Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident appeals after‑the‑fact driveway denial; board sustains building official
Summary
Maria Degnan, owner of 139 Terry Street, asked the zoning board to overturn a denial of an after‑the‑fact driveway permit. Building official David Wiles said the additional concrete pushed impervious area above the code limit; the board voted 5‑0 to sustain the denial but asked staff to present alternatives.
The zoning board of appeals on July 28 considered an after‑the‑fact driveway permit denial for 139 Terry Street after staff identified recently expanded concrete that exceeded the city’s impervious‑surface limit.
Maria Degnan, the property owner, told the board she had the work done by friends and did not realize a permit was required. "I didn't think I needed a permit," she said, and added that she had submitted photos of other properties she believes also exceed the limit. Degnan said she sought a practical solution for mobility needs: "I was able to show that I needed this flat surface for my husband and for myself to walk." She asked whether drilling holes, cutting sections of concrete, or paying post‑permit fees could resolve the issue.
Building official David Wiles said staff had proposed remedies in email, including replacing impervious material with pervious products such as pavers or removing the circular concrete section to bring the parcel under the maximum coverage. He told the board the circular portion accounts for a substantial portion of the excess square footage and noted a contractor had offered to help implement pervious alternatives. Counsel and staff explained that variances require a property‑specific hardship and reasonable‑accommodation applications are possible but not guaranteed.
City attorney Carl Bone limited the board’s review to whether the building official correctly interpreted the code in denying the permit. After discussion, Council member David Nutt moved to sustain the building official’s determination; Council member Neil Yorio seconded. The board sustained the denial in a unanimous voice vote.
The board asked staff to return with options for the applicant, including calculations and potential remediation paths. Staff noted the applicant could pursue a variance or reasonable‑accommodation process, but success would depend on demonstrating the specific hardship required by code.
