Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer asks for multiple setback variances for Emerald Street project; board continues until applicant provides measurements
Summary
The Gardner Board of Appeals heard detailed plans for six new units at 0 Emerald Street and paused action after members requested clear, unit‑by‑unit measurements and a written narrative linking each requested relief to variance criteria; the applicant asked to continue to April.
Chair Ray Lafondre opened the hearing on a continuance of the Stevenson/0 Emerald Street application, which seeks relief from front and side setbacks and permission to place 10‑by‑10 decks for six new units.
The applicant’s agent presented site geometry, topography and unit layouts as the basis for relief, saying the lots’ shape and steep grade make means of egress difficult and that modest forward shifts of 3–10 feet are needed to provide interior garage doors and safe exits. The agent described the decks as uniformly 10 by 10 and said requested relief would range from about 3 feet (Unit 6) to about 10 feet (Units 2 and 3) on some setbacks.
Board members repeatedly pressed the applicant to document the requests with clear measurements and a written narrative tied to the legal variance criteria (shape, topography, hardship and lack of negative community impact). One member said he was uncomfortable granting variances on recently created, otherwise conforming lots: “I struggle with variances on new lots because you go into it knowing the lot size and frontage,” a committee member said, urging the applicant to explain the unique hardship.
The applicant replied that the lot geometry, grade differentials and unit floor‑plan constraints together create a practical difficulty and that he can supply engineer‑marked plans and a narrative. He asked the board for a continuance to prepare the documentation.
The board moved and voted to continue the item to the April meeting to allow the applicant to submit: (1) explicit unit‑by‑unit relief numbers, (2) a plan showing existing conditions and proposed offsets (engineered or hand‑marked), and (3) a short written justification linking each relief to the variance factors. The chair said the board may reduce the number of variances if some needs can be avoided.
The case will return to the board once those materials are filed and distributed to members.
The board’s action was procedural; no variances were granted at the March 17 meeting.
