Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press for cuts to proposed Coligny Avenue rebuild as hearing remains open
Summary
Architects presented a replacement two‑family at 121 Coligny Ave and sought five variances; neighbors criticized size, FAR and parking, and the applicant agreed to return with revised plans after the board closed public comment for now.
Architect John Woodruff returned to the Zoning Board to present a proposed replacement structure at 121 Coligny Avenue, a proposal that requires five variances including for floor‑area ratio (FAR), side yards, lot area per family, front yard setback and a parking setback.
Woodruff said the new two‑family will be roughly 2,560 sq ft (slightly smaller than the existing dwelling) with provisions such as sprinklers, a car‑charger provision and dry wells for drainage. He told the board the design reduced one bedroom from an earlier submission and added an additional parking space in the rear to better meet neighborhood needs.
Multiple neighbors and long‑time residents opposed the application during public comment, arguing the proposed gross floor area is about 30% larger than zoning allows, that a seven‑bedroom program is out of character for the small lot, and that increased density and additional parking will create traffic, noise and trash issues. Several speakers pointed to local flooding and runoff concerns and urged the board to deny the variances or require a smaller building.
Supporters included a representative of Young Israel and a local attorney who said the revised design resembled a recently approved infill project nearby and could improve a blighted lot. The applicant presented a room‑count analysis of 19 adjacent properties showing an average of 9.2 rooms and said many nearby houses have comparable room counts.
After extended public comment and board questions about FAR, bedroom counts and volume, the applicant asked for time to revise plans and the board agreed to adjourn consideration to allow the applicant to return with updated drawings. The public hearing was closed for this session, though the chair allowed that if future submittals are “vastly different” the board could reopen comment.
What’s next: the applicant will submit revised plans addressing board and neighborhood concerns; the board will schedule further consideration and can reopen public comment if plans change substantially.
