A proposed new home on North Street in Greenport had some residents back before the planning board this week, crying foul over a balcony they say is slated to be much larger than they were led to initially believe.
The Greenport Village planning board had, on their agenda this week, a motion to approve the findings and determinations for an application by Tom Spurge for construction of a new house at 216 North Street.
Resident Jill Ward, who lives adjacent to the property, said in the initial discussion, Village Attorney Joe Prokop had stated that a balcony was something that had room for a single person standing and possibly a chair.
Also, there was confusion among residents regarding the dimensions of the proposed balcony, which neighbors thought would be five feet wide and eight feet deep. “We were really elated,” Ward said.
Instead, the balcony is planned to be 24 feet wide and five feet deep, she said, rather than the initially proposed 24 feet wide and eight feet deep. “I feel like we’ve been bamboozled,” Ward said.
Ward said “misinformation” and “poor use of terminology,” meaning the words “width” and “depth” were confused in the discussions at prior planning board meetings, led the public to believe they’d be seeing a deck that was five feet wide and eight feet deep.
“This balcony is still a deck and can hold a heck of lot more than a person and a chair. It can hold 16 people and 16 chairs. I feel steamrolled and I know my neighbors do, too,” she said
Planning board chair Devin McMahon said at this point, the issue was no longer up for discussion because the plan had already been voted upon.
Ward disagreed, stating that a mistake had been made and should be rectified.
Members of the planning board who voted on the dimensions said they understood what they were voting on.
“I think it was clear,” Prokop said.
McMahon said he and board members were clear that they had discussed reducing the depth of the balcony from eight to five feet.
He asked Ward what she’d like to see happen at the meeting. Ward said if the dimensions could not be changed, she’d like to see screening on both the east and west sides of the balconies, which had also been discussed at a prior meeting.
“We’ve lost all privacy in our yards,” she said.
McMahon said the matter has been voted upon and the board was unable to “go back and make those changes.”
“That’s really unfair,” Ward said. “This error is on your shoulders. We feel totally misled by this.”
“This has already been voted on and closed out,” McMahon said. “We can’t decide now to redesign this man’s house.”
Prokop added that a balcony extending eight feet from a house would resemble a “plank”.
Planning board member Peter Jacquet said he understood residents’ concerns. “They walked away confused, despie the board’s interpretation. That’s a problem. Screening is not a lot to add.”
McMahon said he didn’t think the board had the ability to act on screening and said he “hated mistakes.”
“I know we’ve voted on some determinations already but in the long view, this is the planning board. That’s a sensitive block. This is a quality of life board. If we made a mistake not to put in screening, which, to me, is minimal. . .I have no problem going back and adding that to the site plan,” Jacquet said.
Consultant Glynis Berry said the reason the idea of screening was initially dropped from the discussion was because some neighbors said it blocked their view.
Ward said one person protested the screening, but would retract her statement; she added that neighbors thought the balcony would be 5′ x 8′ and would not need screening.
Jacquet said based on the residents’ outcry, he’d vote “no” to any resolutions that night.
Prokop said he had much to say but was “fairly certain this will be litigated,” so made no comment.
The matter was tabled until the full planning board could be present to discuss the issue next month.
The controversial proposal sparked some public opposition in March, when neighbors expressed concerns that the property would become a “rooming house”.
