By Jeff Lipton
Following a Dec. 12 hearing, the planning commission gave the go-ahead to a property owner to raze his corner home at 361 Sutton Place and build two houses in its place on 12,282 square feet of land. During a hearing three weeks earlier, however, the commission's members had told Robert Blakeman, attorney for the property owner, that the interior lot, which was proposed to cover 29.6 percent of the maximum 30 percent lot-coverage area, should be reduced, because the commission wanted to avoid a shoehorn effect on the property.
Blakeman told the commission on Dec. 12 that the home had been reduced to 28 percent lot-coverage area and that the height of the homes had been reduced from about 30 feet to 28 feet. The concessions were made after neighbors complained to the commission that the subdivided homes would dwarf their homes, blocking sunlight and air, and would be out of character in their neighborhood.
The corner home would occupy 24.2 percent of the lot coverage area.
Planning Commissioner Jeff Greenfield thanked Blakeman for his efforts in working with the community to respond to neighbors' concerns. Greenfield also requested that a 50-year-old tree on the property remain untouched.
Carl Charschan, a neighbor, told the commission at last Thursday's hearing that he never received a copy of the revised plans. But he said that since concessions had been made, he had no further objections to the plans.
His wife, however, said she strongly preferred one home rather than two on the land. I can't visualize two houses on the property, she said. There is one house now and one house should be there. Otherwise, it will take away the [character] of the whole area.
Lauren Rapoport, a neighbor who has been outspoken in her opposition of the proposed subdivision and who could not attend last week's hearing, said in a telephone interview, I'm extremely disappointed the planning commission chose to overlook the opinions of virtually 100 percent of the neighbors who are against the subdivision. I do, however, appreciate Jeff Greenfield's sincere attempts to reach a compromise.
I'm pleased, in a small way, at the slight reduction in the height and the percentage of coverage area of the interior house, she added. But I remain very upset at the prospect of two very large houses being built.
She said she would have liked to see the homes be limited to 22 feet in height, which is in keeping with surrounding homes. She said the proposed homes would seem more like three stories than two, towering over adjacent houses.
At a previous hearing, she presented the commission with a petition bearing the names of 30 neighbors opposed to the subdivision.
Oscar Holt III, a member of the planning commission, said he was generally opposed to homes being shoehorned into a neighborhood, but since concessions had been made, he voted for the project. My inclination is to usually oppose developments of this nature, he said.
Blakeman said the proposed homes are compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He had said previously that if the project were turned down by the commission, the homeowner could easily build the corner home to maximum height, which would be permitted but out of character with the rest of the community.
Opponents said the property is being proposed for subdivision to maximize profits, with the new homes possibly selling for $750,000 each.
