Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Apartment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner argues accessory apartment rules penalize small houses; board schedules decision after written submissions
Summary
At 510 Maple Ave S., the applicant sought relief to allow an accessory apartment that exceeds the 35% floor‑area cap because the principal house is small; the board heard that the rule can create a misaligned incentive and set written submissions and a July 2 decision.
The Zoning Board reviewed an application for relief to allow an accessory apartment at 510 Maple Avenue South after the applicant’s representative explained the property’s unusual dimensions and argued that the 35% cap produces perverse incentives for small primary dwellings.
Tony Shirotsky (the applicant) and counsel explained the lot contains an existing primary dwelling, an in‑ground pool and a two‑story garage; the proposed accessory apartment would be 738 square feet and exceed the percentage threshold because the main house is only about 1,123 square feet. Counsel argued that forcing compliance would require overbuilding the principal dwelling, which the applicant does not want to do, and cited several prior board decisions granting similar relief.
During the hearing the applicant withdrew a requested clearing relief and discussed septic system and IA system plans. Board members raised concerns about additional density and how the code’s percentage rule can create counterintuitive outcomes. The board voted to hold written submissions to June 5 and to schedule a decision for July 2.
Next step: applicant to provide required written materials for the record by June 5.
