Walter Dratner asked the Zoning Board of Adjustment to continue consideration of three variance requests for 181 Village Street, a downtown residential property he is proposing to convert to a three‑unit residence. The board agreed to continue the matter to its November meeting after members said the application lacked sufficient detail on parking and site layout.
The requests before the board were variances from Section 28‑4‑1‑D‑1 (minimum front‑yard requirements) to permit 0‑foot setbacks along Village Street and Lilac Street where 10 feet are required; from 28‑4‑1‑B (minimum lot size) to permit a lot of 6,534 square feet where 7,500 is required; and from 28‑7‑2‑E (off‑street parking) to permit 0 parking spaces where 6 spaces were required for a triplex. Dratner testified he bought the building because of its historic value and would prefer to convert it to housing but said he also had a fallback option to use it for storage if variances were not granted.
Board members and staff focused most of their questions on parking. Staff told the board that recent changes to the city parking standard reduce the required spaces for a triplex to one per unit (three total, effective Sept. 13), but board members and staff said the applicant had not supplied a dimensioned parking design showing required drive‑aisle widths and maneuvering space. The board noted code requires vehicles to maneuver on site and not back out into the street.
Neighbor Chris Steven testified during public comment that on‑street parking near his driveway already impedes his ability to exit and that converting the property to multiple units would worsen on‑street overflow during winter plowing. Dratner replied he had discussed the proposal with neighbors and that some current street parking patterns predate his project; he also said he believed room existed nearby for additional parking and that he would work with staff to provide a designer's plan.
Given the lack of an engineered parking plan and unresolved questions about how many on‑site spaces can fit in the available width (board members noted a two‑way drive aisle plus stall depth would require about 43 feet, more than appears available), the board reopened the hearing to ask whether the applicant wanted a continuance. The applicant requested a continuance and the board voted unanimously to continue cases 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 to the November meeting.
Next steps: the applicant must provide a date‑certain continuance request and submit a full, dimensioned parking plan prepared by a designer so staff and the board can assess whether required spaces and maneuvering can be achieved on site.