Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors divided over garage addition at 51 Snow Apple Lane; modified variance fails
Summary
Homeowner Michael Perizzoli sought a side-yard setback variance to build a garage and master-suite addition at 51 Snow Apple Lane. The board debated whether the lot shows the land hardship the ordinance requires; a proposed compromise to reduce the requested encroachment failed and no variance was approved on June 10.
The Zoning Board of Appeals heard testimony June 10 on a variance request to allow a 4.5-foot side-yard setback for a garage and living-area addition at 51 Snow Apple Lane in Orchard Hills. After roughly an hour of questions and public comment, a motion by a board member to modify the requested setback to 6.5 feet failed and no final approval was recorded.
Applicant and case: Attorney Thomas Lynch represented owner Michael Perizzoli, who told the board he needs additional indoor storage and bedroom space so his three children can each have bedrooms. Lynch and Perizzoli said neighboring properties on Snow Apple Lane commonly have garages that extend close to lot lines and that the proposal is in keeping with the street—s character.
Opposition and board concerns: Board members expressed concern that the applicant had not demonstrated a hardship tied to the land. Multiple members noted the lot meets zone minimum dimensions and that a narrower garage or an addition further back could provide storage without a variance. The board discussed alternative layouts and whether the proposal constituted an expansion of a conforming structure that requires strict review.
Public comment: Perizzoli said he had canvassed neighbors and presented a petition of support signed by 10 nearby residents. Board members inspected site dimensions during questioning; engineers and staff clarified that the distance between the lot line and the existing building is approximately 22.5 feet and that the requested variance would reduce required side-yard width to 4.5 feet.
Board action: The board took a motion to approve at the originally requested 4.5-foot setback, then entertained a restated motion to approve with a modification to 6.5 feet. That modified motion failed on recorded votes. No subsequent successful vote to grant a reduced variance was recorded at the June 10 meeting; the application therefore remains unresolved in the board record.
Next steps: Applicants may revise plans and re-present or seek a future hearing. The board discussion indicated members are open to a narrower encroachment if the applicant can demonstrate a land-based hardship or present alternatives that reduce the setback relief sought.
