The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals on January 28 approved a Special Permit to convert the single-family house at 111 County Road into a multi-family, along with a Variance to allow the conversion on a non-conforming lot containing an area of 48,350 square feet.
The board lauded property owners Jeremy and Kristin Saccone for coming forth with “all their cards on the table,” so to speak when they combined two essentially separate projects into one so the board could consider the plan in its entirety in transparency.
The Saccones, who have owned their property for 18 years, want to construct an 885 square-foot handicap-accessible apartment for Mr. Saccones’ parents and also construct a two-car garage with a second-floor recreation room for the primary residents’ sole use.
Mr. Saccone’s mother has a debilitative health condition and now requires a wheelchair full-time, and the home she shares with her husband in Bridgewater has three-stories and is no longer accessible to her.
Joshua Bows of Merrill Engineers and Land Surveyors explained how the triangular-shaped lot limits the Saccones’ options in building the unit and explained the hardship involved. Proving a hardship is a requirement to receive a variance.
“It’s very difficult to find a handicap-accessible small home or apartment,” said Bows., [and] also provide a place for their parents to live that’s comfortable and accessible and meets their needs.
“We’ve designed a home … that meets the needs of Jeremy’s parents … and with that, we’ve also added a garage addition with a room above the garage that would be used by the applicants…. We’ve done everything we can to meet the [bylaw] requirements.”
ZBA Chairman David Arancio was concerned about “wants versus needs” in the proposed size of the new unit, but as Bows explained, the apartment has to be larger for a wheelchair to be able to maneuver about the floor area. Doors must be wider, closets as well, and the bathroom must also be more oversized. Adequate floor space to move about is a necessity, he said. Furthermore, Mr. Saccone’s parents are downsizing from a larger three-story home. Still, Arancio believed the plan could have been for a smaller unit.
“I’m sure that you’re correct [that it] could be smaller,” said Bows. “However, I think that it’s the desire for the convenience and just the challenges of being in a wheelchair.”
“I completely understand the hardships there,” said Arancio. “I’m just trying to navigate to be consistent and fair…. That’s a concern of mine, obviously.”
Bows asked the ZBA to consider that the new addition would be “no more adverse to neighbors or the town than what currently exists,” but ZBA member Richard Cutler pointed out that, if it were approved, “A two-family is two-family. If someone buys the house later on,” Cutler said, there would still be an apartment. “So, not having any more effect on the town is negated — it’s still two units, it doesn’t matter. It’s still not going to go away.”
ZBA member Davis Sullivan said combining the two plans into one is an excellent way to address it. “It makes sense from a construction standpoint what they’re trying to do, so I can understand the approach.”
“This looks real good to me,” said ZBA member Donald Spirlet. “They went through a lot of effort (not to exceed setbacks). It’s a good idea to [combine the two projects]. You could do an addition at one point and then the second addition later, which would be within the 30 percent. It makes more sense just to do it all at once.”
As for the “want versus need,” said Spirlet, “in this case, it’s more of a need. I don’t know what it’s like to get around in a wheelchair, but I would think that a bigger unit must be needed for a wheelchair.”
The discussion continued as Arancio’s focused on the unit exceeding 30 percent of the existing habitable floor area. Board members further explained that if the Saccones went ahead with just an addition, the proposed conversion would subsequently meet the 30 percent of that increased floor area.
As Cutler explained, the ZBA has advised past applicants to show the board their entire plan rather than apply for one thing, then return for something else later on. Here, the applicant was laying all the cards on the table, “so I applaud them for that.”
“We tried to put all the cards on the table,” said Bows. “We’ve done what we can to meet the 30 percent and all the other requirements. … I just hope you consider the situation we’re in when you consider the application.”
No abutters appeared to support or oppose the application.
Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
By Jean Perry