With its first ZBA-approved plan to demolish and reconstruct a home at 7 Cedar Road in court, Cedar Realty Trust (C/O Greta Fox) submitted a new special permit application to construct an addition and renovate the existing structure instead. After a lengthy hearing on the application, the Mattapoisett ZBA on March 15 okayed the second special permit request.
The hearing almost did not take place, however, as lawyers from both sides had conflicting views whether the applicant could hold two special permits for different projects on the same property.
Attorney Marc Deshaies, representing the applicant, explained that repetitive petitions are barred from coming before the board for two years only when the first application was denied. Cedar Realty Trust received approval on January 19 from the ZBA to demolish and reconstruct a home set back further on the property, thus he said the case could be heard.
The legal counsel of the contesting abutters disagreed.
“They have to wait until the first application is adjudicated with finality. If you go forward, it sets a bad precedent,” said attorney Jim Goodhue. “You can’t have it both ways.”
Deshaies argued otherwise.
“There is no prohibition that we can’t come back and file an application for a different alteration on the property… If this board grants the special permit before the board, they have right to make an appeal of that decision, and consolidate it in the Land Court,” he said.
After taking a ten-minute break to contact Building Inspector Andrew Bobola by phone for his opinion, the board ended up taking up the case.
Engineer David Davignon of Schneider and Associates explained the project, which demolishes 40 percent of the existing home and rebuilds it so it does not encroach on a neighbor’s property. The remaining 60 percent of the home would be significantly renovated with a new foundation, and connected to the new expansion.
The final home would occupy 25 percent of property, a lot coverage that is similar to other residences in the neighborhood, Davignon said.
“They are either keeping the setbacks as they are or improving nonconformities,” he added.
More than 12 neighbors came out in support of the petition, including Dr. Mark Desnoyers. “We feel it is very much in harmony with the neighborhood. It’s a modest upgrade, in our view, and we don’t think it is going to be detrimental to the neighborhood,” Desnoyers said. Other abutters testified in favor of the project.
Atty. Goodhue, however, said the project amounts to a reconstruction, not an extension, which triggers a Variance.
“The task is not to succumb to a popularity contest. It is a complete reconstruction, not an alteration… Essentially this will be two structures… you are going to have two homes on one non-conforming lot,“ Goodhue argued.
But Davignon challenged that idea. “The [contesting abutters] have not studied the plans, and is making contentions without doing their homework. It’s an extension, an addition on a nonconforming lot,” he said.
In the end, the board sided with Cedar Realty Trust and approved the special permit.
In a second case that also drew some opposition, the ZBA approved a special permit for Diane and Alan D’Orlando to add a second floor to a dwelling at 52 Pico Beach Road that does not meet setbacks.
The application was a repetitive petition for a project that had been denied by the Planning Board in the past. The applicant had reduced the home, altered the roofline and removed bump outs to appease neighbors who felt the project was too large for the neighborhood, according to Davignon, who was the engineer on this case as well. The proposed house, which would add an additional story to the home, was originally proposed to have five bedrooms but the applicant had reduced it to three. According to Davignon, the footprint would not change, just the height.
Vicky Keiser was one neighbor who spoke out against the project. She said D’Orlando had not kept promises on the existing house he had built, and failed to construct a boardwalk to the beach. She said he rents the house, which draws a lot of cars to the small area.
D’Orlando indicated that he would not rent it again, and plans to turn it into a primary residence.
Direct abutter Heather Hobler voiced concerns about the project and the trustworthiness of the applicant. She said the applicant’s lawyer had sent her plans of the project, with an offer of money “to look the other way.”
Hobler said original plans called for a four-bedroom house with an additional storage room – but the applicant had really been trying to get a five bedroom and had to adjust the plans when confronted. “They’ve not been upfront about all of this, who knows what’ll happen.”
She also said the plans presented do not match what she was given, and that the home would go outside its current footprint. She said a staircase has been added that descends to the beach, which is clearly outside the footprint.
She noted that the home is on the smallest lot in the neighborhood, and it is surrounded by gravel while neighbors keep their areas green. She said construction on the previous house significantly expanded the roadway and nothing was done to remediate that.
“There is nothing to keep back erosion. There is very little greenery and protection for the coastal dune and barrier beach,” she said. “We need to keep [the house] within reasonable size so we are not putting too much stress on the whole area.”
While the board acknowledged the environmental concerns, Chairman Jeffrey Chase said those issues are under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission.
Hobler also said the applicant had said he would live in the house, and instead rented it out.
“I was part of the team who permitted the other house, and many of the comments made are absolutely false. The house was not designed to be lived in by the client,” Attorney Shepard Johnson said.
“I will suggest we worked hard to appease the abutters… Obviously we can’t make everyone happy. It’s an addition of 750 square feet when you take out the stairway,” said Davignon, who was the engineer on this project.
In the end, the board unanimously approved the request – with a condition that Andy Bobola, building inspector, ensures that the home does not go beyond its footprint and conforms to every aspect of the plan that is within the application.
In other hearings that evening, the board:
• Approved a special permit application for Eloise Ricciardelli to construct a new home at Crestfield Street, on a vacant parcel. The home would be set back 52 feet from the property line.
• Approved a special permit for Kenneth and Jann Williams to demolish and rebuild an existing dwelling that will not meet the required setbacks on 26 Ocean Drive.
• Approved a special permit for applicants William and Mary Beth Mansfield to construct a second story on an existing single-story structure at 7 Channel Street.
• Approved a special permit for Quentin and Linda Kampt to allow construction of a 700 sq. ft. family-related apartment onto their home at 6 High-on-a Hill Road.
By Laura Fedak Pedulli