Nearly 20 residents crowded into the director of inspectional services’ office to hear the board’s deliberations over the permit that would’ve allowed the demolition of the house at 661 Washington Street to make way for a new and larger dwelling with two second level additions.   The owners of the home, Robert and Darlene Spriggs, were asking for the permit for a 21 square-foot increase in the footprint of the building, bringing their site coverage from 16.4 percent to 16.5 percent.  This increased the dwelling’s non-conformity and required appearances before the ZBA in public hearings in January and March for a special permit.

If the Spriggs had decided to build the new dwelling within that footprint, they would have the right to do so and could’ve avoided review by the ZBA.

Monday’s meeting got off to a tense start as some of the members of the public were told by the ZBA’s chairman for the hearings, Sally Wilson, that there had already been two chances for public input during the hearings and that while they could listen to the proceedings, the board would not accept further comments from the public.

Despite Wilson pointing out that the hearings were advertised in the Clipper and at Town Hall, Marshall Street resident William Hart questioned this tactic by the board and felt there was not enough notification of the meetings for citizens.  Washington Street resident Frank Kemp also questioned the role of the ZBA to protect the public, to which Wilson told both men that if they felt aggrieved by any decision the board made that night, they could appeal.

After getting into the facts of the application, the ZBA’s James Lampert said his biggest issue with the case was the fact that the board could consider the plans currently before them or deny the permit and risk the chance of the applicant building something taller and less attractive, while on the same footprint, without the board’s opinion.{sidebar id=1}

“If we deny this as more detrimental, what door are we potentially opening?” asked Lampert, who lives on Washington Street.  “Are we better off with this or taking a different route, saying no and the applicant can construct whatever they want?”

ZBA member Thomas McClure agreed with Lampert and added that he was frustrated with applicants saying that if the board doesn’t give what they want, they will build it under their right “and make it atrocious.”  McClure said that this may be so, but that applicants still have to live in the town and live with the consequences of their actions.

Following a second interruption by Hart and a second reminder by Wilson that the meeting was not a public hearing, the board came to the agreement that the project was not a substantial increase in the non-conforming nature at under one percent.

In discussing the possible detriment to the neighborhood, Wilson said that it was her opinion based on visits to the site that the current dwelling blocked views of the Blue Fish River and marsh already, so the new dwelling wouldn’t do much worse, with the exception of eliminating some skyline for neighbors.

After Hart interrupted again, ZBA member Elizabeth Lewis told him she might ask him to leave if there were another outburst.  Hart instead told the board he had never been as “unimpressed with a town meeting in all his life” and that the ZBA was “ignoring the big picture for a bunch of technicalities about which you’ve already made up your mind” and left the meeting.

Getting back to business, the board continued to debate the possible detriment to the neighborhood, with Lampert and McClure the most vocal that the new dwelling would indeed be more detrimental.  Lampert said the current home was unobtrusive in a very unique neighborhood and McClure said that the proposed dwelling would affect scenic vistas, not in the sense of water or marshes, but such as the bridge next to it and the enjoyment of citizens in looking at the bridge and the activities that summer draws to it.

The board then got into a lengthy discussion of their control of the project versus losing control if the applicant builds on the footprint, does not increase the coverage and applies outright for a building permit.   Lewis said that she understood the need to protect the town through the bylaws, but also recognized the right of a landowner to do what they want with their land.

The most ardent voice for the new dwelling not causing a detriment to the neighborhood was Wilson, who contended that the scenic views of waters and marshes were already blocked by the current home.{sidebar id=4}

McClure countered with the analogy of an oil tanker parked the long way off Duxbury Beach, so only blocking a small amount of view.   While there was not a “substantial” problem with view, he said, people’s eyes might be drawn to the tanker.  While Wilson said it was not an existing tanker in the water like the existing house, McClure said that it was his opinion that it still blocks a scenic view and draws attention, a statement that drew applause from the public.

After more debate, the board decided to visit the question of whether they could write conditions to make the new dwelling acceptable to them, with many feeling they could not.  With the majority agreeing they could not author such conditions, McClure moved to vote for denial on the permit because the structure was substantially detrimental to the neighborhood, in particular to scenic views and vistas.  Lampert asked to add to the motion that the board was unable to determine conditions to make this not the case, which McClure agreed to.

Board members Lampert, McClure, Lewis and Paul Keohan voted to deny the permit while Wilson was the lone vote in favor.

After the meeting, Shawn Dahlen, who represented the applicant before the ZBA, said he thought the board had a difficult decision to make and because the special permit provisions in the bylaw allow for “very subjective thoughts as to what’s detrimental and what’s not, the vote of the board could go either way.”

He also said that had his client decided to build a cape-style home versus a two-story dwelling, there still would have been comments from the public so he was not surprised with the concerns of citizens.

Dahlen said that he made the Spriggs aware that this could happen in the special permit process and that he was confident they would not counter the decision with a dwelling that was more obtrusive to neighbors, but purely within their right.

“I have all the faith in the world that when [the applicant] realizes what the decision is that they will still...come back with a plan that basically looks like the one now, minus 20 square feet and apply to get it built as a matter of right,” said Dahlen.