Minutes
Board of Appeals · from the Town's website · 2 pages · 23 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗
TOWN OF WINTHROP BOARD OF APPEALS 1 Metcalf Square, Winthrop, MA 02152 [o] (617) 846-1852 x 1013 MEETING MINUTES: April 17, 2025 PROPERTIES DISCUSSED: 2025-007/ 35 Summit Avenue: The Applicant requested a renewal of a Bed and Breakfast/ Transient Lodging license that was originally issued in 2022. The Applicant reported that the one-bedroom apartment is used to host his family when they come to visit and then when vacant, used as an Air B&B (with good ratings and no complaints) to assist with finances. Public Comment: Scott Bell, an abutter, expressed concerns about the Town allowing for Air B7Bs due to parking, trash, and loitering. A motion to approve the license was made and seconded; the Board discussed the parking plan with the Applicant and gained assurance that sufficient off-street parking is available. A 4-1 vote was taken, and the license renewal was granted. 2025-006/ 86 Undine Avenue: The Applicant, Daniel Claukus, requested an extension for a previously issued (2020) variance to build a two-and-a-half-story single-family dwelling. The Applicant explained the need to tear down the existing structure due to its poor condition and lack of a proper foundation. The Board discussed the project's compliance with setback requirements, and Building Inspection Department codes, and the need for a site plan. The Board made a motion to approve the variance in accordance with the plans submitted and seconded. All voted in favor. Public Comment: Patricia Godfrey, abutter from 88 Undine Avenue, expressed concerns about the project's impact on parking and the lot's size. The BOA Chair read Patricia Godfrey's letter into the record, detailing her concerns about the project's compliance with zoning regulations and its impact on her property. A motion to grant the extension for the variance was made and seconded. All members voted in favor. 2025-008/ 115 Read Street: Attorney David Stasio, representing the Applicant, explained the need for variances due to the lot's size and frontage requirement and a request for variances to build a two-family dwelling on a non- conforming lot. The Board discussed the need for an engineered site plan and the project's compliance with zoning regulations. Public Comment: Cheryl Egan from 90 Reed Street expresses concerns about parking and the impact on the neighborhood, suggesting alternative parking solutions. Tino Scalling from 178 Main Street raises concerns about a retaining wall and its potential impact on that property. A motion to continue the matter until May 15, 2025, for the provision of updated plans, was seconded. All voted in favor. MEETING MINUTES REVIEWED: Meeting minutes from January 16, 2025, February 27, 2025, and March 20, 2025, were reviewed and approved. OTHER BUSINESS: Board of Appeals Rules and Regulations- The Board discussed the need for rules for the Board of Appeals, including a checklist for complete applications, a standard review period, and different management of the docket. The board discussed the importance of having complete applications and the impact of incomplete filings on the Board's workload. Speaker 4 discusses the process of developers going through multiple departments before reaching the planning board, which can be confusing and overwhelming. Discussion ensued explaining that a planning board cannot approve a design for a building that is not zoning compliant and emphasizes the need for zoning relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) before seeking planning board approval. Cambridge was used as a good model for handling such situations. There was a discussion that developers typically meet with town planners first to understand the town's preferences and guidelines, which helps shape the design to meet planning board expectations. It was agreed that there is no perfect process, as someone must go first, and suggested setting zoning parameters for the site before determining what can be built within those rules. The Board Members agreed to review the proposal, submit comments, and review them at the next meeting. A motion was made to adjourn the meeting and seconded. All voted in favor.