With few other options for his conundrum, Mark Freitas, owner of 273 Snows Pond Road, withdrew his special permit application to allow two houses on one lot – an application that came before the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals on April 11 as a result of a complaint lodged by a tenant who was resentful over having been evicted.
Freitas bought the 4.55-acre property in 1999 with its house, garage, and five other smaller structures built by the previous owner. Freitas, after returning from living in Malaysia for two years, began to update the upstairs loft of the garage, a room that was already partially finished with heat and electric, to turn into a separate apartment space for his grown daughter. Freitas’ tenant informed the Town that Freitas was performing the work without a permit, resulting in a cease and desist order.
Freitas explained that there is one furnace and one electricity account that services his main house and the garage, saying, “It’s all tied together. It’s not like I’m trying to build a whole separate house.” He added that he would like to add a breezeway to completely connect the two buildings and add a kitchen to the upstairs of the garage.
But, as ZBA member Richard Cutler pointed out, Snows Pond Road is not a town road; therefore, the property technically has no frontage. And when the bylaw was created decades ago to allow property owners to build on those large lots on Snows Pond Road, it stipulated that there could only be one dwelling per property and it couldn’t be further subdivided.
Freitas’ neighbor, Richard Harding of 276 Snows Pond Road, said he would have no problem if Freitas established the separate apartment for his daughter, but he would have a problem if he were to have “two houses on one lot” as the application suggested.
“If you’re talking about letting him have an apartment with his daughter living on the property, I’m proud of him and I don’t think the Town should stop him from doing that,” said Harding. But he wouldn’t want to see that apartment one day become rental income from non-family tenants.
Things got confusing as Freitas’ true intent became clearer. It wasn’t two houses he was seeking: it was actually a multi-family he really wanted. He was looking to connect both buildings by a breezeway, which would make the house and garage one structure, not two separate structures with dwellings.
“Personally, I’m opposed to the two houses and I’m opposed to a separate apartment,” said Cutler. An ‘in-law’ apartment – one without a kitchen, Cutler said, “I wouldn’t have an issue with that.”
ZBA member Kirby Gilmore, who recused himself from the matter because he owns an abutting property, said he would not have a problem if the board granted Freitas permission for the daughter’s separate apartment.
Building Commissioner Jim Buckles told Freitas, “If you want to combine them and have two separate dwelling units, you could request that,” although that was not clear to Buckles at the time, he explained.
But for now, the application was for two houses, not a multi-family house. ZBA Chairman David Arancio advised Freitas that he could withdraw his application without prejudice and re-file for a multi-family if he wanted to, but the board gave Freitas no guarantee that it would be approved.
“I guess I’ll just withdraw this and re-think this,” said Freitas.
The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for April 25 at 7:15 pm at the Rochester Town Hall
Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
By Jean Perry