Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Raise And Replace topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press board to deny Driscolls' large raise-and-replace; hearing continued to Aug. 26
Summary
Dozens of neighbors urged the Harwich Board of Appeals to deny a raise-and-replace plan at 31 Lincoln Village Road, citing doubled height, larger coverage and septic/drainage concerns; the applicant requested more time and the board continued the hearing to Aug. 26.
A contentious hearing over a proposed raise-and-replace at 31 Lincoln Village Road drew a large public turnout July 29, and the Harwich Board of Appeals continued the case to Aug. 26 to allow the applicant time to revise plans and the board to gather additional materials.
Neighbors and abutters, represented in part by Jill Jackson and Michael Colbert, described the proposal as out of scale with Lincoln Village: "The proposed building height more than doubles so that the house becomes by far the tallest house in Lincoln Village while being on the smallest lot," Jackson told the board, summarizing points raised in multiple opposition letters. In written and oral submissions neighbors cited an increase in site coverage to about 41.8%, a front setback reduction from 14.5 to 10.5 feet at the closest point and worries about drainage and required Title 5 septic review.
Attorney Michael Donovan and contractor Chris Childs, representing the Driscolls, said the project remains below Harwich's 30-foot maximum building height, that most of the front setback will be greater than the minimum cited and that a new three-bedroom septic system and dry-well stormwater measures are shown on the plans to address runoff. "We would submit that this project ... is not substantially more detrimental to the entire neighborhood," Donovan said.
Board members split on whether the project fits Lincoln Village's character and whether the documents demonstrate the required findings under the state's "Gale" jurisprudence and the town bylaws. The chair expressed concern about the two‑story elevation facing the street and the massing at close proximity to the road, saying he believed the design as submitted could be "substantially detrimental to the neighborhood." After more than 30 people spoke and the applicant requested more time, the board voted to continue the hearing to August 26 to allow revised plans and additional submissions; the case will return without re‑advertisement if the applicant submits updates in time.
