Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Secondary Unit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Family seeks room to age in place: variance requested for secondary dwelling at 48 White Street
Summary
Owners of 48 White Street asked the Zoning Board for variances to add a small secondary dwelling at the rear of an undersized lot to let relatives live nearby. Applicants and neighbors described a plan that preserves yard space; board members suggested trimming building coverage to eliminate a small coverage variance.
Bob Flansberg, representing William and Marilyn Dockum, asked the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 3 for area variances to allow a secondary dwelling at 48 White Street in the UR‑3 residential district.
The proposal would place a small cottage in the rear yard with access from Murphy Lane so the homeowners can move into the new unit and their adult son and his family can move back into the main house. The application requests relief for minimum lot size (7,500 square feet where 8,000 is required), minimum average lot width (50 feet proposed; 80 required), combined building coverage (42% proposed vs. 40% allowed) and a reduced rear setback for the accessory dwelling (10.2 feet proposed vs. 25 feet required).
Flansberg said the family has lived at the site since the 1970s and that the design keeps usable rear yard space for children. He presented neighborhood photos and an aerial showing comparably tight lot patterns and structures close to alleys. Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing, including a family member, described long‑standing, grandfathered parking arrangements and said the proposed building footprint would fit with adjacent properties. The applicants submitted an updated survey to clarify setbacks.
Board members questioned whether the small coverage variance could be reduced. Several members suggested trimming overhangs or other minor adjustments to lower building coverage toward 40% and asked the applicant to submit revised plans showing whether the coverage can be reduced. The board also noted the importance of neighborhood comparables for two‑family or accessory units in the UR‑3 district and asked staff to check recent approvals nearby.
The public hearing remained open for additional materials and the applicant was asked to return with a revised coverage calculation and examples of nearby two‑family parcels. No vote was taken March 3.
The board emphasized that removal of trees and precise parking arrangements should be clarified on revised plans; the applicants said they wished to retain as many trees as possible but expect at least one mature tree will need removal for construction.
