Case # 13-027, 27 Briggs Street, Joan Kershaw (January 8, 2014)

Agenda original PDF

No further agenda text.

Minutes original PDF

with the Planning Board along with her contractor Jim Cloughtry. Ms. Kershaw indicated that access into the house is very narrow and there is also very little space between the internal stairs and where the door swings inward. She stated that they would like to enclose a portion of the front stoop to create a small mudroom. Ms. Morelli confirmed that the proposed project is primarily to relieve space issues that are inside the house as opposed to creating new occupiable space and Ms. Kershaw indicated that was correct. Mr. Cassavoy confirmed that the goal was to create a small vestibule and asked if the door would swing outward. Mr. Cloughtry indicated the main door would still swing inward, as would the outer door, and there would also be a storm door that would swing outward. Ms. DeSouza-Ward confirmed that the current front setback was 11 feet and the proposed front setback would be reduced to 9 feet as a result of the project. Mr. Cloughtry indicated this was correct. Mr. Sadowski then inquired about the proposed two-story addition that was shown on the left side of the existing structure on the Plot Plan. Ms. Kershaw indicated that they had decided not to pursue that addition. Mr. Mercado asked about the hand-drawn markings that were displayed on the Plot Plan in the rear right corner of the property. Ms. Kershaw stated that a fence was added at the property after the Plot Plan was created. Mr. Mercado asked if the Applicant had spoken to her neighbors and Ms. Kershaw indicated that she had and no one had raised an issue about the project. Mr. Welch noted that other structures in the neighborhood appeared to be similar in design. Ms. Kershaw added that their property was generally similar but the fact that it is a corner lot makes it a bit tough. She continued on to note that most other dwellings in the area have some type of small porch attached to them. Mr. Cassidy indicated that he felt the project was a minor, de minimis change to a currently nonconforming structure and that a standard letter should be sent to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Sadowski felt the letter should clarify that the Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 2 of 9 two-story addition on the left side of the existing structure has not been built and that this project is a small change to the structure which does not appear to be objectionable to the neighborhood. Ms. DeSouza-Ward agreed with this sentiment and Mr. Welch stated that the project would be an improvement to the property. Mr. Sadowski added that he thought the letter should indicate that the Planning Board takes no objection to the proposed project. Mr. Cassidy then MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals which clarifies that the proposed two-story addition on the west side of the existing dwelling identified on the Plot Plan has not been constructed and that the Planning Board does not take objection to this small proposed change nor does it appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor. None were opposed. Documents: - ZBA Application Case # 13-027 - Doorway photographs submitted by the Applicant Case # 13-028, 22 Burrell Street, Virginia Shanahan Applicant and owner Virginia Shanahan was present to discuss her application with the Planning Board. She indicated that they were doing work to renovate the property which far exceeded her original expectations of what needed to be done. Ms. Shanahan indicated that she had met with the Building Inspector on October 16, 2013 to speak about what needed to be done. At that time the Building Inspector stated that the property was in a UR-A zone and she needed to have a 10 foot rear yard setback and a 5 foot side yard setbac

All documents for this meeting on the city portal