Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks coverage and upstairs powder-room variances for two-story garage; board asks for comparables
Summary
Owners of 151 Van Damme Street asked the ZBA for a 2% building-coverage variance and a waiver to locate a powder room on the garage second floor. Board members urged design changes to avoid the 100% variance for the second-floor plumbing and asked for neighborhood comparables and proof alternatives were infeasible; matter continued to July 28.
Sean Corp of Reveal Architecture presented plans on July 14 for a two‑story detached garage at 151 Van Damme Street. The applicant requested two variances: an increase in total building coverage from the 40% district maximum to roughly 42%, and permission to place a powder room (plumbing fixture) on the garage’s second floor — a use the UDO restricts to the first floor or lower in accessory structures.
Board members consistently said the 2% coverage increase was modest and could be addressed if the applicant slightly trimmed the footprint. However, board members described the upstairs plumbing as a much larger hurdle: UDO rules effectively make a second-floor bathroom a 100% variance. The board suggested alternatives including putting the powder room on the first floor, reducing the stair width to shrink the footprint, or demonstrating why storage displacement makes a first-floor bathroom infeasible.
Nut Graf: The board asked the applicant to supply neighborhood comparables showing that a garage of this massing and building coverage is consistent with adjacent properties, and to provide written justification for why the powder room must be on the second floor. Board members signaled they would favor footprint adjustments or a relocated bathroom over granting the second-floor plumbing variance. The public hearing was left open; the applicant was told to return with the requested materials at least one week before the July 28 meeting.
The applicant said the existing backyard is largely paved and that replacing the existing garage with a new two‑car structure would reduce impermeable surface by substituting pea stone/river rock for some pavement. The design team said the second‑floor space accommodates a home gym and that moving a powder room to the first floor would consume valuable storage removed when the shed was demolished. Board members responded that storage need alone may not justify a 100% variance and asked the applicant to consider narrower/steeper stairs or reconfiguration to avoid the upstairs plumbing.
Ending: The board left the public hearing open and requested the applicant return with comparables and documentation comparing the proposed coverage and massing to neighboring properties; the ZBA reiterated that a smaller coverage ask combined with a first-floor powder room would increase likelihood of approval.
