Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA approves revised proposal for oversized accessory structure at 106 Boller Street with conditions
Summary
The board granted relief allowing a large after‑the‑fact garage to remain subject to relocation and removal of surrounding impervious area, site plan review and conditions prohibiting commercial use of the structure.
The Zoning Board of Appeals granted relief for an after‑the‑fact accessory structure at 106 Boller Street after the petitioner agreed to reduce the scope of non‑conformity and to remove adjacent impervious material.
Jeff Tallman, engineer for the petitioner Robert Machado, explained the initial condition: a recently constructed oversized garage and surrounding asphalt increased lot coverage to roughly 99% from a preexisting 63% condition. Tallman presented three plan options: the pre‑2022 condition, the as‑built condition, and a proposed revision under which the garage would be relocated to meet minimum 4‑foot side and rear setbacks and roughly 710 square feet of asphalt would be removed. The revisions would reduce lot coverage to about 85%.
Planning staff and board members discussed whether the matter required a variance or could be addressed via a special permit. Board members said that if the petitioner can relocate the structure to meet setbacks, the size of the structure could be approved under a special permit (section 86‑4‑66 allows accessory buildings larger than 750 sq ft by special permit), avoiding a hardship variance. The board emphasized that the use of the structure must remain accessory residential storage: if the building were used as a commercial garage (vehicles being regularly maintained/serviced or an off‑site business operation), that would require separate relief. The petitioner said the garage stores materials used by his contracting work but that materials are transported to job sites and not used as an on‑site business operation; neighbors described the petitioner as honest and said the improvements were an upgrade from the prior deteriorated condition.
The board voted to find that the revised proposal (relocated structure to meet setback standards, removal of perimeter pavement, prohibition of commercial use, and site plan review) was not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and granted approval with conditions including prohibition on business storage/use, no water/sewer connections to the garage, and removal or narrowing of one easterly driveway to reduce impervious coverage. The motion carried on recorded roll call.
