The saga of the barn at 39 Murphy Lane that had permission to be renovated but ended up as new construction took yet a new turn.
At the start of the April 11 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, chair William Moore announced that that due to a recent event, they would discuss the 39 Murphy Lane application at the beginning of the meeting. City Attorney Tony Izzo then got up and told the board that he had received a letter from an attorney representing the property owner, Ms. D’Agostino. He said he had not had time to fully review the letter as it was not received until 4:30 that day. He then asked the attorney (whose name I did not catch) to come forward and confirm that his client was withdrawing her current application for variances.
This is a little confusing but basically, a stop order had been issued on the property because aside from the fact that it was inconsistent with the original application (they tore down a building that was supposed to be renovated), it was going to exceed the height of the original building and thus required additional variances beyond the many they had already received.
Apparently, the applicant had decided that they were not going to endure the additional requirements that were going to come from the Design Review Commission (see earlier post). The attorney seemed to be asserting that his client did not need the additional height variance or any other additional variances. Since they had already received the earlier variances, they were asserting their right to go forward with the project. How they were going to get around the height issue I have no idea or the fact that they tore down a building that they had promised to renovate or that they had put in a full raised basement when their application and plans said that they were going to place the building on a slab. The attorney’s letter should be posted on the city web site shortly.
As soon as I can get a copy of the letter, I will post on its implications.