Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakeville ZBA continues Pond Lane house plan after conservation raises Long Pond stormwater concerns
Summary
The Zoning Board continued an application to raise and replace a dwelling at 301 Pond Lane after the Conservation Commission asked for review and permitting because proposed lot coverage would rise to 39.1%, exceeding the town’s 25% maximum. The applicant requested a continuance to June 12.
The Lakeville Zoning Board of Appeals continued without decision on May 15 an application to raise an existing dwelling and construct a new home with an attached garage at 301 Pond Lane, citing outstanding conservation and stormwater issues.
Nick Filozzo presented the petition on behalf of applicant Cody (surname appears in record both as Filozzo and Bellozzo). The proposal would replace the existing house on the last lot on Pond Lane. Filozzo told the board the property lot size is about 15,500 square feet and that the project would retain a deed restriction limiting the home to two bedrooms, consistent with Board of Health requirements.
The Board of Health first flagged that the septic was sized for a two-bedroom dwelling and the architectural plans initially showed a third bedroom; the applicant submitted revised plans dated May 7 showing a two-bedroom layout and the health board said it had no objections provided the two-bedroom restriction remains.
The Conservation Commission submitted a May 9 memo saying the project “would be premature to approve” until Conservation permits the work because much of the project lies within Conservation’s jurisdiction. Conservation also cited town guidance and a regional grant study on Long Pond’s flood vulnerability and asked for “no net increase in stormwater entering the pond.” The petition’s proposed total lot coverage was listed in materials as 39.1%, which the Conservation memo noted is 14.1 percentage points above the town’s 25% maximum.
Board members and the applicant discussed possible reductions of impervious area, including removing a stone patio or other elements, and whether paving the driveway was necessary. The applicant said the paved driveway was proposed because of slope and winter snow removal concerns; board members said removing impervious surfaces might reduce coverage but Filozzo said the current numbers would not come close to meeting the 25% threshold if the driveway remained paved.
Several written letters from neighbors were entered in support and read into the record. At public comment, Nancy Yates, who described work on a long-term pond improvement grant, said percent coverage is “the only thing we have [a] problem with” and urged the applicant to obtain Conservation review first. Other residents asked for conservation approval and raised concerns about runoff and pond health.
Given Conservation’s request and outstanding technical items, the applicant asked to continue the hearing to the board’s June 12 meeting; the board voted to continue to June 12. No approvals or variances were granted at the May 15 hearing.
