ZBA continues 282 Warren/73 Pleasant lot‑line variance request after questioning hardship

The Zoning Board of Appeals continued a request to redraw lot lines between 282 Warren Street and 73 Pleasant Street after questioning whether the requested variance would address a genuine, non‑self‑created hardship.

Applicants asked the board to allow a conveyance of a narrow, long five‑foot strip of land that currently links 282 Warren to Pleasant Street. Counsel said the reconfiguration would convert 73 Pleasant from a nonconforming lot into a conforming lot and significantly reduce — though not eliminate — 282 Warren's build factor. Attorney Timothy Fraser said the change would reduce 282 Warren's build factor from the low fifties (about 52.6) down to roughly 26.69; the zoning code requires a build factor of 20 or less in a single‑residence district.

The board pressed counsel and the property owners on why the variance was needed now and whether the difficulty was self‑created. Board members observed that a recorded cross‑easement dating to 2007 already governs use of the narrow strip and that the requested change effectively transfers fee ownership of a small piece of land currently governed by the easement. Owner Jonathan Chan, appearing by Zoom, said the strip contains tall trees whose branches have fallen onto his property and a neighboring driveway; he told the board the parties previously divided the cost of trimming but sought fee ownership to avoid continuing liability and to ensure ongoing maintenance.

Several board members said the lot is unusually irregular and that the proposal would make the two lots more regular, but they questioned whether the application demonstrated the kind of hardship the bylaw requires for a variance when the condition arose from long‑standing lot lines and an existing easement. One board member observed that granting a variance could freeze a partially nonconforming configuration in place and create a mixed set of rules for future changes.

After discussion the board voted to continue the hearing to the March 20 meeting so the applicants can provide additional justification and, if possible, alternative lot‑line configurations to address the board's concerns. The board suggested the applicants explore whether a different conveyance shape (for example adding a small L‑shaped area rather than only the 5‑foot strip) could achieve conformity without requiring a variance.

Why it matters: the case illustrates how historically irregular lot lines, long‑standing easements and newly asserted maintenance or liability concerns can prompt requests that put the variance standard to the test. The board signaled it will look closely for evidence that the hardship is not self‑created and that the request is the minimum relief needed.

Next steps: applicants to return on March 20 with additional materials and any revised proposals; the board continued the hearing at applicants' request.