Property owner seeks waiver or variance for roof pitch at 7 Cory Road; public hearing set for May 5

A property owner and his representatives appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 7 to ask either that the planning board be allowed to waive a roof-slope requirement in town code or, alternatively, that the ZBA grant an area variance for an existing building at 7 Cory Road.

The board set a public hearing for May 5 at 7:30 p.m. after members said they needed the original stamped site plans and the building inspector’s opinion before deciding whether to treat the matter as an interpretation for the planning board or to grant a variance.

At the meeting the owner said the building was constructed to approved plans and that the building department inspected the work and issued a certificate of occupancy in 2018. “I did everything by the book,” the owner said, describing inspections and sign-offs during construction. The applicant’s representative argued the board could either conclude the planning board has discretion under town code 97-14D to relax the roof-slope standard “to the extent practical” — citing economic hardship — or alternatively grant an area variance under the usual five-factor test.

The applicant’s counsel told the board replacing the roof could cost roughly $74,000 and argued that removing the requirement would not change neighborhood character because similarly pitched roofs exist nearby. Counsel said the planning board’s discretion under section 97-14D allows partial compliance where full compliance would impose unreasonable economic hardship; if the ZBA declines that interpretation, counsel urged the board to grant an area variance instead.

Board members pressed for documentary evidence. One member asked staff to locate the original site plans and the certificate of occupancy referenced by the applicant; another said the building inspector should be asked to confirm whether the constructed roof matches the approved plans. The board also discussed whether granting an interpretation would set a precedent and whether that consideration favored using the variance route instead.

Members advised the applicant to consider including any additional waivers or variances — for example, possible accessible-parking adjustments raised previously in planning-board minutes — so the applicant would not be required to return to the board multiple times.

The board directed staff to publish notices for the May 5 public hearing and to circulate the building plans and a legal clarification memo to members ahead of that meeting. The item will return to the ZBA for public hearing on May 5; members indicated they could vote on a draft decision at a subsequent meeting once they have the requested documents and legal guidance.

The ZBA concluded its meeting after scheduling the hearing and other routine business items.