Board grants lot-coverage variance for garage addition at 50 Lakeview Drive

At its regular July meeting, the Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a variance to permit maximum lot coverage of 15% instead of the 10% allowed in the open-space residential (RO) district for a property at 50 Lakeview Drive. The application was presented by attorney Maria Dolder on behalf of the property owner, the Brinley J. Goudreau Revocable Trust.

Dolder described the property as a 5.94-acre lot with a single-family residence, a garage/pool house and a pool. She said the applicant proposes a 32-by-32-foot addition to the existing garage and that the owner had already removed about 1,000 square feet of impervious surface; the net increase in lot coverage from the addition, she said, would be roughly 964 square feet. Dolder told the board the dispute arose because the zoning ordinance contains two inconsistent definitions of lot coverage — a glossary definition that counts only building footprint and a table reference that includes impervious surfaces — which causes the driveway and other paved areas to trigger the 10% limit.

Code enforcement told the board that the recorded plat contains a condition prohibiting use of the shared driveway, which is why the owner constructed a separate, long driveway; the fire department asked that the existing shared driveway be retained for emergency access. As Dolder stated to the board, "When I first sat down with them, I looked in your glossary and I said, I don't know why you're coming to me. You don't need a variance because lot coverage clearly is only your buildings and you don't exceed it." A city code enforcement speaker added that "there is a condition on the recorded plat that actually prohibits him from using the shared driveway."

Board members described the lot as unusually configured and the driveway length and impervious area as hardships that justified relief. One board member summarized the situation as an ordinance anomaly and said the parcel's size and distance from neighbors reduced the risk of overdevelopment. A motion to grant the variance quoted the record and cited compliance with "RSA 6 74 33" (as recorded in the transcript). The motion was moved and seconded and carried unanimously.

The transcript contains discussion about the ordinance inconsistency and the applicant's decision not to remove an existing driveway piece because of fire-department preference; the board's action adopts the applicant's proposed findings as the board's findings of fact. No members of the public spoke for or against the application during the hearing.