The Development Review Board on March 20, 2025, determined that a proposed conversion at 177 West Street from a duplex to a fourplex meets the city's nonconforming-structure exception under section 802b, provided the project does not increase an existing setback encroachment. The board voted unanimously to allow staff to process the project administratively so long as no additional intrusion into the front setback occurs.

The finding matters because the property currently sits three feet inside a 15-foot front setback. Michael Giguere, zoning administrator for Essex Junction, told the board that vertical enlargement of an existing noncomplying structure can be allowed under section 802b if the enlargement does not increase the setback encroachment. Giguere said the recently submitted drawings showed a small roof overhang and a stair location that changed the application's context and led staff to ask for more time to review. He recommended the board either deny the revised submittal for now or proceed on the original materials.

Applicant representatives said they had new architectural drawings but that the proposed expansion remained within the garage footprint as originally presented. The applicants' representative said the roof overhang was added for construction ease and could be removed; they also acknowledged the upper units need an exterior stair. Board discussion focused on where exterior stairs could be located to avoid increasing the setback encroachment. Giguere advised that any stair within the setback could not be allowed beyond limited exemptions (stairs may encroach up to 18 inches under some rules) and said, "You can have what you have now just higher, same overhang. You just can't make it bigger. And I would be okay with that, but the stairs have to go somewhere else." The board and applicants agreed to remove or relocate the overhang/stair as needed so staff could finish administrative review.

A motion stated that the application meets the noncomplying-structure exceptions of section 802b (as originally presented) and that no additional impact or change to the existing setback infraction is allowed. The motion passed unanimously; the DRB instructed staff to process the project and confirmed the applicants need not return to the board unless revised plans increase the setback encroachment or otherwise conflict with staff determinations.

The board also noted that if the applicants submit any changes that staff deems to increase the nonconformity, the project would be required to return to the DRB for review. The applicants said they would work with their designer to relocate stairs and adjust the roof detail and then coordinate with staff on next steps.