The Zoning Board took on two cases at this meeting, navigating very different relationships between neighbors. In the first case, what can a developer do by right when replacing a 1909 two-family structure? That question is at the heart of a complex scenario that involves definitions of ‘abandonment’, ‘annex’ and even the placement of a comma. In the second case, the board considers whether or not a strangely shaped property lot might constitute a hardship for the owner if construction is not part of the plan. The meeting is currently available for viewing in the window below:
Regarding an appeal of a decision of a Building Inspector (ABID) dated December 2, 2024 who determined that the property “appears to “front” on private property and therefore does not have adequate frontage along a public or private way as defined in the Zoning By-Law.” The ABID asserts that the vacant lot has 95 feet of frontage on a private paved way which satisfies the minimum frontage of 80 feet for parcels in the Single-Residence B.
Case #2 – 378 Manning Street
Regarding an Appeal of a Building Inspector Decision (ABID) of Building Permit BC24-11078 issued to Arthur Elzon dated November 19, 2024, for the reconstruction of a two-family at 378 Manning Street. The ABID asserts that the Building Permit plans on file do not comply with the terms of Section 1.4.7.4 of the By-Law that the building as reconstructed have a footprint no greater in area than that of the original non-conforming building.
Case #3 – 282 Warren Street
Application for a Variance to allow the divestment of a five-foot strip of land to the abutting property at 73 Pleasant Street. This divestment would make 282 Warren Street, currently a conforming lot, into a non-conforming lot with a build Factor of 26.69 where a build factor of 20 or less is required. .
Agenda:
Minutes: Review and approve Minutes from the January 29, 2025 meeting. Case #1 – 0 Colgate RoadRegarding an appeal of a decision of a Building Inspector (ABID) dated December 2, 2024 who determined that the property “appears to “front” on private property and therefore does not have adequate frontage along a public or private way as defined in the Zoning By-Law.” The ABID asserts that the vacant lot has 95 feet of frontage on a private paved way which satisfies the minimum frontage of 80 feet for parcels in the Single-Residence B.
Case #2 – 378 Manning Street
Regarding an Appeal of a Building Inspector Decision (ABID) of Building Permit BC24-11078 issued to Arthur Elzon dated November 19, 2024, for the reconstruction of a two-family at 378 Manning Street. The ABID asserts that the Building Permit plans on file do not comply with the terms of Section 1.4.7.4 of the By-Law that the building as reconstructed have a footprint no greater in area than that of the original non-conforming building.
Case #3 – 282 Warren Street
Application for a Variance to allow the divestment of a five-foot strip of land to the abutting property at 73 Pleasant Street. This divestment would make 282 Warren Street, currently a conforming lot, into a non-conforming lot with a build Factor of 26.69 where a build factor of 20 or less is required. .
More Stories
Zoning Board of Appeals, 1/29/25
Zoning Board of Appeals, 12/19/24
Zoning Board of Appeals, 11/20/24