Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears extended debate over second kitchen, parking and front‑porch at 108 Cleveland; final vote not recorded
Summary
An extensive hearing over variances at 108 Cleveland Avenue focused on an existing second kitchen, a one‑foot parking variance and a front porch reaching the property line. Neighbors largely supported the applicant; board counsel and commissioners raised enforceability and conversion concerns; transcript does not show a final vote.
The Zoning Board of Appeals spent substantial time on a mixed application for 108 Cleveland Avenue that included requests to keep an existing second kitchen, establish an additional off‑street parking space and build a small front porch that would reach the property line. The hearing featured prolonged legal and policy discussion about whether a temporary conditional variance for a second kitchen would be enforceable and whether it could enable conversion to an illegal two‑family use.
Why it matters: The case raises recurring issues for the board: how to treat pre‑existing interior alterations (like a second kitchen), how to structure enforceable conditions for temporary permissions and how to weigh neighborhood character and parking impacts when a home may be used intermittently by extended family.
What happened at the hearing: Attorney Stephen Kaiser presented the application on behalf of the applicant, Christopher Schreck, who said the house is a single‑family dwelling used by his family and occasional visiting relatives and that the second kitchen had existed when they purchased the property four years earlier. The application included: (1) retention of the second kitchen in a single‑family dwelling; (2) a one‑foot variance on required off‑street parking (proposed 8x20 vs. required 9x20); and (3) a four‑foot‑deep front porch (to the property line).
Public comment: Neighbors including Suhail Khan (115 Cleveland), Adam Steinman (110 Cleveland) and John Lazar (125 Cleveland) spoke in favor, describing the applicant as a good neighbor and saying the curb‑cut/parking changes posed minimal neighborhood impact. The transcript also shows commissioners pressed counsel about whether the house had an active violation and how specific a conditional variance could be (for example, whether it could be limited to identified relatives only).
Key legal and enforcement discussion: Board counsel and members cautioned that a temporary conditional variance that was too broadly worded (for example, granting a second kitchen with no occupant limitation) could be unenforceable and might be used to create a de‑facto rental unit. Counsel suggested the board could consider approving the parking and porch changes while denying or conditioning the second kitchen; one attorney on the record recommended naming specific conditions (for example: permit runs only while current owner lives in the house and names of allowed relatives), though commissioners noted enforcement of such named‑person conditions can be difficult.
Outcome on the record: The transcript ends with the board continuing the discussion and asking the applicant to consider whether to submit revised plans or conditions; no final vote appears in the supplied portion of the record.
Ending: The board left the case open for potential revision and asked for additional materials (possible renderings and plan clarifications) and additional legal framing of conditions; neighbors and counsel will likely be asked to return with a revised application or clarified conditions at a future meeting.
