By Dolores Sauca Lorusso

The developer seeking a height variance for a new building at the Paragon Boardwalk property at 183-197 Nantasket Ave. requested a continuance of the zoning board of appeals’ public hearing scheduled for Tuesday. The issue, which attracted a crowd at this week’s ZBA meeting, now will be heard on July 18.

**BUILDING INTEREST.** Neighbor Kelsey Lebeau of S Street reviews the plans for a new building at 808 Nantasket Ave. with David Ray of Nantasket Survey Engineering, and builder David Connolly at this week’s board of appeals hearing. [Dolores Lorusso photo]

ZBA members discussed another new multi-family building project, a building proposed for 808 Nantasket Ave. at the corner of S Street, which also drew interest from neighbors.

The Paragon Dunes development, proposed by the Procopio Companies, would be 75 feet tall, higher than the maximum of 40 feet allowed in the Nantasket Beach Overlay District. A continuance of the public was requested by attorney Adam J. Brodsky of Drohan, Tocchio and Morgan P.C., in a letter dated May 30.

The news of the continuance was met with disappointment from a few dozen residents, packing the meeting room and hallway, who now have to wait six weeks to voice their opinions about the proposed variance. Residents complained that the meeting keeps getting “put off” and that no “widespread” alert was sent out about the continuance.

ZBA Chair Patrick Finn said that he was planning to have the meeting televised, and he still plans to do so on July 18; in addition, no other agenda items will be scheduled that evening.

Liz Kay, of Hampton Circle, requested that there also be a Zoom option to better demonstrate the “sense of interest in the project…It is too big scale of a change to not have dialogue about it.”

Some, like Karen Musmeci of 205 Atlantic Ave., were concerned the July 18 date is “too far away” and would like to see the public hearing scheduled sooner because of concerns the “issues might get diluted by then.”

However, others in attendance expressed the desire to push the date off until September, at the end of the summer, so more resident “voices could be heard.”

After giving those in attendance a few minutes to express their frustration with the continuance, Finn said people could officially express their opinions prior to July 18 by submitting a notarized commentary letter.

Under the zoning bylaw, to obtain a variance, applicants must demonstrate “substantial hardship related to the property, not to their individual circumstances.” The town’s variance questionnaire states the applicant must “describe exactly how the shape of your lot, the topography of your lot, the soil conditions of your lot, or the structure/layout of your building are unique or substantially different from neighboring properties, and how these unique circumstances prevent you from using your property for its intended use as a single-family home, as a business… the mere fact that your property will be worth more if a variance is granted does not constitute a substantial hardship.” The Paragon Dunes developer will address these issues when the hearing gets under way.

The next public hearing was on the request by the owner of 808 Nantasket Ave., Jim Wojciechowski, to tear down and rebuild an existing four-family structure. Building Commissioner Bartley Kelly determined the request requires a special permit because “the existing and proposed right and left side setback is less than required, the existing lot coverage is 51%, and the proposed lot coverage of 52.9% is more than what is allowed. The use is a pre-existing non-conforming, multi-family structure in a single-family zone.”

Wojciechowski noted in his application that “in designing the new proposed building it became evident that the existing structure is not perfectly square. The architect’s deviations are minor. The changes provide improvement…replaces a condemned building with a new one.”

Neighbors of 808 Nantasket have said they favor the building being “knocked down and the area cleaned up.” The entrance to the new building would be on the S Street side of the property.

“I am in favor of it…it has been an eyesore since my family purchased there,” said Tom O’Brien of 8 S St.

However, Kelsey Lebeau of 31 S St., who said she is “delighted the current structure is coming down,” said her neighbors at 28 S St. are concerned about the way the new decks “overlook” their house.

Upon further review of the updated plans, it was determined the back deck is approximately five feet into the rear setback, and the corner of the building also falls slightly into the rear setback.

“With a discretionary special permit, the ZBA determines if the request is more detrimental to the community, but this is a setback issue, so it needs a variance,” said ZBA member Timothy Pranaitis.

Finn said that the owner will “need to shave four inches off the corner of the building and do away with the deck…unless they can prove it is a hardship not to have the deck and can’t use the property for its full purpose.”

“They won’t get a variance because it is not a hardship… will need to build on the same footprint,” said David Ray of Nantasket Survey Engineering.

Finn said the new building also must comply with parking for the four units and with eight spaces.

“There will be eight parking spots with two additional spots on the east side, where the yard is, if necessary, but I prefer to keep the yard…I don’t think S Street is so busy,” said Wojciechowski.

Some neighboring residents expressed concerns about parking and traffic issue along S Street. “The client said S Street is not so busy. I don’t believe that to be true…I was parked and the rotation of cars in and around Wellspring was, conservatively, 15 cars. The is also one car illegally parked each day…very busy and congested area,” said neighbor John Meschino.

Janet Souza said of 29 S St. said, “S Street is unique, there is parking on Nantasket Avenue on the right and left…it is trepidous for residents to come and go.”

Design Review Board Chair Thomas Burns said another issue is that the plan shows “only 2.5 feet between nearby house and the property line.” He said the “code does not permit it to be open on the south side if less than three feet… need a straight, flat wall and not 10 windows as shown on the plans, because that proximity can provide a close look directly into another dwelling.”

The ZBA continued the hearing on this proposal to Tuesday, June 20.

Do you have an opinion on this issue? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.