2021-06-24-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The Zoning Administrator clarified Moon Hill Road has their own association but it is not a planning board. Mr. Barnert stated the proposed garage is 16 feet away from the house. He questioned why that can't that be reduced (If they move it closer to the house the kitchen has no view out and more of the historic structure would be covered). Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated the Board is under specific limitations. He stated there are no wetlands or massive hills or slopes on the property. The shape of the lot is the main problem (Yes. The curving setback is the primary problem). Mr. Clifford stated every other lot in the cul de sac has that problem (The garage next door and across the street were granted a variance). Mr. Clifford stated this is a variance and focuses on the specific lot (The topography makes it so they cannot get into the back. There is ledge in the area. That is the biggest concern in excavating). The location of the rock outcropping was specified. Mr. Clifford pointed out the edge of the garage disrupts the rock as proposed (Yes but they are trying to stay away from the house). Mr. Clifford stated the 8 foot gap could be eliminated and then the garage could be built as a matter of right. He suggested attaching the garage to the house. Having the kitchen window is a preference. They have to convince them there is no other way to build this (At the Moon Hill Board meeting there was discussion of whether the garage would cover the original fagade of the building, this is a response to that. Prefer to stay away from original fagade). Mr. Clifford stated historic reasons are not on the list of what to look at when it comes to a variance. Lot shape, topology and ground conditions. If it can be done then they have not reached the level of the Variance. Mr. Clifford asked if this proposal is bigger than the previous variance (Yes it is). So it could be made smaller (It could. The garage approved before was given approval for 5 feet from the side lot line. For every foot they have to pull the back it pushes it in front of the existing structure) Mr. Clifford stated there has to be something about the use of zoning that makes it a real hardship for the owner to continue to use the property. A lack of garage is not a hardship. What is the injury (This is the third owner who has desired a garage. This problem continues to come up. A conforming garage is too small). Mr. Clifford stated the proposal is reaching the absolute maximum. This is a limited lot (A completely conforming garage will just close of kitchen and make it dark. That may not be a hardship it may have an effect on value). Mr. Clifford suggested they try a proposal that is more modest. Mr. Techler presented a presentation showing the current house. Mr. Techler requested a continuance to July 22, 2021 Hearing.