Coventry zoning board continues hearing after applicant narrows plan for 1340 Main Street

The Coventry Zoning Board continued a public hearing on the application of Marjorie Bailey to Sept. 3 after counsel amended the proposal to withdraw dimensional‑setback relief and seek only a use variance to build a single‑story, five‑bedroom home at 1340 Main Street in the town's I‑1 (industrial) zone.

Why it matters: The amended plan eliminates the board's primary dimensional concern — side setbacks that were measured under industrial zoning — and leaves the board to weigh whether denying a use variance would deprive the property of all beneficial use, the legal standard the board must apply.

Thomas Cronin, attorney for the owner and applicant, told the board the original request sought two side‑setback variances (approximately 7 and 8 feet of relief) because the lot narrows toward the Patuxent River and was merged historically by the assessor's office. Cronin said the applicant has prepared an alternate design that narrows the house and places it so that no side‑setback relief would be required.

"We're amending our application to the alternative plan that I've presented," Cronin said. He also said the applicant would demolish an existing barn on the lot and keep two existing residences, rather than adding new dimensional relief for the proposed new house.

Neighbors and condominium residents who spoke at the hearing urged the board to deny any relief that would place habitable structures closer to their fence lines or increase disturbances. Patricia Beauchimen, who identified herself as a Rivers Edge Drive resident, said the condominium association's older residents had endured past problems with tenants on the Bailey property and asked the board whether the applicant would work with a state agency if the house were used for shared living services.

"There is oversight because there are agencies that work with the families," Beauchimen said, and asked whether the applicant had an agency partner. Cronin and board members repeatedly said inside‑house activities and state licensing for shared living are matters for state regulators and not the zoning board's jurisdiction.

At several points, board members expressed concern about the presence of three habitable structures on one lot. Member comments ranged from acknowledging visible improvement to the property since eviction of prior tenants to saying they would prefer to see the longer middle dwelling removed rather than approve a third habitable building.

Several neighbors who spoke opposed the original setback relief and asked for clarification about whether the proposed new house would be used as a standard single‑family dwelling or for shared living for adults with disabilities. The board repeatedly emphasized that the application before it is for a residential use in an industrial zone — a use variance — and that what occurs inside a house (for example, provision of licensed shared living services) is regulated by state agencies and not determinative of the local use‑variance analysis.

Solicitor and staff guidance at the hearing focused the board on the legal test for a use variance: whether denying the variance would leave the land without any beneficial use. Solicitor Douglas McLean asked members to state, if they vote, whether the record demonstrates that standard.

After discussion the board briefly moved to take a vote but, following a request by Cronin for time to confer with his clients about whether to remove the long middle dwelling or pursue the alternate plan, members voted to reconsider and continue the public hearing to Sept. 3 so the applicant can file the revised plans and the public can review them in advance.

Next steps: Cronin said the applicant would amend the application to the alternative plan (the narrower building envelope that eliminates the need for side‑setback relief) and asked that the revised submission be posted at least 10 days before the Sept. 3 hearing. The board granted a continuance; no final vote on the use variance was taken at the meeting.

Ending: The public hearing is continued to the board's next scheduled meeting on Sept. 3. The board told the applicant to provide revised drawings to the planning office so neighbors may review them before the continued hearing.