Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Needham ZBA continues 98 Falcon Street appeal to March 19 after respondent filing
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals continued an appeal over construction at 98 Falcon Street to March 19 to let appellants review a respondent filing that argues the appeal was not timely; the board also noted stormwater issues cannot be addressed by the ZBA because a revised stormwater bylaw is not yet effective.
The Needham Zoning Board of Appeals continued an appeal Feb. 19 concerning construction at 98 Falcon Street so appellants could review recent filings by the property’s builder.
Andrew Yost and Stuti Venkat, identified themselves as property owners at 106 Falcon Street and asked the board to hear their appeal of the building commissioner’s written determination related to a permit issued to Paul Pisano (permit BR2510976). They alleged the construction at 98 Falcon presented possible violations including side-yard setbacks, floor area ratio and stormwater concerns.
Respondent counsel, referred to in the transcript as Mr. Giunta, filed an opposition pleading arguing the appeal was untimely and that the statutory time standards to file had been missed. The appellants said they had not received that filing before the hearing and that a new infiltration/plot plan was filed days earlier; the board agreed to continue the matter to allow time to review the respondent’s papers and the new plan.
Jurisdictional note: Town counsel informed the board that the town’s new stormwater bylaw had been approved by the Attorney General today but is not effective until the clerk files it; therefore, stormwater-related appeals under the prior bylaw are within the Board of Selectmen’s purview, and the ZBA cannot address stormwater plan issues at this hearing.
Next steps: The ZBA continued the hearing to March 19 at 7:30 p.m.; the board asked staff to supply the appellants with copies of the respondent’s pleading and the newly filed plot/infiltration plan so the parties can prepare for the continued hearing.
Quote: “This is our first house … we just want to make sure everything is protected,” said Andrew Yost, describing the appellants’ interest in resolving the matter and preserving their rights while they review filings.
The board focused the Feb. 19 session on jurisdictional and procedural matters and did not rule on the underlying zoning or stormwater merits; those substantive issues will be addressed at the continued hearing if the board determines it has jurisdiction after review of the respondent’s filing.
