Planning Board Minutes
began with an affirmation of the Open Public Meetings Act requirements
and the Pledge of Allegiance. The Minutes from
Roll Call: Present: Mr. Cirillo, Mr. David, Mr. DeLuca, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Schielke, and Mr. Dick. Absent: Mr. Peters, Mr. Soos, Mr. Corcione, Mr. Pantina, and Mr. Mancino.
Business: Application #4-07, Bamber,
# 7-07, Faccini,
The front non-conformity measures a 24’8” setback. The new dormer will not increase this footage. A hot tub and shed exists on the property. A motion to approve this application to resolution was made by Mr. Beninati, 2nd by Mr. DeLuca. All in favor:
Mr. David, Mr. DeLuca, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Schielke, and Mr. Dick.
Communications: Mr. Beninati said the Swanson Application for an addition was being withdrawn, upon request of the applicant.
Application #2-07, Fernandes, 46 So.
# 6-07, Rothery,
Business (continued): Application #3-07, Pugliese,
Sworn in: Anthony Pugliese, son of the applicant. He explained his dad, Tomasso, has been bedridden for the past ten months, therefore the house needs an elevator. He said an elevator on the outside of the house would be in the most convenient. Mr. Pugliese was asked why the elevator was not constructed sooner, since an inside elevator was approved in a prior application.
Resolution #14-00, Approved at a public hearing on
Mr. A. Pugliese replied he was waiting for the insurance company to approve and issue the money for this project.
Christopher Lynch, President of Alternatives to Barriers, representing
Mr. Pugliese. Mr. Lynch is the Architect of the currently submitted design.
He stated the initial approved design in 2001 under evaluated the special
needs of his client. The addition needs another bathroom, and the existing
is sub-standard. Mr. Lynch said the main support wall of the house is
blocked. The work involved would be more expensive (than the prior approved
plan). He said the variance for the setback would be 7’ less than the
first variance that was granted. The first architect was chosen by the
insurance company and may have based the design on
The Board suggested Mr. Lynch look at the previous application, and explain why he believes the elevator will not fit in the space provided in the original plan. A separate room is needed for the elevator motor. The house is three-stories high, and a tenant resides on the third floor, but the elevator should go to the highest level, in case the tenant moves. There is inside space for the elevator although the motor room requires extra space. The clients’ request is for an outside elevator. A suggestion was made that this motor room be positioned on the second floor, where there is unused space. Mr. Lynch agreed this could be an option (having the elevator inside, with the motor room positioned on the second floor).
It was suggested that additional review time might be beneficial for the applicant and the Architect could re-consider other options, which have been discussed. There are modifications, which could be considered on this proposal, such as, reducing the motor room to the minimum size, and re-locating it. The applicant has an opportunity to ask for a vote on this application, as it stands, or to modify his plans and submit them at a future hearing.
requested a postponement to
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at
Janet M. Murphy,
Planning Board Recording Secretary
|ADS - Applied Dynamic Solutions, LLC email webmaster|