the DPW for Lot One and Lot Two. He said the Board wanted the applicant of Lot One to access their lot by the curb cut. Attorney Delisi talked about a right of way that was pre-existing. The owner of Lot One did not want a driveway from Brook Street. He explained the applicant wanted to amend the special permit and would like to maintain the historic driveway instead of using the curb cut.

Albert Bangert- had concerns with people accessing the common driveway. He said the driveway would create four accesses and the bylaw only allowed for three.

N. Duggan- wanted to modify a section of the decision regarding drainage. He would like the last sentence on page two to clearly state that a foundation perimeter drain be installed and connected to the town storm drain on Brook Street.

The applicant and his attorney agreed to the changes.

Sara Trezise - wanted the curb cut right to be removed.

J. Delise- asked if the Sheehy’s owners of Lot One would agree to the removal of the curb cut.

Mark and Donna Sheehey agreed to forgo the curb cut.

Val Baker of 77 Brook Street- spoke in favor of the request and stated she did want a second driveway. She asked how the owner would access Lot Two and wanted to know if this would be deeded.

J. Delisi- answered it was already deeded.

Dan O’Conner of 76 B Brook Street and Michael Walsh of 76 A Brook Street- had concerns that access to their homes would be blocked during construction.

J. Danehey- explained they had a dominant easement and would continue to have rights to the road. He said this should be in their deeds

Donna Sheehey owner of Lot One- asked about drainage and rights of way.

M. Borgan- explained she had a 25-foot easement next to her right of way. He said they would have control on how the drainage would be installed.

A. Bangert-wanted clarification on the curb cuts differing from the driveway.

J. Delisi- stated the applicant would be withdrawing both curb cuts.

Sullivan moved to grant the relief and to amend the special permit with the conditions that they would forego the two curb cuts and that a foundation perimeter drain be installed and connected to the town storm drain on Brook Street, seconded by Trezise, all in favor, unanimous.

Mike Hayes was the attorney representing the applicant.

The applicant was present.

M. Hayes- submitted photos, calculations (see file).

J. Danehey- said the Board requested that the applicant see if he could go out towards Dickens Row instead.

M. Hayes- said the applicant would rather not do the project than go towards Dickens Row. He said it was a classic Section 6 situation. He felt the Board could determine if the addition was more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. He felt that one neighbor does not make a neighborhood. Mr. Hayes said the neighbors view was not protected under the law. He submitted some photos to the Board (see file)

J. Walsh- gave history of the lots. He felt that Town Way extension was not a passable road and Dickens Row was a passageway. He questioned whether his lot was actually a corner lot.

J. Danehey- felt by adding on where he wanted to he was encroaching onto the setback.

B. Sullivan- stated after driving around the neighborhood, he felt that it was not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood.

M. Hayes- said the lot area of the proposed would be less than 25% of the lot.

J. Walsh- said he was increasing the footprint by 3.8%.

A. Bangert- stated he did not want to create any new non-conformity within the Town unless the applicant could prove a hardship.

J. Danehey- felt that looking at it, as a hardship may not be the right view. He said the house and lot were both non-conforming and felt that this situation was what Section 6 was written for.

B. Sullivan- agreed with Mr. Danehey, he felt the applicant was held back by the way his lot was configured. He felt the board should grant the relief the applicant was seeking.

Agnes Rona- agreed with Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Danehey.

N. Duggan- agreed with Albert Bangert on being careful with not creating any new non-conformity but felt this was an intensification of a pre-existing non-conformity.

Steve and Gerry Labreck of 21 Town Way- spoke about the prior hearing. Mr. Labreck stated the existing house was 19-feet into the setback and the applicant was proposing to encroach even more.

J. Danehey- explained that the house existed prior to zoning and Section 6. He felt the applicant could as a matter of right to square off the building.

Steve Labreck- submitted information showing the average setbacks on Town Way (see file). He felt that the applicant if allowed would have the second biggest house on the street with the smallest square footage lot.

A. Rona- felt the proposed was not more substantially detrimental.

S. Trezise- did not agree, she felt it was more detrimental to the neighborhood.

J. Walsh- explained he went as high as he did because of FEMA Flood Plain requirements, also, the footprint of the dwelling confined him. He was increasing the size by 3.8%.

S. Trezise- agreed with Mr. Bangert, she felt that Mr. Walsh could redesign and go out the front.

B. Sullivan- said he would be creating a new non-conformity if he went that route.

B. Sullivan moved to grant the special permit and that the proposed plan would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, motion did not carry.

Attorney Hayes requested to withdraw without prejudice.

Danehey moved to allow the applicant to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Rona, all in favor, unanimous.

Danehey read an email from Dennis Leary requesting to continue the hearing until the December 21, 2006 hearing.

There was a discussion on whether to except an email as written agreement.

The Board requested a letter be drafted to Mr. Leary’s Attorney for a formal request in writing.

Bangert moved to allow the applicant to continue until the December 21, 2006 hearing, seconded by Rona, all in favor, unanimous.

