Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 451 Ocean Drive topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves 451 Ocean Drive two‑story home despite split over size and 'harmony' review
Summary
After lengthy debate about mass, bulk and a pending council change to appearance rules, the board approved a 7,516-square-foot two‑story residence at 451 Ocean Drive on a 3‑2 vote. Supporters said setbacks, landscaping and design reduced community impact; opponents said the house was too large relative to recent approvals.
Staff presented an appearance-review report for a proposed two‑story home at 451 Ocean Drive, noting the project would produce a 7,516-square-foot structure and that the house lies outside the 300-foot study-area averages on mass and floor-area ratio. "The proposed structure is 75 16," staff said in the presentation, and staff found the project did not meet two of the harmony elements (mass and bulk) but met seven of the others, including landscaping, orientation and materials.
Owner Tom Kelly and the project team said they reduced the house design from an earlier, larger concept. "We got it down to 5,700 square feet under air," Kelly said, describing design compromises to keep the home functional for a large family while adding substantial landscaping and privacy measures. Builder Ty Shivers and architect Michael Yapin described facade treatments, stepped massing and a heavy landscape plan intended to break up the building's scale.
Town attorney and applicant counsel Rick Kozell warned the board of changing legal context: he said the town council voted last week to eliminate application of the "harmony" appearance criteria for single-family homes but cautioned that formal repeal was not yet implemented and that the board was being asked to apply standards that council may rescind. "That whole process didn't go away because when you pass a law ... you have to read it twice," Kozell told the board.
Board members debated precedent, local character and the possibility of a bootstrap effect if larger houses were approved repeatedly. Some members expressed strong concern about approving a structure markedly larger than recent approvals; others noted that the proposed home complies with height, setback and site-planning code and that nearby neighbors who reviewed the plans had not objected in person. After discussion, a motion to approve the application passed by roll call, 3 to 2.
