Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed large addition and two‑story garage at 65 Fila draws neighbor objections; board split and next steps unclear
Summary
Owners seeking a large addition and a two‑story detached garage at 65 Fila Street faced neighbor objections about massing, tree impacts and lot coverage on July 14, while the ZBA debated whether cited comparables and a DRB advisory mitigate the request.
Owners Patricia and Christopher Hayes, represented by architect Matt Herr (Frost Herr Architects), asked the Zoning Board on July 14 for variances to allow an addition to an existing single-family residence and a two‑story detached garage at 65 Fila Street in the UR-4 district.
At the hearing neighbors argued the proposed garage is oversized for the block, will threaten large mature trees near the rear property line, and will reduce green space while increasing runoff and shade impacts for neighboring yards. Speakers produced historic maps and photographs and urged the board not to approve what they described as a substantial increase in lot coverage.
Nut Graf: The applicant submitted neighborhood comparables and reported the Design Review Board issued a favorable advisory regarding massing and scale. Board members debated whether the proposed combined lot coverage (the applicant sought roughly 51% combined coverage) was justified by comparables or whether the two‑story garage could be reduced. The board also discussed whether the DRB advisory and precedents of other high-coverage properties mitigated the variance’s substantiality. A later procedural exchange left the application’s status uncertain; board members indicated that, absent an affirmative motion or amended application within 62 days, the application could be deemed denied.
During deliberations public commenters — several of whom live immediately adjacent — highlighted proximity to back‑yard fences, the number and size of trees at risk of removal, and the perceived creation of an efficiency/apartment-like space in a carriage-house form. The applicant noted prior DRB review, delivered comparables that include nearby lots with higher coverage, and said the garage programming and a new addition are intended to restore functionality while preserving historic character.
Ending: The board recorded a motion and an initial count was discussed in the room; members also described procedural options if no affirmative vote is entered within the statutory 62‑day window. The applicant may choose to revise plans and return; the board and staff flagged that revised plans could require renewed DRB review.
