Divisions Exist Between Neighbors and a Developer's Plans for Teardown of Old Home

Developer Robert Jennee says destroying a poorly-maintained pre-Civil War home on the corner of East Ridgewood and Walthery and would strengthen the character of the neighborhood, but neighbors say Jennee is absolutely wrong and charge that village law is not on his side.

Jennee after the longtime resident had no bites–buyers were worried about the cost of renovations, her realtor testified–and eventually sold low. The developer purchased the home outright for $385,000 (below what Lewis was reportedly seeking) and is seeking a litany of variances from the planning board.

His professional planners, engineers and architects have testified that Jenne's request for the corner lot is not "unreasonable" and the variances sought would correct an existing neighborhood problem. Neighbors have said the property should remain a single lot, as the lot isn't large enough for two homes and the single existing house should be refurbished.

Jennee's planner David Troast testified on Tuesday night to the planning board that refurbishing the home would deprive the opportunity to give "rhythm" to the neighborhood "in scale," which he called choppy in its current configuration. Troast further asserted that granting variances and relief would be "for the public good" and remarked that the plan  "does not disrupt the Master Plan or zoning ordinance."

Citing the 1957 Master Plan–which Troast praised as a "thorough" document–the hired planner remarked that building the two over 3,400 square foot homes on the roughly half-acre 25,000 square-foot lot is precisely what was envisioned by the "forefathers" in the 1950s and many other homes don't comply with current ordinances, the majority he admitted were likely to have been built before zoning laws took effect decades ago.

To help persuade the planning board of Jennee's "not unreasonable" proposal, Troast cited aerial photos of the two-home proposal in determining appropriate floor area ratio (FAR) and questioned the accuracy of tax assessment records, a point Village Planner Blais Brancheau took particular objection to.

Brancheau in return snapped a question, asking Troast if he thought aerial coverage photographs were a better measure of assessing floor area size or if tax records were. Troast back-peddled, saying they were accurate "but not perfect" and then charged that aerial photographs were a better way to compare lot coverage, and said living space calculations weren't highly relevant. Ultimately, because the single lot is so large, a single home would be far larger and would dwarf  neighboring homes, Troast testified.

Neighbors' attorney Harold Clark grilled Jennee's professional planner on a tense Tuesday night. Troast at one point refused to answer questions because he felt "they were insulting" and the acrimonious exchange met a crescendo when Cook cited the 2006 Master Plan and pointed that it does not favor tearing homes down to build subdivisions. Clark quoted the 2006 revised advisory document, which called adding another building to an existing lot "a detriment to the neighborhood".

Troast agreed that the plan would be considered an "infill development" but testified that he felt the proposal would "not be a detriment".

Cook plans to introduce a real estate expert, Joseph Medici, to refute earlier testimony made by Audrey Marie Darby, Lewis' listing agent. Cook said Darby made erroneous statements during her testimony while under oath. The testimony will continue on March 1.

[Editor's note: The applicant's name is Robert Jennee. An earlier version misidentified him as Richard Jennee.]