Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident proposes modest expansion at 249 Shore Road; trustees warn FEMA, variance hurdles
Summary
At a public‑comment hearing, a resident presented plans to modestly enlarge a one‑story cottage at 249 Shore Road; trustees said the project likely requires FEMA elevation and an eight‑to‑13‑foot height variance and advised the applicant to consult the building department and ZBA before buying the property.
A resident who said he prepared renderings for 249 Shore Road presented a modest plan to widen the existing one‑story cottage and add a small second story to create additional bedrooms while keeping the building character consistent with nearby homes. "I did a drawing basically for you guys... it's currently a one story little house," the presenter said, showing aerials and a rendering.
Trustees raised several regulatory obstacles. One trustee noted the plan, as drawn, would require an eight‑foot height variance and that demolition and a new build in a flood zone would likely require bringing the first floor up approximately five feet to meet FEMA requirements, potentially producing a combined variance near 13 feet. "By the time you make it FEMA compliant, the footprint fits roughly with houses down there, but you're gonna find yourself asking for a variance," a trustee said, urging caution.
The board recommended options that could reduce permitting risk: renovate within the existing footprint, aggregate square footage from on‑site sheds toward coverage, or consider a long single‑story design instead of a full two‑story rebuild. Trustees also suggested the applicant talk with the building department and the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) before committing to purchase; the applicant said he would consider a purchase contingent on site‑plan approval.
Trustees emphasized that board support does not guarantee ZBA approval and that the building department and health department (for septic) will influence what is feasible. The applicant said he would return with adjusted plans if needed; no formal vote was required during public comment.
