2019-11-14-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Clifford asked why the expansion can't be done in the back where the roof porch is now (Mr. Li explained the porch is already existing. Before it was screened in and in 2016 they closed the screen and made it a porch addition. The porch is now his office). Mr. Clifford asked if they are working with an architect (Mr. Li responded right now the architect drawing is not updated and he will hire a new architect to re-design). Mr. Clifford stated the Special Permit should be okay but the Variance would not be. There are several options of where an expanded house could be designed. It has not been explored. The hardship has to be caused by zoning laws not by living circumstances. An Audience member, Charles Marge, of 12 manning street asked if this variance were granted and the house is sold do they have the right to be 12 feet from the street (Mr. Clifford stated the Board has adopted new language in hopes to prevent this). Mr. Marge expressed concern for visibility on the corner of Milk Street. (Mr. Li stated they had a sight visibility map. By law the minimum requirement is to have 30 feet along the street. It's almost 10 feet back from visibility zone. They do have an evergreen bush blocking the view to any incoming cars from Milk Street. They propose to get rid of that and add more visibility). Mr. Clifford stated this is not qualifying as a variance. There are alternatives that appear to be able to be built as a matter of right. There are three requisites they have to look at. There do not appear to be any soil conditions on this part of the house nor up through the patio. There don't seem to be any topography issues. The shape of the lot is not far from rectangle. There is not a compelling hardship, we have an inconvenience shown here. A Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, stated he doesn't understand how they could give a variance here. Mr. Williams stated they need to come up with a plan that is better for them. They can put an addition in the back. He suggested they have an architect involved. Ms. Krieger, agreed with Mr. Williams. Mr. Clifford suggested the applicant continue or withdraw. Mr. Li stated a lot of energy has gone into this project and that they have the hardship. It is real they have a small house with a small lot. He agreed to withdraw and stated the Variance is not forever, and is only for the current owners. Mr. Clifford stated that was not true. A Variance runs with land and lasts forever. That is the law. He understands architects are not inexpensive but this project needs an architect. Mr. Li stated they would withdraw and find an architect. On a motion made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0, to allow a withdrawal without prejudice.