Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adus Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin ZBA continues review of proposed attached ADU after neighbors raise privacy, scale concerns
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals continued a variance request for an attached 900 sq ft ADU at 23 September Drive to Feb. 19 to allow the applicants to bring architectural drawings, a planting plan and a solar-shadow/site section study after residents and at least two board members raised concerns about massing, setbacks and neighborhood character.
The Franklin Zoning Board of Appeals on Jan. 22 continued consideration of a variance request from Timothy and Jenny McGee to attach a 900-square-foot accessory dwelling unit with an attached garage at 23 September Drive. The applicants seek relief to place the addition 15.5 feet from the right side-yard property line, where the zoning bylaw requires a 40-foot setback.
Jenny McGee told the board the design was driven by family needs: “My parents are both in their late 70s,” she said, and the attached layout would let the family provide close care while keeping the unit visually cohesive with the house. She and her husband, Tim, said the proposed attached ADU would, in their view, place the new living area farther from neighbors than a detached unit would.
Neighbors and several board members said the plan would materially change the character of the subdivision. “It would look like two clustered homes on a pie shape in the back,” said Joe, an alternate member of the board who visited the site. Abutter Mark Pastana said the addition’s footprint and roof massing appeared large relative to the lot, calling the project’s “overall scale … unusually large” and noting an estimated footprint of about 1,390 square feet including garage and porch elements. Several neighbors said the proposed placement would reduce privacy for backyard living areas and might cast new shadows on adjacent properties.
Board members pressed the applicants on alternatives they had explored, including a detached ADU sited nearer the 70-foot setback on the opposite side of the house, relocating septic infrastructure, and redesigns that might lengthen and narrow the addition to reduce side-yard encroachment. Members also requested technical materials the packet did not include: site sections showing relative grades and window locations, a solar-shadow analysis, and a planting/screening plan.
Members described sympathy for the family’s care needs while emphasizing the board’s role in protecting neighborhood context: one member summarized that the application currently reads more like a design choice than a land-based hardship, and asked the applicants to explore design options that would reduce the relief sought.
The board voted to continue the hearing to Feb. 19 at 7:30 p.m. and asked the applicants to bring the project architect and the additional studies and drawings. No final vote on the variance was taken at the Jan. 22 meeting.
Next steps: The applicants are expected to return with a revised design, site sections and a solar study; the board will re-open public comment when the item resumes.
