Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA tables 22 Avery request amid dispute over whether accessory building could become a second dwelling
Summary
The board kept 22 Avery Street on the table to the Jan. 27 meeting after lengthy discussion about whether a proposed accessory structure with a second‑floor bathroom or overnight stays would legally constitute a separate dwelling and require additional variances.
The Zoning Board of Appeals on Dec. 2 deferred a decision on plans for 22 Avery Street after extended exchanges about the legal distinction between an accessory finished space and a second dwelling. Applicant representatives said the detached carriage house was to be used as accessory finished space, while board members and staff pressed on whether bathrooms, sleeping and cooking facilities would change that classification.
Trevor Flynn, representing the applicants, described a revised plan that reduces earlier variance requests by keeping the carriage structure accessory in form and disconnecting its mechanical and cooking functions. Flynn said the intent is to provide occasional sleeping space for family while renovations are done in the principal residence. The board pressed the applicant on whether the applicants intend overnight stays in the accessory structure after construction.
Staff (speaker 2) cautioned that “if there's gonna be any kind of overnight stays, whether it's family in any form, it would be a second dwelling because that means it's gonna be habitable living space,” and several board members said they were uncomfortable approving a bathroom on a detached accessory structure without clear limits. The board discussed common conditions used in prior approvals — including prohibitions on overnight stays and on cooking facilities — but concluded the facts needed confirmation with the building/zoning officer before a lawful decision could be recorded.
The board voted to table the matter to the Jan. 27 meeting and asked applicants to consult with staff and the building official on whether the proposed second‑floor bathroom (and any future use for sleeping) would legally create a dwelling unit that requires broader variances. The board noted that if the accessory structure were connected to the primary house and treated as a single principal structure, many of the variances under consideration would change.
