Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wells Zoning Board of Appeals denies variance for generator at 63 Sassafras St.
Summary
After reviewing findings and the four ordinance criteria, the Wells Zoning Board of Appeals voted Sept. 16 to deny a variance request for a standby generator at 63 Sassafras Street, citing that the lot is typical of the neighborhood and the installation violated setback requirements.
WELLS — The Wells Zoning Board of Appeals voted Sept. 16 to deny a variance request for a standby generator installed at 63 Sassafras Street, concluding that the property could yield a reasonable return without the requested relief and that not all ordinance criteria for a variance were met.
The decision followed a line-by-line review and edits to the board’s draft findings of fact and an extended discussion of the four statutory criteria in the town’s land-use code. The board recorded that a code enforcement inspection on May 22, 2024 found a generator installed without a permit and located 8 feet 6 inches from the rear property line, encroaching into the 15-foot rear setback. A notice of warning was issued May 29, 2024.
Tom’s draft findings (as edited by the board) state that an application for permit No. 24-00146 to install a 10-kilowatt Generac generator was submitted by contractor Moriarty Electric and that the application was placed on hold by CEO James Genaro pending inclusion of the generator location. The board reviewed emails and a memo showing the property owners granted Moriarty Electric permission to pull permits and to act as their agent, which the board recorded as establishing the contractor’s standing in the appeal.
During discussion members noted alternatives to a standby generator and took care to separate background discussion from formal conclusions so the decision would be tied to the facts and the ordinance criteria. The board also discussed lot history and zoning: the property is in the RA district, the house was described in the record as built in the 1990s, and the owners’ acquisition date was noted for background.
After debate over the ordinance wording and voting mechanics, the board considered each criterion and took voice votes. The board concluded that (1) denial of a variance would not leave the land unable to yield a reasonable return or use, (2) the need for a variance was not due to a unique circumstance of the lot but rather reflected typical lot sizes in the neighborhood, (3) the hardship was not the result of actions taken by the applicant or a prior owner, and (4) granting a variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Following that series of determinations, a motion to deny the variance passed by voice vote and the chair announced, "The appeal is denied."
The action cites chapter 145-67(a)(3) of the Wells Land Use Ordinance as the governing authority for the board’s decision. The board instructed that the chairman be authorized to sign the findings of fact as amended; the board also approved corrections to prior meeting minutes.
Members used the meeting to raise a separate procedural request: several board members asked the town manager and the CEO to provide or arrange legal support and additional training to assist the board in drafting findings and reducing legal risk in higher-profile appeals. The board agreed to prepare a formal request for that assistance.
The meeting concluded after the board authorized the chairman to sign the revised findings and moved to adjourn.
