Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variances Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Watertown board approves Alexander Rose variances with conditions on gazebo, shed and beehives
Summary
The Watertown Point of Adjustment approved variances allowing Alexander Rose to retain and add accessory structures at his Normandy Heights Road property, while imposing conditions to address a front‑yard gazebo, on‑site beehives and shed siting.
The Watertown Point of Adjustment granted variances for an application by Alexander Rose (VA‑14‑25) concerning accessory structures at 9502/4146 Normandy Heights Road, after public questioning and extended board discussion about existing nonconforming features.
The application sought approval for a 12×20 shed in the rear yard, to be sited such that the combined side yard would be 51 feet where 60 feet is required; it also sought relief to retain an existing gazebo in the front yard and to maintain multiple accessory structures (the property currently contains a garage, a gazebo, a small garden shed and a children’s jungle gym). Board professionals and neighbors raised concerns about intensifying nonconformities, the location of beehives near the street, and the gazebo’s deteriorated condition.
During testimony, the applicant, Alexander Rose, described the shed model and the proposed siting; he said the large shed would be used only for storage of lawn equipment and not living quarters. A neighboring resident, Peter Triestman, testified in opposition, providing photos and arguing that front‑yard beehives and the gazebo violated zoning limits and endangered passersby. The objector asked for denial or for conditions requiring removal or relocation of front‑yard installations.
Board discussion focused on compromise measures. Members proposed—and the applicant accepted—these conditions on approval: require the applicant to obtain a building permit for the existing gazebo and either bring it up to code (inspections and a certificate of occupancy) or remove it; relocate or otherwise move beehives further from the street and to a safer distance (board discussion settled on 15 feet as a working condition); allow the proposed 12×20 shed to be built in a location farther from the objector’s boundary (the applicant agreed to move it toward the far side of the yard); allow the small garden shed and swing set to remain; and require the applicant to pull any applicable permits and reconcile property boundary disputes separately with surveyors (the board does not adjudicate title disputes).
A board member moved to approve the application with these conditions; a second was recorded and the board voted in favor. The meeting transcript records the motion and multiple board members saying "yes"; it does not include a formal roll‑call tally in line‑item form. The board also instructed that construction and refurbishment be coordinated with the township construction official and engineering staff, and that if the gazebo could not be brought to code it must be removed.
