Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board continues 71 Jericho Road addition after setback concerns
Summary
The board continued Dorothea Brown‑Zaber’s application for an addition at 71 Jericho Road to July 16 to allow the applicant to revise plans after members raised concerns the proposed garage projection might create a new nonconformity to the 8‑ft side setback.
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Scituate Zoning Board of Appeals continued a special‑permit application from Dorothea Brown‑Zaber for work at 71 Jericho Road to the July 16 meeting after board members questioned whether a proposed garage projection would create a new nonconformity.
Rob Carlson of Grady Consulting, representing the applicant, described the plan for an addition that includes a garage with a guest suite, a deck and covered entry. Carlson said the lot predates zoning and is deficient in area, frontage and width; he noted the existing dwelling presently sits 5.4 feet from the right side lot line, and the proposed garage would be sited at about 5.6 feet where an 8‑foot minimum is required.
Board members raised two concerns: (1) whether the garage bump constitutes an extension that would require a variance under section 810‑2C, and (2) whether the design could be adjusted so the garage sits behind the 8‑foot building line. The board suggested the applicant "pull this addition back so that it meets the 8‑ft side setback." Carlson asked for time to consult the client and architect and requested a continuance; the board granted the continuance to July 16 by voice vote.
Why it matters: if the revised plans retain or expand the nonconformity, the applicant may need to seek a variance rather than a special permit. The continuance gives the applicant time to consider reducing the garage footprint to meet the 8‑ft side setback.
Next steps: the applicant will revise plans and return on July 16; the board indicated it expects the applicant to address the side‑setback issue prior to that date.

