Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors question rear‑setback and parking for proposed rehab at 128–132 Washington St.
Summary
Architects told the Zoning Board the vacant, contributing historic property at 128–132 Washington St. needs a rear‑yard variance to permit a two‑family conversion and a minimal garage; neighbors raised concerns about parking, tree removal and stormwater. The public hearing was left open and the board asked for rear‑yard comparables and a search for a fourth parking spot.
Sue Davis, an architect with SD Atelier Architecture, opened the board’s review of an application to renovate and combine lots at 128–132 Washington St., telling the board this “property has sat vacant for, I wanna say, about 10 years.” The plan would combine multiple parcels, retain the historically contributing front portion and add a linked second unit plus a small garage. The applicant requests a rear‑yard variance because the Unified Development Ordinance now establishes front, corner‑side and rear setbacks that make the existing and proposed rear geometry noncompliant (zoning requires 25 feet, proposal about 13.7 feet, relief roughly 11.3 feet or 45.2%).
The board and applicants spent the hearing clarifying design choices and site constraints. Davis emphasized efforts to preserve the character‑defining front porch while modifying less historic rear additions; she said the team has coordinated with the city’s preservation reviewer and the Design Review Board, which gave positive early feedback on the general direction. The applicant indicated the garage was sized to meet accessibility needs and that removing it would eliminate a critical parking element.
Neighbors from the adjacent Dublin Square development and the homeowners association said the project’s size, proposed reduction in the rear setback and added unit would harm neighborhood character and intensify parking pressure. Eileen Shire, Dublin Square HOA president, told the board she was “really happy to have Lori as a neighbor” but urged the board to consider parking and storm‑drain impacts and warned the plan may require removal of mature trees that provide shade and wildlife benefits. Multiple speakers requested the board demand clearer documentation on whether on‑street parking is reliably available, and asked for measures to address permeability and drainage at the Washington/Beekman corner.
Board members focused on two practical items for the applicant to return with: documented rear‑yard comparables to show the requested setback relief is consistent with neighboring lots, and evidence of a fourth on‑site parking space or a plan that demonstrates compliance with the district’s parking standard (the UR‑3 district requires parking that may amount to three to four spaces depending on unit configuration). The applicant said she had been working with DPW on a curb cut and that a third space would fit but the property as shown is short one required space for a two‑unit configuration.
The board left the public hearing open and set a date to return the application to the agenda on September 9. The board’s stated homework for the applicant was rear‑yard comps, a search for an additional parking space and any material updates to the design or parcel documentation.
