The property in question is a narrow plot measuring 22 feet wide by 150 feet deep, situated between Emery and Bond Streets. The proposed expansion involves extending the second floor over the existing first floor, with a slight cantilever to increase the coverage. The plan also includes transforming the existing garage into an ADU, a move that raised several eyebrows among board members due to the number of variances required.

A significant portion of the discussion centered around the project’s compliance with zoning regulations, particularly regarding impervious coverage, side yard, and rear setbacks. The proposal would increase the building coverage from 36% to 42%, and while the impervious coverage increase was a mere 1%, it still exceeded the allowable limit of 65%. These figures prompted board member concerns about the potential for increased stormwater runoff and the project’s overall fit within the neighborhood’s character.

Board member Don Miller questioned the necessity of the numerous variances. Mr. Wolf acknowledged the challenges posed by the narrow lot but maintained that the changes were modest and in harmony with the existing neighborhood structures. Despite this, the board was apprehensive about the encroachment on side and rear property lines, with the existing garage already non-compliant. The addition of a stairway to the garage further complicated matters, as it would require widening the structure and infringing upon the side property line by one foot.

Parking logistics added another layer of complexity to the proposal. Concerns were raised about the feasibility of accommodating three vehicles on a shared driveway, with one participant expressing doubt about the practicality of such an arrangement. The absence of an income restriction for the ADU, which could have potentially waived some parking requirements, was also noted. Board members stressed the importance of ensuring adequate maneuverability for vehicles, especially given the shared nature of the driveway.

The applicant was urged to consider reconfiguring the proposal to better fit the site, with suggestions to reduce the impervious surface area by replacing concrete with grass being debated. However, the practicality and impact on parking remained contentious points.

The board emphasized the need for the applicant to return with a plan that addressed the various concerns raised, particularly concerning setback intrusions and variances. The suggestion to relocate stairs inside the garage to eliminate a variance requirement was one potential solution discussed.

In a move to facilitate further discussions and allow the applicant time to adjust their plans, the board agreed to carry the application forward to a later date. The next meeting was proposed for November 18th, with a deadline for submitting necessary materials set for October 21st.