Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning‑relief topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves special permits and lot‑area variance for 9 Union Street conversion to two‑family
Summary
The Wareham Zoning Board of Appeals voted June 24 to grant a package of special permits and a lot‑area variance allowing 9 Union Street to be reconverted to a two‑family dwelling for in‑law use; the board recorded statutory findings for the variance.
The Wareham Zoning Board of Appeals voted June 24 to grant special permits and a lot‑area variance for 9 Union Street, allowing the owner to convert the house back to a two‑family dwelling to accommodate an in‑law unit.
Board chair Nazi Akalasi presided over the hearing after clerk Mr. Akabbachi returned; the applicant presented revised plans showing sideline setbacks and dimensions the board had requested. The applicant said the upstairs unit would house the owner’s sister, described as in her 70s, and provided neighbor support letters including one from Cheryl Fischer.
The board identified the relief sought as front, side and rear setback special permits, building coverage and impervious‑surface special permits, floor‑area‑ratio relief, and a lot‑area variance. Chris Conte moved that the items eligible for special‑permit treatment were not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood; the motion passed by roll‑call vote with votes in the affirmative from Connor Alden, Troy Larson, Chris Conte, Richard Sample, Elizabeth Aron and Chair Nazi Akalasi.
The board then voted to grant the lot‑area variance for the shortfall (the applicant represented the lot as short by about 3,750 square feet). The board recorded its finding that the variance met the statutory requirements identified on the record (transcribed reference to MGL). The votes were recorded by roll call in the affirmative for the supporting members; the board chair noted the required statutory finding when announcing the outcome.
During deliberations members and neighbors raised practical points about access and safety: one member noted that stair access and other safety issues fall under the building code (building commissioner), not zoning, and said those elements would be enforced at permitting. A member also cautioned that attempting to impose a contractual or permit condition that the unit revert to single‑family “when the in‑law dies” may not be enforceable in court; the board discussed the permanence of converting to two‑family use before voting.
What happens next: the approvals permit the owner to proceed with the interior work described in the application and to pursue any required building permits; the record shows the board’s findings and the variance approval as the formal outcomes of the hearing.
