Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worcester County BZA approves after‑the‑fact rear‑yard variance for Williams Family Trust, 4-2
Summary
The Worcester County Board of Zoning Appeals approved an after‑the‑fact variance to allow an existing stairway to a second‑floor deck to remain 1.7 feet inside the rear‑yard setback at 31 Harborview Drive.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Worcester County Board of Zoning Appeals on March 13 approved an after‑the‑fact variance allowing an existing stairway to remain 1.7 feet inside the rear‑yard setback at 31 Harborview Drive, on the Williams Family Trust property. The board voted 4 in favor and 2 opposed.
The applicant sought a variance to reduce the rear‑yard setback from 30 feet to 28.3 feet for an existing stairway serving a second‑floor deck in an R‑3 multifamily residential district. The application notes the house was built about 1981 and that the deck had been permitted and enlarged in 2005; the applicant said inspections and other permitting steps were underway to close older permits.
At the hearing the applicant testified the stairs have existed for roughly 20 years, encroach by about 1.7 feet and provide access from the second‑floor deck. The applicant said they had not received neighborhood complaints and asked the board to grant an after‑the‑fact variance to regularize the situation.
A board member who visited the property told the panel the steps could be relocated within the existing deck footprint so they would not encroach; that comment was part of the members' questioning. No members of the public testified for or against the request.
A motion to approve the application was made and seconded; the board recorded a 4–2 vote in favor. The board did not specify conditions tied to the approval in the hearing record.
Case materials cite Worcester County zoning code sections read into the record during the hearing; the applicant and board referenced prior permits and inspections that prompted the after‑the‑fact request.
The board closed the case after the vote; no appeal or follow‑up timeline was specified in the hearing transcript.
