3A Public Hearing 2008 0707 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts ojBoard of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting March 6, 2008 Minute No. 2008-OS Page 3 of 5 Peter Woolston, 82 Williams Street, stated that he had lived at that address since 2004. He believed that a 1,525 foot addition was too much for the size of the lot. If the lot and its neighbors' lots were 50 feet wide, he probably would not have objected. However, the four-foot setback would probably block the sunlight to the 74 Williams property. He pointed out that the apartment buildings across the street were built in the 1960s on 50 foot wide lots and they "were not obtrusive" when looking at them from his property. Preservation of the backyard character should be taken into consideration, along with preservation of the neighborhood character. Most of the lots on his side of Williams Street had garages with landscaping and gardens in their backyards. This project would change the backyard character along his side of the street. His backyard consisted of a garage, a covered patio, and a yard with fruit trees and a garden. He also worried about runoff from the additional concrete in the project. He asked that this project not be approved until changes were made to lessen the mass of this overwhelming, 25-foot high addition that would be located 16 feet from the rear property line. Chair Goldt asked the size of the speaker's home. Was his garage a long, tandem garage? Was the jog seen on the aerial photo part of the garage? Mr. Woolston replied that his home was about 1,160 square feet. The garage was 30 feet long by 12 feet wide and the jog was a covered patio. Member Sidari noticed that most of the neighborhood seemed to have something built in their yards, as seen in the aerial photo. He asked if any of the structures were living quarters. Mr. Woolston pointed out various garages and structures on other properties on the photo of Williams Street. None of the structures were living quarters. Chair Goldt asked the speaker if he was more concerned about the height of the addition rather than the lot coverage. Mr. Woolston said that the height was really obtrusive. He feared that allowing this duplex would lead to more two-story duplexes being built in the neighborhood. Julia Johnson, 74 Williams Street, passed some photos among the Board Members of her property that showed light currently coming into the house and across the deck. Her concerns were privacy, air and light. A second story, six-foot window just four feet from the property line would look directly down on her deck. While the four-story apartment building was behind her property, it was about 30 feet from her deck and obscured by several trees. This proposed duplex addition, along with the four-story apartment building, would effectively block any air coming from the westerly direction and off the bay. She expected that her house, backyard and deck would be completely shaded by the addition no later than two o'clock. She also believed this project would damage the value of her property. Member Daly asked if it was easy to find a parking spot in the neighborhood. Ms. Johnson said, "No." Everyone had more than one car, but had parking for only one car at their houses. Ms. Collier closed by stating that the height of the addition would be 22.5 feet tall at the most. The ground level portion of the addition could be put on a slab, which would reduce the height about another 1.5 feet. She also had been concerned about the shade on the 74 Williams Street neighbor, but it would be for a very brief time, as most of that house was located next to the