Meeting Recap: Braintree ZBA Reviews Five Major Petitions (08/25/2025)
The Braintree Zoning Board of Appeals held a busy session on August 25, 2025, addressing several key development and residential projects. The meeting saw lively public debate, particularly concerning a large-scale apartment proposal on Washington Street, which was ultimately withdrawn by the applicant. Here’s a detailed summary of the proceedings.
New Business
Petition 25-18: 60 Forbes Road (Tavern in the Square)
- [00:10:47] – Request: A variance was sought for a second wall sign that would push the property’s total signage over the 150-square-foot limit.
- [00:19:45] – Discussion: The board and a member of the public discussed whether the building’s corner location constituted a sufficient hardship to justify the extra signage.
- [00:26:25] – Outcome: The petition was continued to September 29, 2025, allowing the applicant to return with revised calculations for a smaller, potentially conforming sign.
Petition 25-19: Lot 2B Graziano Drive
- [00:27:56] – Request: A variance for lot coverage and open space was requested to build a single-family home in the watershed protection district.
- [00:38:55] – Discussion: The applicant’s team successfully argued that the lot’s steep slope created a hardship and presented a sophisticated storm water management plan that would provide a net environmental benefit.
- [00:57:51] – Outcome: The board found a valid hardship and approved the variance.
Petition 25-20: 9 Woodside Avenue
- [00:59:40] – Request: The homeowner requested a finding to add an 8-foot roof overhang that would encroach on the front setback.
- [01:01:03] – Discussion: The overhang was proposed for energy efficiency and shade. The board determined its impact would be minimal as it was over an existing paved area.
- [01:08:09] – Outcome: The finding was approved.
Petition 25-21: 13 Woodedge Road
- [01:09:02] – Request: A finding for a second-story addition and a variance for a front porch on an irregularly shaped lot.
- [01:12:04] – Discussion: With letters of support from all direct abutters, the board agreed the lot’s curved shape created a hardship and the design was sensitive to the neighborhood.
- [01:16:39] – Outcome: Both the variance and the finding were approved.
Old Business
Petition 25-15: 73 Beachwood Road
- [01:26:00] – Request: Continued hearing for a deck built within the side yard setback.
- [01:28:53] – Discussion: Following a site visit, the board felt the impact was minimal. The applicant agreed to add a six-foot privacy screen to address neighbor concerns.
- [01:32:55] – Outcome: The finding was approved with the condition of adding the privacy screen.
Petition 25-14: 1139 & 1151 Washington Street
- [01:33:59] – Request: Four variances for a 56-unit apartment complex, including for density and number of stories.
- [02:19:24] – Public Comment: The project faced strong opposition from residents concerned about its massive scale, density, and impact on the neighborhood character.
- [02:50:42] – Board Deliberation: The board struggled to identify a legal hardship that would justify the requested density variance, with legal counsel noting that financial viability is not a basis for a hardship.
- [03:01:20] – Outcome: Facing a likely denial, the applicant chose to withdraw the petition without prejudice, which the board approved.
