pages: PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-07-14 | 4 | lessen the impact on the neighbors. She would be in favor of granting a variance that mitigates the privacy issue - suggesting privacy screens for the deck. She believed the applicants were willing to work with the neighbors regarding their concerns. Board member McNamara approved of the design for the addition, felt it was appropriate and would enhance the home and the neighborhood. She expressed her concerns about the privacy issue with the apartment building next door and found it difficult to weigh the right to sunlight. She would be open to reducing the size of the second floor deck to address the neighbors concerns. She asked if the second story addition, at six feet higher than the current roofline, would have a cathedral ceiling. Mr. Sanchez replied that it would. Board member Lynch stated he would consider a conclusion that takes into consideration the current zoning code and how to overlay that within the parcel size. He would like to know the rationale for not considering the size of the lot, the square footage, and the shape of the lot as mitigating circumstances. He supports the position of the other Board members and would like to know the delta between the smaller deck that would comply with the zoning code and the deck as it is proposed. A discussion ensued between staff and the Board regarding the encroachment portion of the deck. Mr. Sanchez stated that the deck would be 85 sf and indicated that narrowing the deck on each side would reproduce the existing funnel shape, which is what they are trying to avoid. Board member Cunningham asked if the option of not including the 24 sf expansion, keeping the existing profile, and putting the deck on top of it had been considered by the applicant. Mr. Sanchez responded that option had been considered and explained that the model for size was whether two lounge chairs and a table could fit on the deck. Board member Cunningham inquired whether the applicant had considered using sliding doors. Mr. Sanchez affirmed that they had but the slope of the roof limited the options and a sliding door could not be accommodated. Vice President Kohlstrand asked why the applicant chose not to go up using the existing building footprint. She liked the design and concurred that this is a difficult site. She is concerned about the close proximity of the next-door property and the expansion of the footprint being detrimental to the occupants of the adjacent property. She inquired whether a privacy screen was required and if the addition went up above the existing office would a variance still be required. Staff explained that a variance would not be required but a K&L finding would be. Staff made a K&L finding for the second story addition but it is not applicable to decks. Page 4 of 13 | PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf |