Case # 13-028, 22 Burrell Street, Virginia Shanahan (January 8, 2014)

Agenda original PDF

No further agenda text.

Minutes original PDF

he 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 setback. As a result of this conversation she scaled back her rear deck and on October 21, 2013 the Building Inspector signed off on the deck footings and framing. Work then continued but on November 20, 2013, Ms. Shanahan indicated she received a letter from the Building Inspector that the deck was denied and would not be signed off on because the property was actually in an SR-B zone with different, larger required setbacks. Ms. Shanahan stated that she is now applying for a Variance from the Board of Appeals to legalize the deck they had already constructed with the direction from the Building Inspector. Ms. Gaffey noted that the Plot Plan indicates the correct zoning district on it, SR-B. Ms. Morelli asked what the difference was in this instance between the UR-A and the SR-B zones. Ms. Shanahan indicated that in the UR-A zone the rear setback for the deck could be 10 feet and the side yard setback 5 feet because the deck was less than 4 feet in height. In the SR-A district the deck would need a 15 foot rear yard setback and a 6 foot side yard setback. Ms. Shanahan continued on to note that there are no structures between her existing rear deck and the Lynn Fells Parkway and that the neighbors seem to be very happy with the improvements they have been making to the property. Mr. Cassavoy recommended that the Applicant speak with all of the neighbors before the Board of Appeals hearing. Ms. Morelli noted that the Planning Board is simply advisory to the Board of Appeals, which is the board that makes the final decision. Ms. Shanahan stated that she could not believe what she was reading when she received the letter. Mr. Cassidy stated that he thought this was purely an administrative issue where the Applicant was unintentionally misled by the Building Inspector. He continued on to state that he felt the Planning Board could not be usefully involved in this particular case. Ms. DeSouza-Ward noted that it is up to the Applicant to look at the appropriate zoning requirements for their property. However, this is a small issue it seems and the rear deck is not close to another dwelling and therefore Ms. DeSouza-Ward indicated she would not be opposed. Mr. Cassavoy stated that there is still 10 feet between the deck and the rear property line. Mr. Cassidy indicated that he felt a standard letter would be appropriate for this case. Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Mercado noted that the Plot Plan was dated October 1, 2013, but that the Building Permits were pulled in September of 2013. Ms. Shanahan indicated that the contractor pulled the permits so she was not sure what he used for a site plan to obtain the Building Permit. Mr. Sadowski asked if the deck was part of the original Building Permit. Ms. Shanahan indicated that it was and that there used to be a small mudroom at the rear of the structure. Mr. Sadowski then indicated that he agreed with all the comments that had been made, especially those of Ms. DeSouza-Ward, but he would recommend a little more than just a standard letter. Mr. Cassidy then MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals which notes that there is still 10 feet between the deck and the rear property line and there is no structure on the adjacent lot between the deck and the Lynn Fells Parkway to the north. The motion also indicated that the letter should state that the Planning Board does not take objection to this proposed change nor does it appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Cassavoy SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor. None were opposed. Document: ZBA Application

All documents for this meeting on the city portal