Case # 13-029, 81 Pearl Street, Vincent Fogarty (January 8, 2014)

Agenda original PDF

No further agenda text.

Minutes original PDF

n the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Cassavoy SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor. None were opposed. Document: ZBA Application Case # 13-028 Case # 13-029, 81 Pearl Street, Vincent Fogarty Attorney Louis Izzi, Esq. was present on behalf of the Applicants Vincent and Judith Fogarty, who were also in attendance to discuss their application with the Planning Board. Mr. Izzi indicated that his clients are seeking to remove a three-season porch to construct an addition with a half bathroom and a kitchen. The addition would extend 10 feet deeper into the property and across the width of the existing house. Mr. Izzi also noted that the Applicants have the overwhelming support of their neighbors, including the direct abutter. Mr. Cassavoy asked Planning Staff where the setbacks are measured; to the foundation of the building or to the overhang. Ms. Gaffey indicated that the setbacks are measured to the foundation of a structure. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that it appears a standard letter with no objection would be appropriate for this case as the side setback of the structure would be maintained and the addition is only one-story. Mr. Sadowski asked how high the addition would be and Mr. Izzi indicated it was 15 feet to the peak of the roof. Mr. Sadowski then asked what the exterior finish on the existing house is and what is being proposed for the siding of the addition. Mr. Izzi indicated that the existing siding is a wood shingle and the siding for the proposed addition would be the same. Mr. Mercado noted that the Plot Plan seems to indicate the addition would be L-shaped but the floor plans seem to show a rectangular addition. Mr. Izzi explained that the addition would be somewhat L-shaped. Mr. Mercado then pointed out that the Plot Plan does not show the proposed stairway on the left side of the addition and asked if this would still meet the side yard setback. Ms. Gaffey indicated that it would because the side yard setback is only 10 feet in this zoning district. Mr. Sadowski then confirmed that 23’ 9” setback on the Plot Plan is incorrect and Mr. Fogarty indicated that statement was correct because the distance from the proposed stairs to the side yard is shorter. Mr. Sadowski then pointed out to the Applicant that they want to be sure they are seeking all the necessary relief they need from the Board of Appeals so they do not have to return back before the Board at a later time. Mr. Mercado then MADE a MOTION to send a standard letter to the Board of Appeals which notes 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. Additionally, the Planning Board would like to clarify that the Plot Plan does not display the exterior stairs which would be attached to the addition on the left side elevation. Therefore, the left side yard setback indicated on the Plot Plan is inaccurate, but even with Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 4 of 9 these stairs the proposed addition would not violate the left side yard setback. Mr. King SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor. None were opposed. Document: ZBA Application Case # 13-029 Case # 13-030, 16 Crystal Street, Daniel and Susan DiLullo Applicants Dan and Susan DiLullo were present to discuss their application with the Planning Board. Mr. DiLullo indicated that they own 14-16 Crystal Street which includes their residence and his office. They would like to add a second floor above the portion of the structure where his office is currently located. Mr. DiLullo noted that the addition would be within the existing setback of the building; however, they do need relief from the minimum lot depth and front setback requirements. Ms. Gaffey as

All documents for this meeting on the city portal