Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Garage Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

ZBA denies variance to add fourth garage bay at 29 Grama Terrace

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Zoning Board denied a variance request to convert an existing 289-square-foot storage space into a fourth garage bay at 29 Grama Terrace after members concluded the application did not demonstrate the statutory hardship required for a variance.

On July 28 the Braintree Zoning Board of Appeals denied a petition to convert a 289-square-foot storage area into a fourth garage space at 29 Grama Terrace.

The legal notice identified the applicant as Ahmed Sarwat; a speaker at the hearing identified herself as Yamna of 29 Grama Terrace and said the conversion would serve a growing family. The application sought a variance (Ch. 135 §407, §102 and §603) because the bylaws limit attached garages to three spaces per lot.

Board members probed whether a statutory hardship related to the lot’s shape, soil or topography existed. Member Angela Kavanaugh noted that variances require a showing of substantial hardship tied to the parcel; several members expressed concern about setting precedent if the board granted a variance based on convenience. The board invited the applicant to withdraw if she wished to avoid a denial, but the applicant declined and asked the board to vote.

A motion to approve the variance was made and seconded, but the board recorded opposition and ultimately denied the variance. Counsel reminded the board that a denied variance cannot be resubmitted for two years unless materially different.

Outcome: Denial. The board recorded that the application did not meet the statutory standard for a variance. The record includes a letter of support for the applicant from a neighbor, but board members said the paperwork did not demonstrate the required hardship.