2017-09-28-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, asked the applicant if they are proposing to do a screened porch or covered porch (covered porch). Mr. Williams asked the applicant why they have to build such a large porch since the problem is centered on the entrance (Mr. Ramanthan responded that his mother-in-law visits them in the summer and she likes to sit on the front porch and having a covered porch would be nice for her to have). Mr. Williams stated that he has no issue with putting a roof over the entrance and maybe have it a step wider but he cannot support having a wider porch (Mr. Ramanthan stated that if they need to make it narrower, they can do that, but the proposed design seemed to fit in well with the neighborhood). A Board Member, Mr. Edward D. McCarthy, asked if the applicant would keep the driveway if they approved the front porch, would they keep the driveway (yes). A Board Member Associate, Mr. Barnert stated that he understands that a larger landing would help with the hardship, but asked why not having a front porch is a hardship (they wanted to make sure the house is in alignment with the rest of the neighborhood). The Chairwoman, Ms. Jeanne K. Krieger, stated that the house fits well on the lot and she is concerned that a front porch extending the length of the house would be an intrusion into the setback. Ms. Krieger also stated that the hardship is not justified. A Board Member, Ms. Martha C. Wood, stated that they could put a larger landing and still be able to put a chair on it without having a large porch. Mr. Clifford stated that this is not a Special Permit so the amount of discretion is limited. He would have voted against the original variance if he had been on the Board at that point because it doesn’t meet the lot conditions required by a variance and he would have an issue voting for any variance with this circumstance. It is not legal for the Board to vote for this variance. Ms. Krieger stated that there is somewhat of a hardship based on the shape of the lot. There is also a hardship in terms of the access and she would be inclined to support a smaller scaled proposal. Mr. Williams stated that the reason the house is so close to the street is because they received the variance before and now they are asking to amplify that impact. He sees it as a self-imposed problem and he is not in favor of a covered farmer’s porch. Mr. Barnert stated that there is a big difference in having just the landing extended compared to having the overhang extended. With just the landing extended, there is no visual impact. Mr. Barnert asked if the Board would consider approving the expansion of the landing only without the overhang. Ms. Wood stated that part of the porch towards Dane Road is in the setback. If the applicant came back in with a proposal where the landing stopped after the door, that may be considered acceptable. September 28, 2017 ZBA Meeting Page 5