Cingular wireless presentation postponed to September meeting
At the Aug. 23 meeting of the Zoning Board of Review, a motion by Zoning Board Chairman Thomas Ginnerty was unanimously approved for a continuance concerning the Cingular Wireless application to build a wireless communications facility at 179 Tashtassuc Rd. Ginnerty recommended the continuance due to the absence of board members Don Wineberg, Dean Wagner, and Elizabeth Brazil.
Ginnerty noted that Wineberg sat on the matter from the earliest meetings, and Ginnerty thought his input was essential to the decision making process. Attorney Joseph A. Giammarco from the law firm of Anderson & Kereiger represented Cingular in the matter and agreed with the recommendation.
In other business, correspondence requesting a continuance to the September meeting for the Doris Arthur application for a variance was unanimously approved.
Attorney Peter Brockmann represented STD Building Corp. in its request for a special-use permit and variance to build a singlefamily structure on Ferry Street. The applicant decided to withdraw the application.
Marsha N. Byrne represented herself in her request for a variance at her home at 43 Summit Ave. The request was for the restructuring of the house and an addition of an 8by 8-feet covered porch with stairs for the front entrance with an overhang. The proposed landing was 8 feet wide by 5 feet deep. The stairs were 3 feet deep with an overhang 8 feet wide by 5 feet deep.
Board member Joseph Logan moved to grant the request with conditions.
Board member Richard Boren seconded the motion. Ginnerty opposed the request, citing that the applicant did not meet the burden of the standards of ordinances 606 and 607. “Her testimony clearly shows that there were reasonable alternatives which would not necessitate the granting of a variance,” he said.
Board member David Nardolillo concurred with Ginnerty and also opposed approving the request.
Board member Raymond Iannetta, however, supported the application. He said that he believed the request was reasonable.
Boren agreed with Ianetta. “The porch has to be where she designed it,” he said. “The person (a neighbor attending the hearing) who questioned the design initially said that the modification to the house was a substantial improvement,” he added. After further discussion of the matter, the motion for the variance failed with a vote of 3-2. It would require a 4-1 vote to pass.
Brockmann also represented Bernd E. and Donna M. Pfeiffer in their request for a variance at their home at 44 Seaside Drive. The applicant requested a variance for a new 118-square-foot loft area and additional decking to provide entry to a rear porch and connect to an existing deck.
The board recommended and approved a continuance to the September meeting to give the applicant time to research alternatives to the request to bring the design into compliance and satisfy the concerns of the board.
In Lawrence and Janet Smith’s request for a variance at their home at 464 Beacon Ave., Lawrence Smith represented himself. The application is a request to change the existing Cape Cod design of the home to a Colonial design by expanding the second floor without increasing the size of the footprint.
Iannetta motioned to grant the application noting that the board determined that the application satisfied all the requirements for approval. Boren seconded the motion. The board voted unanimously in favor of the request.