Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors appeal building permit for 378 Manning Street; board continues hearing on footprint and preexisting two‑family status
Summary
Neighbors appealed a building permit for reconstruction of a two‑family at 378 Manning Street, saying the permit improperly counted a detached garage in the footprint and raising questions about whether the two‑family use was discontinued.
Neighbors appealed a building permit issued to reconstruct a two‑family at 378 Manning Street, asking the Needham Zoning Board of Appeals to order the Building Department to revoke the permit or require a conforming plan that excludes a detached garage from the footprint calculation.
Appellants Nick Kozlov and Megan Waldvogel, represented by attorney George Giunta Jr., argued the building-permit footprint overstated the original preexisting structure by erroneously including a detached garage. Giunta urged the board to interpret the bylaw’s definition of “footprint” and its reference to “attached garages” and accessory annexes as excluding detached garages from the footprint calculation for reconstruction by right under the bylaw’s section on rebuilding preexisting nonconforming two‑families.
The appellants also raised a separate issue: whether the property retained a continuous lawful preexisting two‑family use. The appellants presented occupancy/street‑list records showing gaps in recorded occupants between 2003 and 2024 and argued that multiple years with no occupancy in the official records may show discontinuance or abandonment of the two‑family use, which would affect whether the owner may reconstruct the prior multiunit configuration as of right.
Opposing counsel, representing the owner/permit holder, submitted a revised plot plan to the Building Department and argued the detached garage qualifies as an “accessory annex” that may be included in the footprint calculation. The owner’s counsel also pointed to assessor records and building‑department files showing historic two‑family characteristics and argued the evidence supports a preexisting two‑family use that the building permit lawfully considered.
Board members and counsel discussed statutory interpretation and the record evidence; several board members recommended more factual development before reaching a decision. The board granted a continuance so both sides can submit additional documentation: (1) a definitive plot plan for the preexisting footprint that addresses eaves/overhangs and whether the detached garage must be included; (2) additional historical occupancy and lease records to address discontinuance/abandonment questions; and (3) confirmation of the revised plan and calculations from the Building Commissioner. The ZBA set the matter for further hearing on February 27.
