Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Request topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks mudroom at 10 Christopher Street; board supports special permit but raises doubt about variance, hearing continued to Feb. 24
Summary
Kyle Harrison presented a proposal for a 10-by-15-foot mudroom at 10 Christopher Street and asked for a special permit and a variance to allow an 8.7-foot side setback. Board members said the special-permit standard appears met but questioned whether the higher legal test for a variance is satisfied; the hearing was continued to Feb. 24 so the applicant can redesign.
Kyle Harrison told the Newburyport Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 10 that he seeks a two‑part approval to add a 10-by-15-foot mudroom at 10 Christopher Street: a special permit for preexisting nonconformities and a variance to allow an 8.7‑foot side setback where 10 feet is required.
Harrison described the addition as a 150‑square‑foot, single‑story mudroom that will extend roughly 5 feet beyond the existing rear wall, built on helical piers with a roof midline roughly 16.75 feet above grade. He said the room’s layout is intended to maximize built‑in cabinetry and storage for a growing family, and he offered letters of support from the abutters at 10½ and 12 Christopher Street.
Board members questioned the justification for a variance. Member Steven Delisle said he saw no problem with the special permit but had “a little bit of trouble with the variance,” noting the board’s four‑part legal test for hardship and alternatives. Jared Eigerman and Larry Ginta urged the applicant to pursue design alternatives that would preserve the required 10‑foot setback — for example, shifting interior cabinetry, adjusting length, or changing fenestration — rather than seeking relief via variance.
Harrison acknowledged the board’s concerns and said he would revisit the design rather than press forward with what appeared likely to be a failing variance application. The applicant asked for a short continuance; the board agreed to a Feb. 24 return date after a motion that passed 5–0.
Chair Rob Champetti summarized the board’s view that the special‑permit criteria appear met but that the variance standard — which must show hardship tied to lot shape, soils, or topography and not self‑inflicted — was not satisfied in the presentation. He offered the applicant time to rework plans to avoid the variance request.
The board closed discussion and set the next hearing date for Feb. 24 to allow the applicant to present revised plans.
