09/12/2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 • In response, Attorney Brackett reiterated that the Conservation Commission has approved the proposal. Mr. Slavinsky said that similar projects have been built and have had no adverse impact on or erosion of the coastal bank. Public comments: Mr. Jeremy Carter, 7 Pine Street, stated that neighbors are not opposed to construction of a new house. Since the topography of the bank rises on approach to the beach, the proposal would negatively impact views. Mr. Carter said that the Krock family blocks access to the street and uses it for their own benefit. He said that a financial hardship does not exist and that 30% lot coverage is unreasonable. Mr. Paul Dardano, 23 Pine Avenue, stated his opposition to grant of 30% lot coverage. He said that Mr. Krock built a patio on the bluff, which is not his property. Mr. Krock also built a stairway to the beach without Conservation Commission approval. Mr. Jim Collins has owned his home at 6 Rock Island Road for 39 years. He said that he does not object to construction of a new home; however, 30% lot coverage is "too intense for that small 5,000 square -foot lot." Attorney Costello advised the Board to consider each of the three Petitions separately and to focus on the criteria that would apply to the Board's deliberation. He said that the Request for a Special Permit under Section 174-20 is directly related to the request for a • Written Finding under Section 174-17. Attorney Costello quoted the criteria for grant of a Written Finding under Section 174-17 for the Board to consider during deliberations: Any changes, extensions, or alterations of non -conforming single- or two-family dwelling structures which do not meet the applicable dimensional requirements as set forth in the By-law, and changes, extensions, or alterations of all other non -conforming structures, or non -conforming uses, may not be made unless there is a Written Finding by the Board of Appeals that such change, extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non -conforming structure or use to the neighborhood and that there is adequate land area to provide sufficient parking and setbacks as may be required. Although said Written Finding shall not constitute a Special Permit as defined by the general laws and the By-law, the Board shall apply the same procedural requirements for a Special Permit. Attorney Costello quoted the Special Permit criteria that would be applicable as set forth in Section 174-24.0 of the By-laws: A Special Permit may be issued only following the procedures specified by General Laws and may be approved only if it is determined that the proposed use or development is consistent will applicable State A special permit may be issued only following the procedures specified by the General Laws and may be approved only if it is determined that the proposed use or development is consistent with applicable state and town regulations, statutes, bylaws and plans, will not adversely affect public health or safety, will not cause excessive demand on community facilities, will not significantly decrease surface or groundwater quality or air quality, will not have a . significant adverse impact on wildlife habitat, estuarine systems, traffic flow, traffic safety, waterways, fisheries, public lands or neighboring properties, will not cause excessive levels of noise, vibrations, electrical disturbance, radioactivity or glare, will not 3