Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board grants variance for 131 Shaker Road, allowing subdivision of historic lot
Summary
The Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a variance for 131 Shaker Road (Tax Map Lot 2834), allowing the Hicks family to subdivide a parcel that contains a house built in 1771; the vote was unanimous and the board adopted the applicant’s findings of fact.
The Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to grant a variance on case 4.1 for property at 131 Shaker Road, allowing the owners to subdivide a parcel containing a house that predates local zoning.
Mark C. Sargent of Richard Bartlett and Associates LLC, representing property owners Douglas and Patricia Hicks, told the board the 14.73-acre parcel has nearly 1,000 feet of frontage on Shaker Road and that the existing house sits about 13.8 feet from the roadway. Sargent argued the house, built in 1771, predates zoning and that the requested variance would not increase nonconformity or diminish surrounding property values.
"The house was built in 1771," Sargent said. "So I don't know if the road is encroaching on the house, or the house is encroaching on the road." He told the board the proposed new parcel would meet current requirements for area, frontage and usable buildable area, and asked the board to adopt the applicant's proposed findings of fact.
Planning staff thanked the board for providing a "clean interpretation" that the office could work with.
Board members indicated support during deliberations. Miss Perkins said, "I don't have a problem approving this variance." Miss Spector Morgan added, "I agree. Makes complete sense." After a motion to grant the variance citing Article 28 (development design standards), section 28-4-1(d) and RSA 674:33, the board adopted the applicant's proposed findings of fact and the presiding member announced the vote was unanimous.
The variance allows the parcel to be subdivided in a way the applicants proposed; the board's motion recorded that all findings required under RSA 674:33 were met based on the record before the board. The board did not specify further conditions beyond adopting the applicant's findings.
With the formal vote recorded, the variance is granted and the board will record its decision in the meeting minutes and any required filings with the city planning office.