Fourth Application: Thomas and Janice DiPesa of PO Box 378, Minot, MA 02055 request M.G.L. c. 40A Sec. 6 special permit/finding to add on to pre-existing non-conforming single-family dwelling at 18 Mitchell Lane.

Mike Hayes was the attorney representing the applicant.

Kevin Biggins from Civil Design Solutions was also present.

M. Hayes- gave an over overview of the project, he explained the applicant was third generation to own the property. Mr. Depisa took over the property in the 1980’s and took down an existing porch to build a deck in its place. The applicant was requesting to build on and up, seeking relief by enclosing the deck area.

J. Danehey- asked about the slab and if the applicant would build on it.

K. Biggens- said the applicant would not be building on it.

K. Biggens- said the existing house was non-conforming because it had 8,000 square feet instead of ten. He said the applicant would like the deck to be brought back to an enclosed porch. He explained the Board of Health had approved the plan for the septic, which is causing restriction on where they could build on the lot. He gave the average setbacks of the houses in the neighborhood, which exceed the required setbacks. The neighborhood averages was 22.6 feet and the applicant was proposing 19 feet.

A. Bangert- said he would view the proposed as an addition.

M. Hayes- showed the Board old photos of the property from the 1950’s, which showed the original porch.

K. Biggens- stated it would be a separate room.

J. Danehey- had concerns with creating a new non-conformity.

B. Sullivan- said that the average setback in the neighborhood was closer to the street than the applicant’s house. He said the porch had been in existing since the 60’s until it was torn down after the applicant obtained a building permit to do so.

Neil Duggan also felt it was not more detrimental to the neighborhood.

Kane of 6 Mitchell Avenue- spoke in favor of the application.

A. Bangert- requested a condition that it could only remain a porch.

N. Duggan- said they could not regulate the interior area (use of space) under the bylaw.

J. Danehey- would like a condition that they would need to come before the Board if they would like a second story on the porch.

M. Hayes- felt that would be acceptable.

A. Bangert- clarified that the proposed porch was the same size as the existing one.

Bangert moved to grant the special permit with the condition that it could only be one-story with a roof, seconded by Sullivan, all in favor, unanimous.

Mike Hayes was the attorney representing the applicant.

M. Hayes- explained that his client was ill and could not make the hearing.

M. Hayes- explained that he and Neil Duggan were working on the conditions that he submitted to the Board (see file). He stated the neighbors were all in agreement. He explained that they were presenting two conditions regarding height and square footage.

N. Duggan- talked about what was considered habitable space. He said the Board doesn’t usual conditions the style of homes.

J. Danehey- had concerns with an unattractive building being built and felt because of the grade it might look very tall.

A. Bangert- felt they should condition physical limitations. He would like a condition that it met all setbacks.

A. Rona would like a condition that the lot would only have two dwellings.

M. Hayes- explained the neighbors also preferred two separate homes.

S. Trezise- asked about access and wanted comments from the DPW and Traffic Rules and Regulations.

M. Hayes- said the access was deeded. Had concerns that it may lose its status if grandfathered access was removed.

A. Bangert- felt the Board was ready to add conditions and then take a vote.

J. Danehey- wanted to condition the style and character.

The resident at 15 Beaver Dam Road- wanted to know if they would maintain the setback.

J. Danehey- answered yes.

Rona moved to grant the special permit for two dwellings at 19 Beaver Dam Road with the following conditions; a height restriction of 30-feet and height to be consistent with the Scituate Bylaws, no dwelling shall exceed 2,800 square feet of habitable floor space, which shall include potentially habitable unfinished spaces above garages, in attics, and in all walk-out basements or basements that constitute a “story above grade” as defined by the State Building Code, houses shall meet all setbacks under Scituate zoning bylaws, subject to other Boards approvals, houses shall not be less than 30-feet apart at their closest point and that the style shall reflect the nature and character, proportion and age of the neighboring homes, seconded by Danehey, all in favor, unanimous.

Bangert moved to grant the special permit for one dwelling at 17B Beaver Dam Road with following conditions; height restriction of 30-feet and height to be consistent with the Scituate Bylaws, the dwelling shall not exceed 2,800 square feet of habitable floor space which shall include potentially habitable unfinished spaces above garages, in attics, and in all walk-out basements or basements that constitute a “story above grade” as defined by the State Building Code, the dwelling shall be built within the existing building envelope, the dwelling shall meet all setbacks under the Scituate zoning bylaws, subject to other Boards approvals, houses not to be less than 30-feet apart at their closest point and that the style shall reflect the nature and character, proportion and age of the neighboring homes, seconded by Danehey, all in favor, unanimous.

The Board voted to enter into Executive Session regarding Pending Litigation. The Board exited Executive Session at 9:15 P.M.

The Board discussed whether they would like to vote on final decisions before signing them. The Board decided to continue with current protocol.

The Board discussed Whitcomb Pines, LLC changes. The Board decided that they would like to request a deposit from the applicant to pay the legal fees for Town Counsel to review the documents.

Danehey moved to close the hearing at 9:50 P.M., seconded by Bangert, all in favor, unanimous.

Respectfully Submitted,

Nicole Harris
Secretary,
Zoning Board of Appeals