2019-03-14-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Williams made clear his concern for the other Boards and how it does not fit within the criteria. Mr. Cohen stated he was thinking this is really too big, look at bylaws and build the house according to bylaws. However with the argument about"well we could sell this and the contractor would build a new house" they were right. I see that every day I look out my window. It could be bigger than that, is this true Jennifer. (Ms. Gingras responded the house as built does not exceed height or gross floor area, so they are correct about that). Mr. Cohen again stated the house is too big but he is going to support it. On a motion made and seconded, the Board voted to close the hearing at 8:04 pm. Mr. Williams suggested a straw vote. Ms. Wood motioned to re-open the hearing so a straw vote could be made. On a motion made and seconded the hearing was re-opened. Ms. Krieger made it clear that they are back in session. Straw vote on a waiver to allow egress staircase 4-1 (Mr. Williams in opposition). Straw vote on expanded accessory apartment 4-1 (Mr. Williams in opposition). Ms. Krieger reminded everyone of the condition for there to be sufficient vegetation in the back. Ms. Wood wondered if there could be a condition to have a higher privacy wall on the deck. (Mr. Ives explained the 6 feet maximum with the sight lines and with the topography he doesn't think it would help). Mr. Williams asked for a condition that the accessory apartment cannot be condominiumized. Ms. Krieger asked if they would accept that condition. An explanation of the condition to not condominiumize was given. Mr. Chugani stated they agree to the proposed conditions. On a motion made and seconded, the Board voted to close the hearing at 8:08 pm. Mr. Williams stated he is afraid of builders taking advantage of this and build two family houses in one family zones. He is fearful they have opened up Pandora's Box. Ms. Krieger responded by saying she feels comfortable continuing to vote on this and there has been sufficient discussion. They will continue to consider applications on individual basis. Mr. Cohen voiced that the argument about precedent seems to be about every project. It is such a false argument. If there is some piece of land that has exactly the same square footage they have, its higher, it is not a precedent. It will be discussed in that manner.