1988-1990-ZBA APPEALS (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Appeals Minutes July 12, 1989 Page 3. • He presented photographs and explained that everything is symetrical in thispaeea aha all the houses are about the same 24,000 square feet. Photographs showed the new fence which is 12 feet from his porch which may have a problem with the fire code. Mr. Makunas questiond when they are going to finish the addition. They are still completing it. Mr. Makunas asked if he requested the Building Inspector to pull the building permit. Mr. Quinn did not request that. Mr. Quinn stated that what he is appealing is that they have extended the boundary of the law in that there should be 20% coverage and right now it is about 32% coverage. Kevin Kirrane stated that he sent the letter and what they requested the Building Inspector to do was to enforce the provision zoning by-law relating to lot coverage and suggested that the Building Inspector to file the type of relief that should have been required and that the original permitting requests the variance relief and not the Special Permit relief. Mr. Hanrahan explained that it looks like two separate issues: 1) Does the Board of Appeals have the authority to grant a Special Permit that would erlarge his coverage, the answer • is yes. 2) Should the Board of Appeals have done it. Mr. Pedro - (the architect) stated that the lot coverage is 24%• This was presented when they applied for Special Permit. Carol Quinn stated that this throws off the whole neighbor- hood symetrically. David Schindler stated the the fence was going around the lot. Mr. Hanrahan questioned if the fence was going to be interior to the lot or is it going to be near the property line. It was pointed out to be near the property line. William Hanrahan thinks that there is a procedural problem under the state statue, one issue is this party grieved by this action. Thesecond issue iswhat is the remedy under the state statue. It givesyou the remedy of 20 days for the appeal period. If this is not met the statue assumes that you have exhausted your appeals. Whether this is right or wrong he is just referring to the statue. It was granted within the statuatory appeal period. Mr. Hanrahan does not see where the Building Inspector acted improperly.