Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the White Oaks Duplex Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA denies developer’s request for duplex development on White Oaks Road after heavy neighbor opposition
Summary
The Zoning Board denied a variance request for a 24‑unit duplex development on 10 acres of White Oaks Road. Neighbors cited loss of rural character, traffic, wells and drainage concerns; the board voted to deny the application.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 15 voted to deny a variance request (ZB2025‑056) that would have allowed a duplex development of 12 buildings (24 units) on a roughly 10‑acre parcel on White Oaks Road. Attorney Patrick Cronin, representing the applicants, had asked the board for two variances—use and density—so the project could be built as duplexes rather than single‑family houses.
Cronin told the board the application had been revised twice and that applicants were willing to accept conditions such as a berm, additional landscaping and privacy fencing to address abutter concerns. He described the design as a “Nantucket‑style” residential plan and said an independent appraiser, Mark McKeon, concluded the development would not reduce surrounding property values and might enhance them.
Despite those assurances, the public hearing drew a heavy turnout of abutters and nearby residents who urged denial. Speakers who live along White Oaks Road said the parcel and surrounding corridor are rural, lack municipal water and fire hydrants, and have no sidewalks; they argued the proposed duplex cluster would fundamentally change the character of the road. Neighbors raised additional issues including traffic and pedestrian safety, potential impacts on wells and groundwater, drainage and precedent concerns. Several pointed out that, without variances, the parcel could be developed to host a small number of single‑family homes within the existing zoning; they said that would be more compatible with the area.
The board debated the five variance factors, focusing on whether the project would alter the essential character of the neighborhood and whether denying the request would create an undue hardship. Several board members said they were persuaded by neighbors’ testimony about the road’s rural character and the risk of setting a precedent that could change other properties. Cronin reiterated the applicants’ willingness to include buffering and drainage measures, and noted the parcel abuts a multi‑unit development and cluster development nearby, but the board majority found the application would alter the neighborhood’s character and voted to deny the variance.
Motion and outcome: A motion to deny ZB2025‑056 (White Oaks Road) was seconded and carried; the board chair thanked residents for attending and asked the applicant to consider alternative plans and to return with a different application if desired.
Why it matters: The decision preserves existing zoning density for a rural corridor where residents said low density and open spaces are community priorities. The vote also underscores how strong neighborhood opposition can influence variance decisions even where developers offer design mitigations and appraisal testimony.
What’s next: The applicant may revise the proposal and return with an application that conforms more closely to the zoning or that substantially changes the plan. The board discussed that a denied application may not be resubmitted in the exact same form without substantial changes.
