Zoning Board approves grading and driveway variances for 73½–75 Osborne Street after neighbor conditions

The Zoning Board of Appeal on April 9 approved a variance allowing grading within 5 feet of an adjoining property and an increase in the maximum driveway grade from 8% to 10% for the first 20 feet at 73½–75 Osborne Street. The vote followed public comment from nearby residents and commitments from the applicant’s engineer to coordinate on-site with neighbors.

Engineer Mike Msuco, representing applicant Carlos (applicant last name recorded variously in the transcript), told the board the revised plan showed only modest changes and that he had met with the adjacent landowner to discuss grading, landscaping and a transition between properties. "I offered to be on-site, if needed at any time to go over any questions with both parties so we can address it then and there," Msuco said.

Neighbors had raised concerns about excavation, heavy equipment access and the proximity of work to a stone retaining wall and foundations. Chair Johanna read a written letter from John L. Hancock, trustee of 69–73 Osborne Street, that requested written agreements before any access to the Hancock property, limits on hours of construction (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.), replacement of disturbed plantings at the applicant’s expense, and advance notice and permission for any access to the Hancock side. The chair put the letter into the record and asked whether the Hancock conditions were acceptable; the engineer replied they were and said he would collaborate on-site when exact grading needs could be assessed.

John Hancock’s sister, Jill Hancock, spoke in support of cooperative resolution but said she found the mailed notice and plans difficult to understand and stressed the need for a clear plan for heavy-equipment access. "I had no idea what this letter meant… I got a big printout, and I was like, I have no idea what any of this means," she said, adding she and her brother were willing to work with the applicant but wanted clarity and documentation.

A board member advised the hearing that private side agreements are not enforceable by the board and that any approval should rely on the plans submitted: "Plans per plan submitted would be an important caveat in this approval," the member said. The board required that the work be performed per the submitted/revised plan and noted the applicant’s on-site coordination offer.

On the motion to approve (application 26-0373.5), the board recorded that the variance would be granted because the hardship arose from the particular site and was not created by the applicant and because the variance would not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. The motion to approve (which cited allowance for grading within five feet of the property line and the driveway-grade increase for the first 20 feet per the revised plan) was made and seconded; the board voted in favor by voice vote and the application was approved.

The board’s action included the plan-based caveat and the applicant’s commitment to coordinate on-site with neighbors; the Hancock letter’s requested conditions (hours of work, replacement plantings, written coordination and advance permission for access) were entered into the record and will inform on-site coordination though private agreements remain outside the board’s enforcement authority.

The board also noted that permits and any necessary building-inspection approvals remain separate steps after the variance approval, and that final inspections will rely on the plan as submitted or any formally revised plan. The applicant thanked the board after the vote.

What happens next: the applicant must obtain the required permits and comply with the approved plan; the board’s approval notes the need for on-site coordination with neighbors and sets expectations that work will follow the submitted/revised plan.