Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA approves several residential permits; contentious items highlighted
Summary
The Dennis Zoning Board of Appeals on April 27 approved multiple special permits and variances for residential properties — including additions at 25 Hillside Drive, 290 Old Wharf Road, 63 Bristol Street and 48 Arrowhead Drive — while moving two contested matters to later hearings.
The Dennis Zoning Board of Appeals approved a slate of residential special permits and variances at its April 27 meeting, clearing modest additions and replacement projects while flagging two contested cases for further review.
The board voted to issue a special permit for 25 Hillside Drive (ZBA 2610) to allow a loft addition above an existing garage after staff confirmed the project met lot‑coverage and bulk thresholds. Paul Foley, the town reviewer, told the board the addition ‘is less than 40% in that area’ and recommended five standard conditions; the board approved the permit unanimously.
The board also approved a special permit for 290 Old Wharf Road (ZBA 2615) to remove and rebuild a 16×16 portion of a 1945 house and add a 45‑square‑foot mudroom, finding the proposal conforms with the 15% and 40% nonconformity rules and imposing health and stormwater conditions. Kieran Healy, the project surveyor, confirmed the work stays under the thresholds staff set.
A request to add a garage at 63 Bristol Street (ZBA 2613) received board approval after the applicant’s representative said the measure would raise building coverage from 17.7% to 21.5% but remain under the 30% floor‑area threshold. Similarly, the board granted a special permit for 48 Arrowhead Drive to replace a 1967 ranch with a two‑story home on essentially the same footprint, conditioned on the staff report and Title 5 compliance.
Two matters attracted more extended debate. A front‑yard pool variance at 3 Division Street prompted detailed questioning about topography, coastal bank setbacks and visibility; the board approved the variance but added a condition requiring additional screening between the pool and the street. The owners and their counsel said moving the pool back would intrude on wetlands and require retaining walls, while conservation staff emphasized that ‘you cannot build any structure within a coastal bank because it’s considered armoring a coastal bank, so that’s not allowed, period.’
A complex compliance and site‑plan dispute at 37 Hall Street — involving a covered porch, new paving that extends onto town property, and proposed future redevelopment — produced the most contentious discussion. The board separated the narrow covered‑porch request from the broader site‑plan and paving issues, required a corrective site plan reviewed by the building commissioner, and continued the larger matter to the June meeting.
The board opened several other applications and handled routine continuances and conditions; full agendas, staff reports and the board’s motions are part of the public record.
