Zoning Board of Appeals Business Meeting
June 21, 2006
Present: Bruce Simpson, John Burke, Lorraine Sweeney, Robert Garrity, Martin
Murphy, Elissa Flynn-Poppey, Michael Kulesza
Absent: No one
The duly posted meeting of the Norfolk Zoning Board of Appeals convened at 7:35 p.m. in room 105C at the Norfolk Town Hall. The first order of business was to preview applications for a July 19 hearing:
Lance Reagan – 68 North Street – The applicant filed a Special Permit application on May 30, 2006 for the expansion of a wood deck in accordance with Section F.4.a.. The proposed expansion would not include enclosing the deck. Mr. Reagan, the applicant, and Mr. Daniel Gordon, the contractor, were present. Mr. Gordon stated that the deck is attached to an existing non-conforming dwelling located on North Street, where the frontage is measured. The driveway of the dwelling is located on Johnston Way.
The existing deck is in excess of 61 feet from the side line. The expansion will remain in excess of 61 feet to the side line. The distance of the expanded deck from the 50 foot front setback will be 40.2 feet. Mr. Gordon stated that the extension of the deck will not extend beyond the setback location of the existing dwelling. The deck will have no roof or be screened. The dwelling is approximately 100 years old. The deck is approximately 20 years old. The application was deemed to be complete. Mr. Garrity made the motion to accept the application for a public hearing to be scheduled on July 19, 2006 at 7:45 p.m. Mrs. Flynn-Poppey seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous to accept.
Ibite, LLC - Shire Industrial Park - 282 Dedham Street - The applicants, Daniel Theriault and Michael Powers filed for two Special Permits on two separate lots (Lots 4 and 5) on June 15, 2006. A representative from Geller DeVellis was present. The site plan indicated parking behind the building and screened outside storage. The applicants propose to store 10 vehicles on Lot 4 and 10 vehicles on lot 5. Mr. Simpson noted that he had attended a round table on this project. He noted that there was outside parking being planned and suggested that the applicants investigate the need for special permits. The Administrative Assistant noted that Mr. Robert Nicodemus, the project’s architect, had questioned her if the filing fees should be $300 for each of the
Special Permits. The representative from Geller DeVellis, Imad Zrein P.E., stated that there will be a commercial condominium association on each of the two lots. The Board noted that the applicant should file for two separate special permits. Mr. Murphy made the motion to accept the application for a public hearing to be scheduled for July 19, 2006 at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Garrity seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
Douglas Burks – 41 North Street. Mr. Burks was present. The application for a Special Permit was filed on June 21, 2006 to enlarge a non-conforming dwelling by the addition of a farmer’s porch. The applicant requested either a special permit or a variance for the enlargement. Mr. Burks stated that the existing garage, which is 20 feet from the street, is attached to the dwelling. He noted that the plan does not show that the structures are attached. He noted that he had taken photographs to show the attachment. The structures are attached by a foundation and walls. The garage can be accessed from the house via the foundation. Mr. Burks stated that he has been a resident of the house for 17 years. The farmers’ porch would protrude 4 feet
9 inches. The question is whether the Board will consider the foundation and garage one structure as they are attached.
The Board noted that the plan does not depict what is existing on the site. The plan is not correct despite being certified by an engineer. The Board noted that there is a big difference between a variance and a special permit. The house and garage as a unit is 20 feet from the road. If the structures are separate units then the Board will be reviewing the addition to the house and would require a variance. Mr. Garrity noted that the assessors’ field card may be helpful. It was noted that the engineer would ordinarily draw the existing conditions. The existing conditions, as shown on the plan, does not depict the actual conditions. A comment or letter should have accompanied the plan to indicate the connection between the buildings.
The Board advised that the engineer must revise the plans accordingly. The Board will advertise the application for a special permit and/or a variance. If it is determined that the applicant only requires a special permit then any extra filing fee would be returned. If the applicant brings in the required information prior to the public hearing then the Board will proceed with the hearing. If the required information is not brought to the Board in time there may be a need to continue the hearing. The Board noted that the best chance for getting an approval will be through the special permit process. Mr. Garrity noted that photos of the depth of the basement should also be submitted. Mr. Garrity made the motion to accept the application and schedule the public hearing for 8:00 p.m.
on July 19, 2006. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The business meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. to conduct the public hearing for Mary Swantak (9 Ware Drive), Marc Brady (44 Miller Street) at 8:05 p.m., Frederick Souza (40 Priscilla Avenue ) at 8:15 p.m., CEI Boston ( Shire Industrial Park/182 Dedham Street) at 8:25 p.m., Little Pine Realty ( Park Street) at 8:400 p.m., and Norfolk Landing 40B (Airport property) at 9:40 p.m. After the public hearings the Board deliberated and voted on the Swantak, Brady and Souza applications.
The Board discussed the written correspondence of Gerard A. Coletta, III of 58 Main Street, dated June 21 2006. Mr. Coletta sought input from the Board on a condition of a variance decision (case #90-12) granted to allow a deck to be constructed no closer than 15 feet to the rear property line. The deck was not to be permanently enclosed and that it shall remain for seasonal use only. Mr. Coletta sought a determination clarifying whether the deck could be enclosed with screens only. A design of the screened porch was also included with the correspondence. After a brief discussion and review of case #90-12 and plans, the Board determined that since the deck structure was to be for seasonal use only and would not be reconstructed for additional living area the screening of the deck would be
acceptable. A letter will be drafted to Mr. Coletta and a copy will be sent to the Building Commissioner.
Mr. Garrity made the motion to close the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous.
_______________________________,
Robert J. Garrity, Clerk
| 
