Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Garage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners of 308 Oak Street seek variances for two‑car garage; neighbors and board urge smaller footprint
Summary
New owners of 308 Oak Street asked for area variances to build a two‑car detached garage and to reconstruct a small covered stoop; neighbors provided letters of support and the ZBA urged the applicants to consider a 1½‑car design that would reduce requested relief.
Tanya Yesenchuk, representing Christopher and Sherry Noonan, presented a request March 3 for area variances to permit construction of a two‑car detached garage and to rebuild a small covered stoop at 308 Oak Street (UR‑3 district).
The property is a preexisting, undersized lot; the applicants seek relief for total building coverage and side‑yard setbacks to allow a two‑car accessory structure in the rear yard. Yesenchuk noted an older barn on the lot had been demolished and said the proposed garage would be smaller than the earlier structure; she submitted aerial comparables showing nearby lots with similar or larger garages and several properties with carriage‑house conversions or two‑car garages close to the alley.
The applicants also asked to reconstruct a small roof over an existing stoop that previous owners had removed; they said the stoop cover had existed until about 2022 and the replacement is meant to restore an earlier condition to improve weather protection at the alley entrance.
Several abutters submitted a signed letter supporting the project and explaining limited street parking near Beekman Street and that a two‑car garage would reduce on‑street parking pressure. Board members and staff reviewed neighborhood photos and mapping and noted many lots in the block are preexisting nonconforming with coverage above 40% and accessory buildings close to property lines.
Board members questioned whether a full two‑car garage with interior stairs and a bath was necessary. Multiple board members suggested reducing the scope to a 1‑ or 1½‑car garage (which would substantially lower the requested variances) while preserving a small upper‑level bonus room or finished attic and storage. The applicants said the two‑car width is close to the minimum they considered usable for two vehicles and that they had reduced overhangs; they also said they had talked with neighbors and received letters of support.
The public hearing remained open; the board asked the applicants to consider a reduced footprint and return with revised dimensions showing how variances would change if the garage were narrowed.
No final vote was taken on March 3.
