2022-12-08-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated a for a Variance the specific lot conditions become important. He questioned if it was a fair assessment that there was not anything that looks like ledge, wetlands or anything pertaining to soil conditions on the lot (Yes). Mr. Clifford asked if the slope is fairly gradual (It’s a reasonable slope. You can build the by-right solution with the slope but they would need retaining walls. It’s expensive). A Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, asked what the neighbor that would be most affected felt about the proposal (They are new homeowners and they saw the proposal and were in favor of it). A Board Member, James Osten, asked how many trees would be removed (None). Ms. Wood stated her concern about the root system of the trees (They are not digging deep, there is no basement. It only needs a trench for the footings). There were no questions or comments from the audience. There were no further questions from the Board. Mr. Erickson stated they are aware of the court rulings on zoning. They make rulings in contentious situations, not one in which the neighborhood has come together in support for a more rational solution to a problem. If they look at the underpinnings of zoning we live in a country where we have private ownership of land and are encouraged to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Zoning is the guard rail so that we are good neighbors. He stated he believes this is a good solution for granting this variance and the underground water system is a hardship on the owners. This is a better solution than going into the backyard. The hearing was closed at 7:33 pm (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, James Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes and Norman P. Cohen – Yes). Mr. Osten stated he is looking for the unique conditions for enforcement and inability to use one’s property. He’s wondering if that’s enough. Mr. Cohen stated if this was a Special Permit he would vote yes. This does not meet the requirements for a variance. However, there are times when the alternative might be a better solution. Mr. Clifford stated side setbacks are not just to keep social distance but they have a substantial impact in terms of firefighting, so they don’t set adjoining houses on fire. This is a substantial detriment to the public good. Variances are forever. These neighbors are happy with it but that does not mean it’s good for the community. He addressed Mr. Erickson’s comments about Government power. The rules state there have to be something unique about the soil conditions, shape of the lot or the topology. The lot is square, soil conditions are normal, there is no ledge and the topology are level. This is not on a Special Permit. This is a variance we should not grant. There were no further comments from the Board. The applicant requested a withdrawal without prejudice.