The Marion Zoning Board of Appeals ran into a few roadblocks during their March 24 meeting.
First up were Jorge and Tiffany Figueiredo of 12 Cross Neck Road. The couple sought a Special Permit to allow an accessory apartment, a one-bedroom suite above a proposed two-car garage.
“We have a note here from the Marion Planning Board, who is hesitant to approve the plans as they are worried an addition may cause too much stress on the septic system,” said ZBA Chairman Eric Pierce. “Is this a four-bedroom house or a three bedroom?”
“It used to be a four-bedroom house,” explained Jorge, “but the owner before us converted one bedroom into an office, and it’s never been changed.”
“Ah,” said board member Betsy Dunn. “The assessors haven’t been in since you bought it?”
“We invited them to see,” said Tiffany Figueiredo.
“It doesn’t matter,” interjected Marion Building Commissioner Scott Shippey, “because the septic system is designed for five bedrooms anyway. Adding another bedroom is a moot point.”
“We’re going to take this under advisement,” said Pierce. “At this point, the only thing holding me back is that we don’t have engineer plans to say what this is going to be.”
He requested that the Figueiredos get the plans to the board as soon as possible for review so that they could move on with the case.
The next case came from Dena Xifaras and her husband, Michael, of 34 Piney Point Road. They also sought a Special Permit to construct an accessory apartment as a separate dwelling on the property.
“So tell us what you want to do with this,” Pierce asked of Ms. Xifaras.
“I’m looking to buy my childhood home and move in, while not displacing my parents. I don’t want to ruin the fact that we get along wonderfully,” Ms. Xifaras said to the amusement of the board. “Our intent is to use it for family. It’s been surveyed, we have professional building plans, we want to take down minimal trees.”
She continued, “We’ve tried to do everything in accordance with the bylaws. We think it would be wonderful for my parents to be nearby, for them to be close to their grandkids, and for me to take care of my parents as they age.”
“You’ve really done your homework!” Dunn commented. “You didn’t leave me any questions.”
The board approved a motion to take the case under advisement.
The biggest snag of the night came as they discussed the case of Garrett Bradley of 8 Park Street. Bradley, who was not present, sought permission to build an attachment to the main house on the property as an accessory apartment. The board was reluctant to approve the request, as the addition plans fell too close to the property borders, and the side entry was not within regulations.
“By granting this, we’re adding a new non-conformance,” explained Dunn, “and I really feel that they should only be adding onto the house in the proper settings.”
“The intentions were good, but it was a bit convoluted … although we led them that way,” admitted Pierce.
The case was put on hold as there was still considerable time left. The board considered advising the property owners that a withdrawal without prejudice might be the best option so as to not take up time.
The last case of the night, which had like Bradley’s been previously taken under advisement, was a case from Peter and Elizabeth Turowski, 313 Wareham Road.
They had requested an addition off of the main building, as well as a change to the use for the second floor of the building from storage space to office space for their architecture firm.
Pierce eyed the addition plans skeptically.
“The neighboring structures would be so close; there’d be nearly no space,” said Pierce. “Imagine a fire truck trying to fit in there. I’d love to see companies grow, but it looks like this one’s full.”
“Well, bumping the porch out and putting a room where the current porch is is within the footprint,” pointed out board member Marc Leblanc, “but we can’t approve segments of a plan.”
“The expansion of the footprint is unfavorable,” agreed Pierce, “but the second floor use change is reasonable. If we deny the expansion and they come back and request only certain things like the porch, we can do that.”
The board denied the Turowskis’ expansion, but approved the second floor use change, on the requirements that the space is occupied only by the property owner’s business, and that it would revert to storage space on the sale of the property.
The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals will take place on April 14 at 7:30pm at the Marion Town House.
By Andrea Ray