2018-08-23-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

building the deck). Mr. Clifford asked the applicant how often he uses the bulkhead (he stores lawn equipment there). Ms. Wood asked where the other egress to the basement is (inside the house). A Board Member, Mr. Williams, asked if Conservation had been out there (Mr. George responded he is not aware of any visits by Conservation). Mr. Williams asked if the deck could be moved closer to the house (If they moved the deck closer to the house, they would be blocking a window). Mr. Williams stated that there must be a way to have the deck conform to zoning (the applicant responded that with the way they would be arranging items on the deck, the proposed placement would be the most optimal way). Mr. Williams stated that another option would be to do a patio and he wouldn't need approval from the Board of Appeals. Ms. Wood stated that if this was approved, she would want a condition that the deck cannot be ever enclosed or become part of the house (Mr. Huang stated that he would be okay with that as a condition). A Board Member, Ms. Krieger, stated that a variance has a very high standard. A patio would work effectively. The Board discussed the option of withdrawing without prejudice as opposed to having the Board deny the variance request. There were no questions or comments from the audience. There were no further questions or comments from the Board. The applicant requested a Withdrawal without Prejudice. On a Motion by Jeanne K. Krieger, and seconded by Ralph D. Clifford, the Board voted 5-0 to allow a WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DATED AUGUST 23, 2018.