Case # 13-030, 16 Crystal Street, Daniel and Susan DiLullo (January 8, 2014)

Agenda original PDF

No further agenda text.

Minutes original PDF

in the existing setback of the building; however, they do need relief from the minimum lot depth and front setback requirements. Ms. Gaffey asked if the curb cuts for the proposed second driveway would be feasible with a utility pole being so close. Mr. DiLullo explained that they would be expanding their neighbor’s curb cut all the way to the utility pole. Mr. Sadowski asked if the garage would be eliminated and Mr. DiLullo indicated that it would not be and they would also be retaining the existing curb cut which leads to that garage. Ms. DiLullo indicated that their daughter would be moving into the new addition. Mr. King asked what the height of the proposed retaining wall would be and Mr. DiLullo indicated it would be approximately 4 feet tall. There was then conversation about how far apart the existing curb cut to the garage would be from the proposed expanded curb cut. Planning Staff pointed out that two curb cuts at the same property would need to be 30 feet apart, but that the Applicant should confirm this with the Building Commissioner. Additionally, it seemed that the two tandem parking spaces would not both count towards the required additional parking spaces for the proposed new residential unit. Planning Staff also recommended that the Applicant confirm this with the Building Commissioner as well. Mr. DiLullo indicated that they are not proposing to change anything on the existing dwelling or the garage. Ms. DiLullo stated that the neighbor on the right side of the property felt the structure would look more balanced with the proposed addition. Mr. King asked what the address would be for the proposed new dwelling and Mr. DiLullo indicated it would be 16 Crystal Street and that the whole property is currently shared space. Mr. Cassidy confirmed that the intent was not to divide the lot but to keep the property as two condominiums on the same lot. Mr. DiLullo indicated that was correct. Mr. Mercado asked if any Conservation Commission approval was required for this project and Mr. DiLullo indicated that it was required for the porch and the retaining wall according to the Building Commissioner. Mr. DiLullo continued on to note that he had a preliminary conversation with the Conversation Agent about the retaining wall. Mr. DiLullo also noted that the water leveling system that has been installed for Ell Pond has worked very well and the elevation of the pond has not changed more than a foot or so since its implementation. Ms. Petrillo asked if a home office was permitted as of right in this zoning district. Ms. Gaffey indicated that a home occupation with only one employee, with certain conditions, is permissible as of right. Mr. Cassidy indicated that the thought the proposed project seemed sensible and was a good use of the property. Mr. Cassidy 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 which seems sensible and does not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION. All members voted in favor. None were opposed. Document: ZBA Application Case # 13-030 Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 5 of 9 At this time City Solicitor Robert Van Campen, Esq. arrived at the meeting. SITE PLAN REVIEW & AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT Case # 13-003, 2 Washington Street, WP East Development Enterprises (continued hearing) Carolyn Zern was present for the Applicant, WP East Development Enterprises, along with the other members of the project team which included Robert Del Savio from Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. and Attorney Michael Leon from Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP. Ms. Morelli addressed the public just before the case was he

All documents for this meeting on the city portal