Re “Mr. Blumenfeld, Tear Down This Addition on Vinton Avenue”
Two months after a well established Vinton Avenue neighbor built a second story atop her garage with, by the way, a view into surrounding properties, Lyndon Stambler and his wife Terry Silberman still are looking longingly at City Hall for relief, but finding hardly any.
No matter how intrusive the spacious addition to 4213 Vinton feels to adjacent residents, Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld, who does not talk like a bureaucrat, offers nearly invisible encouragement.
The reason: The builder of the imposing addition adhered to the law.
But the city is exploring potential panaceas.
Here Is a ‘Maybe’
“We can try to work with the owner, Rayma Wells,” Mr. Blumenfeld told the newspaper. “We can see if she is willing to do some planting and try to screen the addition from view of the Stamblers’ residence. When I spoke with the city’s landscape architect, we came up with ideas to accomplish that.
“The addition is not that tall, about 24 feet. It seems like something we could do if the owner of the adjacent property is agreeable.
“I have spoken to Ms. Wells, and she is willing to resolve the privacy issues, depending on what is proposed.
“There are three windows at the back of the second story. One of them already is outfitted with opaque glass because it is a window in a shower area. It’s called an awning window, and it only opens about three or four inches. There is a mechanism that controls it.
“She has agreed to means to opaque the other windows so that they only transmit light and you can’t really see through them.”
Mr. Stambler has presented a series of questions to the city staff, and Mr. Blumenfeld has not yet completed his research. Whether City Hall’s responses will satisfy the Stambler household is doubtful, given events of the past 60 days.
Mr. Blumenfeld speaks slowly and with clarity. “After reviewing the permit application and the plan,” he said, “I don’t believe there was any oversight on the part of staff.”
Mr. Blumenfeld has heard the charges of “loophole” or “oversight” since the controversy was in its embryonic stages. He insists they are nonexistent. “Those are vague terms, and we have to look at the facts,” he said.
“There are two issues. One pertains to what are called ‘accessory structures.’ Another pertains to the Legal Nonconforming Ordinance.
“Ms. Wells owns a very modest home. You have heard people refer to the home as an example of mansionization. But it is 1,307 square feet. The accessory structure is the garage. The reason the garage is big, according to the owner, is that the prior owner built an extra garage because he did restoration of cars for a studio in the ‘50s and ‘60s.
The Conversion Process
“When he sold the property to Ms. Wells and her husband, her husband took the extra garage and made an office out of it. So it always has been used as a garage or an office, even though some people have said it was a dwelling unit. We have no evidence of that.
“Her husband died about five years ago, and the addition came about because she wanted to move her family back in. She wanted to modify the building to bring them back in.
“You are allowed to modify an accessory building as long as it is not a dwelling unit, as defined in our Zoning Ordinance, which means it does not have a kitchen. As long as it does not have its own kitchen, it is not considered a dwelling.
“If you ask me, ‘Is that a loophole?’ I don’t know. Her family will live there, but they will not have their own kitchen. They will take their meals (in the house) and be with their mom.
“Ms. Wells indicated she had looked at other properties, and the addition above her garage was the least costly way. That was her motivation. I have no reason not to believe her.
“There is no loophole. The code allows you to take an accessory building, and you can add to it. You can make a rumpus room, you can create an office, you can use it for extra storage.
“You can do all those things,” Mr. Blumenfeld said, “and you can even have a sleeping room, but you can’t have a kitchen.”
Is it possible that the rules were drawn without vaguely near neighbors in mind?
