Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board denies variance for 2927 Wadsworth Road after neighbor objections
Loading...
Summary
After multiple neighbors and written comments opposed a 4,800-square-foot accessory building at 2927 Wadsworth Road, the Norton Board of Zoning and Building Appeals voted to deny the variance; staff noted parcel consolidation or other remedies would be needed for larger construction.
The Norton Board of Zoning and Building Appeals denied a variance request for an accessory building at 2927 Wadsworth Road at its April 21, 2026 meeting after public objection and board deliberation.
Zoning administrator Bill Bremen told the board the applicant, Anthony Seaman, seeks permission to build a 60-by-80-foot accessory building (4,800 square feet) on an R-1 property; Norton zoning limits accessory-building area for lots of this acreage to about 1,280 square feet. Seaman testified he owns multiple pieces of equipment and said the building would store and hide his equipment from view, that some existing structures on the parcel would be removed, and that he intends to use gutters tied to existing swales to manage runoff.
Several neighbors opposed the request in person and through letters. Resident Susan Welch told the board the proposed size and use are incompatible with the R-1 district, argued that accessory structures must be subordinate to a primary residence and that this parcel does not contain a primary residence, and cited Norton code sections (including 12.96.03 and 12.96.07) in urging denial. Two written letters submitted by Donald Welch and Eric Cunningham, read into the record, likewise said the application appears intended to facilitate commercial storage and that the applicant had not shown a unique physical hardship required for a variance.
Board members asked whether the applicant’s two parcel numbers could be combined to change the allowable accessory area and whether a smaller building would address neighborhood concerns. Staff said combining parcels or demonstrating a primary residence on the lot could change size calculations but emphasized that enforcement and vehicle-storage issues were a separate process staff would pursue as needed.
A motion to deny the variance was made and seconded; the roll call recorded a majority in favor of denial and the chair closed the hearing. The board suggested the applicant consider either combining parcels or submitting a smaller plan for review if he wishes to pursue an amended request.
