|Home | About Scituate | Town Hall | Calendar|
Printer Friendly Layout
News/Events - Meeting Minutes
Scituate Zoning Board of Appeals, August 20, 2009
Scituate Zoning Board of Appeals
August 20, 2009
OTHERS: Neil Duggan, Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Officer
First Application: Dennis Leary of 83 Old Cow Pasture Lane, Kinnelon, New Jersey is appealing the Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Officer’s denial of his June 22, 2009 request for enforcement at 6 Lighthouse Road, in accordance with the zoning bylaw, section 1020.1 and M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 8.
Attorney Maureen Hurley represented the applicant.
Attorney Hurley submitted a letter (see file) requesting to continue the application until the next public hearing.
Trezise moved to continue the application until September 17, 2009, seconded by Sullivan, all in favor, unanimous.
Second Application: Robert E. Griffin Jr. and Cathleen A. Griffin of 2 Sayles Road, Hingham, MA 02043 request a special permit/finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals that the reconstruction/extension/alteration by razing and reconstruction a nonconforming single family residential structure and detached garage on a conforming lot will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure at 8 Old Driftway.
Attorney Jeffrey Delisi from Ohrenberger Associates represented the applicant.
Neil Murphy was the applicant’s engineer and Bob Shepard was the applicant’s construction supervisor.
Attorney Delisi- The Griffin’s were both from Scituate and were seeking to move back to the Town. The building was constructed in 1930 along with the detached garage. The dwelling was set off the public way by about 13.5 feet, which is the only non-conformity on the lot. The applicant would like to raze and reconstruct the dwelling and accessory building.
Peter Morin- asked about the pool house.
Bob Shepard- the building would be 10x12 square feet.
Brian Sullivan- if it’s 120 square feet or smaller it does not need to comply with setbacks. He inquired about the average setback.
Neil Duggan- clarified under the State Building Code if it’s under 120 square feet and one story it does not require a building permit, but will need to abide by setbacks.
Peter Morin- as long as the decision doesn’t state “per the plan”.
Jeff Delisi- doesn’t feel it’s necessary that the Board stipulate the size of the structure.
Joyce Mahn of 9 Driftway- asked if the plan presented was the same plan approved by the Conservation Commission.
Attorney Delisi- yes, it
Sara Trezise- clarified that the address was actually Driftway not Old Driftway.
Nicole Harris- the abutters list was created from the map, block and lot.
Sullivan moved to grant the relief sought to raze and reconstruct the dwelling and accessory structure per the plan of Neil Murphy dated August 4, 2009 and that the pool house would comply with Scituate Zoning Regulations, seconded by Trezise, all in favor, unanimous.
Third Application: In accordance with the July 1, 2009 Order of Remand by the Land Court and the Joint Motion of Plaintiff John A. Cronin and Defendant South River Partners, LLC for such remand order, requesting and proposing clarification of the Defendant Scituate Zoning Board of Appeals’ Decision, filed with the Town Clerk on May 27, 2008, which decision granted the application of South River Partners, LLC, for authorization to raze the existing buildings at 8 Dartmouth Street, in the Humarock section of Scituate in the General Business District, bounded by Central Avenue, Webster Street, the South River and Dartmouth Street, and replace said buildings with fourteen town house residential units in five buildings, including appurtenant parking and the reconfiguration of the existing marine float system for sixteen slips, subject to conditions. The proposed amendments requested and the Land Court’s retained jurisdiction and appellate process are specifically described in said Order of Remand, copies of which are available for review and copying at the Zoning Board of Appeals office during business hours.
Attorney Walter Sullivan from Sullivan & Sullivan represented the applicant.
Mr. Solamando was present.
John Cronin was present.
John Hallin- disclosed that he has worked for Attorney Sullivan in the past.
No one objected to him sitting in on the hearing.
Peter Morin- addressed the emails addressed to the Board over the last few days (see file). The Board approved this application before. Mr. Cronin brought an appeal and the parties have agreed to a remand for the Board to take action on a specific proposed amendment. What this means to him is that the Board should be confined to the terms of the agreed amendment of the joint parties.
Brian Sullivan- agreed that the Boards scope of view was just that. The judge also stated without delay, which he interpreted as the Board must make a decision that night.
Peter Morin- the hearing was not to reopen the decision or any aspect of the proposal. He did not think it would be appropriate for the joint parties to take issue with the joint motion. He asked Mr. Cronin if he would like to add anything regarding the joint motion.
John Cronin- felt that he got his point across in his emails (see file). He would like the Board to look at 1030.2. He would withdraw his complaint if the Board voted on the agreed upon amendments.
Edward Tibbetts- the emails were all part of the public records.
John Cronin- reminded the Board that they denied him the right to comment on the previous draft decision. He would like to comment on the decision for this hearing.
Peter Morin- the Board appreciates that Mr. Cronin and Attorney Sullivan have come to a resolve in the matter.
Edward Tibbetts- clarified the emails were from Mr. Cronin and Attorney Sullivan advising the Board of their decision.
Neil Duggan- the amendments of the original decision incorporated sections of the overlay district, which require a complex review by the Planning Board. He would like to see some site plan review.
Walter Sullivan- they intend to request a waiver under site plan review.
The Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing part of the night.
Walter Sullivan- would like the record to show that two of the voting members of the original Board were voting tonight and that Peter Morin was present for the previous hearings, but not a voting member.
Sullivan moved to amend the prior decision to be consistent with joint motion of remand of land court decision 08-381573. The applicant would provide the Board with a draft decision, seconded by Trezise, all in favor, unanimous.
Trezise moved to accept the minutes from December 1, 2008, January 15, 2009, March 19, 2009, May 28, 2009 and June 18, 2009, seconded by Tibbetts, all in favor, unanimous.
Neil Duggan requested that the Board draft a letter to the Board of Selectmen requesting that an appearance be sent with regard to the Rod&Gun Club litigation.
Peter Morin- he would draft a letter.
Meeting adjourned at 7:55 P.M .
|Scituate Town Hall—600 Chief Justice Cushing Highway, Scituate, Massachusetts 02066 - firstname.lastname@example.org|