pages: PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-07-14 | 5 | President Cook believes findings 1 and 2 could be argued either way but was in support of finding 3 - detrimental effect to residents - in relationship to the deck. She stated if a compromise were reached on the size of the deck, she could support the project. She believed there were legitimate concerns by the neighbors regarding privacy. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that finding 3 and the staff report state the addition would not be detrimental to the neighbors or surrounding properties but the proposed expansion would further increase the nonconforming lot coverage. She believed that a solution could be reached by incorporation of a privacy screen. She believed the increased noise was not any louder than the current bus noise and traffic. President Cook inquired whether a privacy screen would interfere with the views. Staff stated that the Board could require the privacy screen to preserve the neighbor's privacy, but noted it would further affect access to light and views. A Board discussion on privacy screens ensued. President Cook stated that the Board was supportive of the proposal, agreed that the lot was of an unusual shape but had concerns about the deck. She suggested the Board either vote on the application or inquire whether the applicant would like to work on the deck issue and bring the proposal back to the Board. Staff stated the options the Board had discussed: Direct staff to approve the project under design review, denying the two variances for the ground floor 24-foot expansion and the second floor deck, or approve the design review and make the findings for one or both of the variances. President Cook stated another option would be for the applicant to return with a proposal for a conforming deck. Staff stated that a conforming deck could be approved through design review if it met all the zoning requirements. Mr. Sanchez stated his understanding of whether a variance would be required if the size of the deck were reduced. Board member Lynch stated that if the Board proposed a motion that would give the applicant what they had requested but omitted the upper deck, they would design a deck that was conforming. Vice President Kohlstrand recommended approval of the expansion at the ground floor, and the design review with the modification that the deck stay within the footprint of the existing house. Staff asked for clarification on whether the Board was approving a three-foot setback on both sides. Page 5 of 13 | PlanningBoard/2008-07-14.pdf |