Board delays decision on Melly lot-coverage variance after lengthy review of converted garage and accessory structures

William C. R. Melly’s application for variances related to a converted garage, accessory structures and rear-yard coverage at 143 North Summit Ave. was continued to the board’s May 20 meeting after an extended review and requests for revised drawings.

Board members said the application raised multiple technical issues, including how to count decking and pavers in lot-coverage calculations, the location and construction of a shed that currently sits on 4x4 posts, an 8-foot masonry wall that appears taller than the town’s 6-foot fence limit, and whether a former garage converted to living space created a neighborhood precedent. The board asked the applicant to submit a 500-foot radius map showing nearby properties without garages and to provide revised site plans with reduced deck area so the requested rear-yard variance would be closer to the allowed 25%.

Why it matters: The application includes several zoning questions—lot coverage, accessory structure placement and side-yard setbacks—that affect whether existing outdoor structures may remain or must be removed or altered. The board signaled it is reluctant to grant a large variance without clearer evidence that the proposal fits neighborhood character and that technical obstacles (shed foundation, retaining walls, driveway access for a garage) are addressed.

Board staff opened the hearing by reading the application: the owner seeks permission to maintain a converted garage as habitable space and to retain accessory structures, with specific references to local code sections cited in the application materials. Brian Kiefner, who identified himself in the hearing as representing the applicant and who supplied drawings and photographs, explained proposed removals and what structures would remain (in-ground pool, portions of decking, a southeast shed on concrete). Mr. Kiefner said some deck sections are on grade and under 3 feet high while other sections step up and exceed 3 feet in places. He said the applicant would remove a failing roofed cabana and other deteriorating structures.

Board members and staff clarified how different elements count toward required percentages. Board staff said concrete and brick patios are not counted as building lot coverage but that decking, structures elevated above grade, and enclosed accessory buildings can count. The applicant’s materials showed a total lot coverage figure “about 34.85%,” and the applicant said he had requested a rear-yard variance of 45% while noting the proposed overall lot coverage would be roughly 34–35%. Board members noted the town’s rear-yard limit of 25% and asked the applicant to reduce decking to bring the rear-yard coverage down “closer to 25%” and to show a practical plan for relocating the shed (it rests on 4x4s and might be movable) or replacing it with a code-compliant foundation if necessary.

Board members also discussed that the shed and masonry wall predated current ownership in places but that earlier violations or unpaid fines — even if paid long ago — do not eliminate current code requirements. The board noted that any variance for side-yard setbacks or to legalize the shed could require additional hearings before the planning board.

The board asked the applicant to supply a radius map (the board specified 500 feet) showing nearby houses without garages to support a claim that the proposal conforms with neighborhood character. The board also asked for a revised plan showing a smaller deck area and potential shed relocation so the board could reassess the size of any variance to be granted.

The board voted to adjourn the application to its May 20 meeting. The motion to adjourn carried with board members present indicating “aye.”

What happens next: The applicant was given four weeks to provide the requested radius map, reduced-deck drawings and options for the shed or garage foundation; the item will return to the board’s May 20 agenda for further consideration.