Board approves driveway and setback variances for 3535 Nicolay Drive to formalize long-standing circulation

The Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals on April 21 approved a set of variances that allow a widened driveway and reduced side-yard setbacks at 3535 Nicolay Drive, formalizing an existing circulation pattern on the property and enabling a full resurfacing of the asphalt.

Staff described the request as two related deviations from city driveway standards (Section 44-1746). The applicants asked to exceed the maximum driveway width for side-loading garages and to reduce side/rear setbacks in a few locations — including a section where the proposed driveway would be as close as 2 feet to a property line near a shed and a long driveway run that would exceed the nominal permitted length in order to provide a practical approach to a side-loading garage. Staff explained the site has an existing, nonconforming shared driveway configuration dating back decades and that the new plan would convert the existing circulation to a single, private drive and replace failing pavement.

Property owner Michael Shea and contractor Don McDonald testified that the parcel’s historic access changed when a previously planned right-of-way was abandoned before Shea purchased the property in 1990, leaving the lot without unquestioned legal access from the street. Shea said the lack of a recorded, guaranteed access route is an ongoing title and estate-planning concern and that negotiating a permanent easement with neighbors could be complex; the proposed drive would resolve practical access problems and document the current arrangement. A neighbor who spoke, Pete Simon of 3525 Maple Lane, said he supported a solution that preserved function and appearance and indicated the parties preferred a design that looked decent rather than a minimal code-compliant strip.

In deliberations board members cited the property’s unusual lot geometry, the preexisting nonconforming driveway, and the practical difficulty of complying with a strict interpretation of the side-loading garage rules on this parcel. Several members observed the driveway footprint has existed for decades, the proposed work is primarily resurfacing, and the request would not create new visibility from the roadway. The board found exceptional circumstances and that approving the variances would not create substantial detriment to adjacent properties.

Motion and vote: A motion to approve the variances as presented carried (recorded as unanimous in the public discussion). The board directed the applicant to coordinate final construction plans and any required permitting with city staff. The petitioner said the work will replace pavement that is 30–35 years old.

Ending: Permit issuance and construction will require formal coordination with the city’s planning and permitting staff; the board’s action clarified the property’s allowed driveway geometry so the owner can proceed with resurfacing and future transfer or estate planning.