Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 42 Eastern Ave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homeowner told to reduce impervious surface before ZBA will decide on 42 Eastern Ave plan
Summary
Owners seeking multiple variances to expand and modernize a small Eastern Avenue house were asked to return with revisions reducing impervious surface (pervious driveway, reduced porch/footprint) after board members said impervious coverage was the primary outstanding concern.
The Zoning Board of Appeals on June 9 adjourned an application from the owners of 42 Eastern Avenue after members expressed particular concern about the project’s proposed increase in impervious surface and building coverage.
Owner Ingrid Lucasampos introduced herself and explained she bought the 25‑by‑25 house to make it her “forever home,” proposing to enclose a rear deck, add a main‑floor master suite and a front porch. The plans as presented would raise building coverage from roughly 21% to about 33% and impervious surface coverage toward 57.6%, according to the figures shown to the board.
Board members said the side‑yard and front‑yard setback requests appeared manageable because they generally reduced existing nonconformities, but several members singled out impervious surface coverage as the primary, potentially determinative issue. Building inspector Joe Agostinelli and staff indicated the driveway alone could be converted to pervious materials and that change could reduce impervious coverage by an amount close to the variance requested.
Chair Aberizzic and multiple board members told the applicant they would prefer she return with concrete mitigation measures such as a pervious driveway, reduced porch depth, or other design changes that lower impervious coverage. "If the homeowner is pushing impervious surface more in line with what we previously approved on similarly sized properties, it seems difficult for me to have an issue with that," the chair said.
Because board members were split on whether to proceed without revisions and the Village’s boards meet monthly, the applicant was advised to revise and resubmit; the public hearing was adjourned to give the owner time to work with staff on options before a future meeting. Staff and board outlined possible next steps: modify the driveway to pervious pavers or reduce the porch/footprint and then return with updated plans for public posting and a ZBA hearing.
The adjournment leaves the side‑yard and front‑yard setback variances unresolved but signals the board’s primary request: a demonstrable reduction in impervious surface coverage before the ZBA will vote on the full set of variances.
The owner was told to consult with building staff and the Board of Architectural Review as needed; the board noted the application will be reviewed again once the applicant files revised documents for public posting.
