Applicant asks variance to place new house far back on 10 Saint Germain; neighbors object to view and privacy; hearing continued

Designer Manuel Paiva and property owner Dale Horstman presented a proposal on Dec. 10 to demolish the existing house at 10 Saint Germain and construct a new two-story home with an attached two-car garage set far back on the deep waterfront lot. The applicant requested a front-yard setback of approximately 145 feet to align the new house with nearby waterfront properties.

Paiva told the board the lot is narrow (about 53.7 feet wide) and preexisting nonconforming; he said locating the house roughly 145 feet from the front lot line would avoid a "hallway effect" between surrounding houses and would match a precedent he identified on the neighboring lot. He said the proposed house would be roughly 29 by 45 feet, with a 12-foot balcony facing the shoreline and about 1,305 square feet of living area (per-floor areas were shown in plans).

Why it matters: The project raises view and privacy issues because placing a house far back on the lot changes the sightlines across neighboring properties. Attorney Edward Fleming, speaking for adjacent owners at 20 Saint Germain, said his clients had sought a modest compromise on a prior iteration of the plan (reducing the requested setback) and that the applicant declined to accept a smaller setback. Fleming said the new design and the higher deck "will block my client's view entirely" and would intrude on privacy.

Neighbors testified: Trevor and Natasha Allen (22 Saint Germain) and the Van Damme family (20 Saint Germain) submitted statements and expressed concern about views and the possibility of protracted litigation if the parties cannot find a compromise. The applicant said he had engaged in some neighbor outreach and that the current design adopted a precedent he found in a previously allowed setback on an adjacent property.

DPW comment: DPW asked standard questions about whether fill would be used and requested utility and elevation information to confirm whether portions of the new house would fall in a flood zone; the applicant provided an elevation figure indicating the site is outside the flood-zone threshold.

Board action: The board did not vote and continued the case to Jan. 28, 2025, asking the applicant to pursue neighbor-to-neighbor discussions, reconfirm the site stakes and provide the board with any revised setback alternatives. The chair asked that stakes remain in place to allow board members to re-inspect the site before the next hearing.

What remains: The applicant said he will continue to work with abutters and is expected to submit revised plans or supporting survey information showing both the 129-foot compromise option previously discussed and the current 145-foot request for board review.