Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance Generator topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board hears appeal over 10 kW generator at 63 Sassafras Street; board signals likely denial
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed a variance request to allow a 10 kW standby generator sited inside required setbacks at 63 Sassafras Street. The owner and contractor cited medical needs and chronic basement flooding; the board agreed two of four variance criteria were met but said two were not and made no formal decision while written findings are drafted.
The Zoning Board of Appeals met on Aug. 26 to hear an appeal from Mitchell Sparrow and co‑owner Denise Spina seeking a variance to reduce setback requirements for a 10 kW Generac standby generator at 63 Sassafras Street. The unit was installed without a finalized permit and sits within the town’s setback requirements, the board heard.
Appellant testimony and contractor statements emphasized medical necessity and repeated basement flooding. Mitchell Sparrow said he requires multiple refrigerated injectable medications and that ‘‘they must be refrigerated precisely between 37 and 42 degrees,’’ and that the installed generator preserves medications and powers sump pumps that otherwise allow water to damage the basement. Contractor representatives from Moriarty Electric told the board the unit was installed 7 feet from the rear property line and 18 inches from the house and that they could find no other on‑site location that met setback and building‑opening constraints while also protecting the homeowners’ medical needs.
Code enforcement told the board that a permit application was submitted in February 2024 but placed on hold pending plot measurements; an inspector later identified the installed generator and issued a notice of warning dated May 29, 2024, citing a land‑use violation. The code office reported a measurement of 8 feet 6 inches from the rear property line; the installer disputed that exact figure but acknowledged the unit encroached on the required setbacks. The chair read three written abutter statements into the record: two (Suzanne Rubinstein and Susan Caldwell) said they ‘‘have no objection’’ or ‘‘fully support’’ the request, while a third (Ralph Menacello) wrote that he would have opposed the variance had proper procedures been followed, arguing the contractor should have applied before installation.
Board members debated the four statutory variance criteria required by the town code. Several members said criterion (a) — that the land cannot yield a reasonable return or use unless a variance is granted — was not satisfied because alternatives (roof solar, battery power stations, portable units, or sale) exist. Members also questioned whether the lot’s conditions were unique in the neighborhood (criterion b). By contrast, the board generally agreed granting the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality (criterion c) and that the hardship was not the result of action by the current owner (criterion d).
A member asked whether federal disability law (the Americans with Disabilities Act) requires a different outcome where medical equipment is at stake. The code office said ADA obligations do not automatically change zoning setback rules, noting specific egress and ramp provisions exist elsewhere in the ordinance but that ADA does not generally override setback regulations.
Because the town code requires all four criteria be met to grant a dimensional variance, several members concluded two criteria were not satisfied and the chair stated on the record that ‘‘the appeal would be denied’’ while emphasizing that written findings must still be drafted and circulated before an official determination. No formal vote to grant or deny the variance was recorded that evening; the board instructed staff to prepare draft findings for its next meeting. The enforcement notice remains part of the record and, if the board later denies the appeal, code enforcement staff said removal or other enforcement steps would follow; judicial appeal rights (typically to the county/state court within 45 days) were noted.
The case drew both expressions of neighbor support and objections to the timing of the application, plus technical discussion about alternatives. The board closed the public hearing after receiving the testimony and moved on to administrative business; members approved minutes from prior meetings, expressed appreciation for the late Dr. Louis Cohen and discussed a vacancy following a member’s move.
Next procedural step: the board will prepare and circulate written findings before making a final recorded determination on the variance request.
