Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sewell Road redevelopment continued: ZBA asks legal clarification on how to count nonconforming footprints
Summary
The board continued the variance hearing for a Sewell Road property redevelopment to May 5 after split discussion over whether the two existing structures should be combined when calculating the 25% expansion limit for a nonconforming dwelling.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment continued a variance hearing on April 7 for a Sewell Road property where the owner proposes to remove several outbuildings and rebuild a larger primary house and a guest house. The board voted 3–2 to continue the matter to May 5 to get clearer guidance on whether the 25% cumulative expansion limitation for a nonconforming structure should be applied to both existing buildings together or to the guest house alone.
Architect Amy Bentley and homeowner Andy Allen described a redevelopment plan to remove four structures and construct a primary residence and separate guest house; the lot is large (about 1.6 acres) and the applicants submitted a shoreland site plan showing existing and proposed lot coverage. The applicants said existing lot coverage is about 24.1 percent and their build plan would reduce lot coverage to roughly 18.2 percent by using permeable pavement and additional landscaping.
Board members raised a legal interpretive question central to the application: whether the existing guest house and primary house should be treated together as a single nonconforming footprint for the 25% expansion calculation. Some members said only the structure that creates the second-dwelling unit should be counted for the 25% limit; others said the record and prior planner interpretations suggested counting both together. Because the board did not reach consensus and members asked for clarification from planning staff and legal counsel, the board continued the public hearing to the May 5 meeting to allow time to resolve the interpretive question and supply requested calculations and shoreland paperwork.
The board recorded that the applicant has prepared preliminary shoreland calculations and that the design team intends to reduce impervious surface and add stormwater management; the board also asked for clearer documentation on whether covered porches and overhangs count toward the footprint for the 25% calculation under Article 175.43.
The continuance passed on a 3–2 vote; the board asked the applicants and staff to provide clarifying materials ahead of the May 5 hearing.
