Dr. Allan Pineda’s filing for a Special Permit for property owned at 33 Church Street, across the street from his residence at 15 North Street, was finally heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 21.
There had been a slight delay since the application was received due to processes that dealt with whether or not the Conservation Commission needed to rule on the proposed construction project first. With that point resolved and the project as specified conditioned by the commission, it was the ZBA’s turn.
Representing Pineda was Andrew Stackpole of Field Engineering. Also present was the architect, Stephen Kelleher.
Plans include a new, single-family residence with a front porch and rear deck. Stackpole said that final lot coverage would be 29% with the westerly setback at 12 feet and the rear at 30. He pointed out that the setback for the existing, non-conforming, former office building was only on one side. He also pointed out that undersized lots are rather the norm in the village, a point challenged by Attorney Daniel Perry representing abutters on the westerly corner.
Resident Pat Donoghue questioned how small village lots could support redevelopment and expressed concern that allowing lots heretofore non-conforming could be seen as viable building lots. “I’m concerned with overcrowding in the village,” she stated.
Building Inspector David Riquinha explained that new lots were required to meet the current zoning setbacks and other requirements but that lots with structures did not have to meet newer zoning rules because, “…at the time it was constructed it was accepted.”
The structure in question at 33 Church Street is the town’s former Water Department office. Perry said it didn’t meet the definition of a residence, was in fact a business and therefore didn’t enjoy exception from current rules.
Perry said the application was not a Special Permit but a Variance. He quoted case law from other jurisdictions that agreed, since the structure was a business, it couldn’t be treated as a residence now (“… only existing homes are protected.”). He said the ZBA, “has no legal authority to grant a Special Permit.”
Riquinha read from bylaws that disagreed with Perry’s interpretation. He returned several times to the point that the bylaws allow such a filing. He said it wasn’t necessary to go outside the bylaw to resolve the matter, arguing that case law wasn’t necessary. Riquinha said, “… any alterations only need a Special Permit, it doesn’t matter that it is an office building.” He said it was a matter of right.
Pineda rose to speak. He explained that his extended family has grown, making overnight visiting under one roof impossible in his North Street home. “I think this is a positive for the town,” he said.
The public hearing was closed when further input from the public ended. Chairman Susan Akin thought the project fit into the neighborhood. Member Colby Rotler noted that the Master Plan spoke to the issue of the town needing more housing.
Member Tony Transflaglia stated, “I was a hard no,” but after hearing arguments believed the project was not detrimental to the neighborhood.
The Special Permit was unanimously approved. The public has 20 days to appeal the decision.
In other business, a Variance was granted to Dennis Mahoney for property located at 20 County Road for the construction of a small addition for dry storage associated with a restaurant under construction now.
The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals will be posted if hearings are set.
Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals
By Marilou Newell