Hopkinton zoning board approves dimensional variance for carport at 2 Stony Lane, subject to wetland clearance and permit

The Hopkinton Zoning Board of Review on a voice vote approved a dimensional variance that will allow a freestanding wooden carport to be built at 2 Stony Lane, contingent on a formal letter from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) clearing wetlands concerns and the applicant obtaining all required building permits.

The board moved that the application is complete with the exception of a wetland determination (checklist item C), and accepted evidence that the carport will be a roof with posts only and not attached to the house. The board approved the variance after making the standard hardship and nonfinancial-gain findings required under the town zoning ordinance.

The application, filed in the board's packet as Petition 1 and identified on town mapping as Plat/Map 28 (assessor references discussed), requests relief from front- and side-yard setback requirements in Section 9, Chapter 134 of the Hopkinton zoning ordinance. The applicant sought roughly 20 feet of relief from the front setback and about 13.3 feet of side-yard relief (plans on record show conflicting dimensions of 1.7 feet and 3 feet from the side property line; the board accepted the smaller 11x17 plan showing the 1.7-foot side dimension as the controlling document for the decision).

Steven Surdut, who introduced himself as the applicant's representative, told the board the structure would be "just a roof. There's no sides on it" and that it would be freestanding, located over an existing crushed-stone parking area and not connected to the house. Surdut also said the site is constrained by propane tanks and a septic system in the front yard and that the proposed carport is intended to provide weather protection for the property owner as he ages.

Board members and staff discussed disparities between the larger full-size plan and an 11-by-17 revision; the board agreed to accept the smaller, dated revision for recordation and asked the applicant to provide full-size plans for recording. The board also required that the DEM wetland finding be submitted to the zoning office and circulated to board members (and that the issuance of final approval be withheld until the letter is received). Several board members said they would follow up with the town staff member(s) identified as Tony and Katrina to ensure the letter and the building-permit process are completed.

Neighbors across and near Stony Lane were listed on the submitted abutter map; Surdut said two neighbors (residents at 2 Stony Lane and 9 Stony Lane) voiced support after reviewing the plan, and one nearby resident who maintains the road said the proposed location would not interfere with plowing. The board noted the proposed structure remains on the lot of record and does not encroach on a paper right-of-way that leads to the pond.

The board recorded the checklist motions on completeness (items A and B complete; C subject to DEM letter; D previously complete; E previously waived), then opened a hearing, made the required findings of hardship, and voted to approve the dimensional variance conditioned on receipt of the DEM wetland determination and the applicant pulling the required building permit.

The board also directed that larger, recordable plans be supplied for recording, and that staff circulate the DEM correspondence to the board by email. No financial conditions or bond amounts were discussed during the meeting. The applicant or his representative will return correspondence to the board office to document the DEM letter and the building permit before issuance of final, recorded approval.