pages: PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 12 | 8-C. Design Review DR04-0082; Variance V04-0014; Peter Braun for Michele and Frank Mulligan; 1608 Santa Clara Avenue (AT/MG). The project involves Code Enforcement action on an unauthorized conversion of a two car garage in the rear yard into a dwelling unit. The applicants are requesting approval of a Major Design Review and seven variances to legalize the conversion. The variances required to legalize the dwelling unit include: a. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(6), for the eight-inch side yard, where five feet is required for the first story and seven feet is required for the second story. b. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(7), for the eight-inch rear yard, where twenty feet is required. c. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(8), for the approximate 15' separation between the main building and the proposed cottage, where a twenty foot separation is required. d. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(2), for not having a landscaped separation between the proposed parking spaces and buildings/property lines, where a three foot landscaped separation is required. e. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.9(f)(1), for the proposed driveway, which is approximately twenty feet wide, where residential driveways are limited to a maximum of ten feet. f. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(3), for not having a landscaped separation between the proposed driveway and the property line, where a one foot landscaped separation is required. g. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.6(a)(1), for the proposed three parking spaces, where a minimum of four off-street parking spaces is required for two dwelling units. Mr. Valeska summarized the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the Variances and Major Design Review, and recommended that the applicant explore other solutions as part of the Code Enforcement. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Mulligan, applicant, detailed the history of this application and stated that he was surprised to find that the cottage was permitted for a garage. He emphasized that the structure was never a garage, and distributed an appraisal form to the Board members. He noted that the cottage was intended to house his mother following surgery, and added that the cottage had always been there. He noted that he intended to appeal any denial. Mr. Leo Beaulieu, 1430 Paru Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that when his neighbor built the cottage, it was never intended to be a garage; the builder originally called it a workshop. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Piziali noted that there were no permits for a house to be built on that site; the permits were for a garage. He did not believe the structure was built with good workmanship, as stated on the appraisal. Planning Board Minutes Page 12 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |