Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission signals intent to approve family‑oriented rebuild at 50–52 Granard Terrace; asks for refined façade details
Summary
After extensive neighbor outreach and mixed testimony, the commission signaled intent to approve a two‑unit family‑oriented replacement at 50–52 Granard Terrace, asking staff and architect to refine front‑elevation details and return with final language on July 23.
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The commission indicated support on July 9 for a plan to remove an aging two‑unit building at 50–52 Granard Terrace and construct a new two‑unit, family‑oriented house for the property owners, Paul and Marie Ferris. The sponsor described an outreach process with immediate neighbors and a design that increases the main family unit to approximately 2,200 square feet while keeping a second unit as rental housing. The sponsor and architect emphasized green building strategies and said deconstruction (rather than a heavier renovation) would reduce overall construction duration and impacts.
Staff recommended disapproval under Section 3.17 because, on paper, the code favors retention or re‑use and—under generic guidelines—encourages maximizing units on such sites. Project teams and many neighbors who supported the proposal argued the unique enclave of Granard Terrace and intensive outreach produced a compromise that better fits family‑housing priorities. Opposing neighbors raised concerns about construction impacts, light and air to adjacent properties, driveway access in a narrow terrace with about 25 onsite cars, and the duration of work in a constrained right‑of‑way.
After hearing testimony from residents both for and against, multiple commissioners praised the outreach, the family‑housing purpose and the design work by the architect. Commissioners expressed a preference to avoid imposing a third unit because that would trigger higher building‑code requirements (R2 occupancy) and substantially higher costs and longer construction. The commission voted on an intent to approve with staff‑directed follow‑up on design detail and scheduled final action for July 23. The zoning administrator separately granted associated variances subject to standard conditions, with a final decision letter to follow after the commission’s action.
