Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waiver Remand 2160 Bristol topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hudson board approves remanded waiver for 2160 Bristol Court after hours-long debate, 3–1
Summary
After a remand from the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Hudson Architectural & Historic Board of Review voted 3–1 to grant a waiver allowing cultured-stone veneer on the front facade of 2160 Bristol Court, subject to conditions requiring the stone to wrap an adjacent garage face to create an inside corner and findings intended to limit citywide precedent.
Chair Marzullo called the remand hearing on a waiver request for 2160 Bristol Court, noting the Board of Zoning Appeals had asked the Architectural & Historic Board of Review to reconsider whether the proposal met the five waiver principles and the practical-difficulty standard in the land development code.
Homeowner Jaume Fraquesa told the board he had purchased the cultured-stone veneer and that work had already begun on the front facade. "This is really of no fault of my own," Fraquesa said, describing contractor failures to pull permits and arguing the proposal "respects the existing context and framework" of his subdivision. He presented a packet of photographs and a comparables analysis, saying 55% of the broader subdivision has masonry only on the front facades and that the cultured-stone veneer would enhance architectural variety and curb appeal.
Board members pressed two lines of inquiry: whether the cultured stone is materially equivalent to the masonry used elsewhere in the neighborhood and whether the applicant faced a qualifying "practical difficulty" under the seven-factor variance test staff had cited. Board member Brown said he was sympathetic to the applicant’s intent to improve the property but questioned whether cultured veneer should be treated as masonry. "I can't wrap my head around what the practical difficulty is," Brown said, noting that many hardship findings typically hinge on site or land constraints rather than a post-purchase economic hardship.
Fraquesa acknowledged the financial and timing pressures but urged the board to weigh the code’s stated policy that "new buildings and alterations shall respect the existing context and framework," and to treat that policy as a basis to allow discretion. He proposed a compromise — applying stone across the entire front mass that faces the street and also to the garage side that could reasonably be wrapped, while acknowledging technical installation constraints around narrow returns.
After extended discussion, a motion to grant the waiver carried 3–1. The board's approval adopted staff's remand memo findings and added case-specific findings: the board said the immediate area’s prevailing facade treatments and the applicant’s demonstrable comparables supported a narrow waiver, and it imposed conditions intended to limit precedential effects. The principal condition requires the cultured-stone veneer to be applied so that it creates an inside corner by wrapping the east face of the garage; the board also recorded that applying stone to the west garage facade would be impractical due to the manufacturer’s panelized installation constraints and limited fastening flange.
The board’s decision will be memorialized in a written finding of fact that cites the five waiver principles and the practical-difficulty analysis, and staff will draft the formal decision language and conditions for inclusion in the record. Fraquesa thanked the board for the time and said he appreciated the opportunity to bring the case back for reconsideration.
What’s next: Staff will prepare the written decision reflecting the board’s findings and conditions; if either side disputes the ruling they retain the option to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals as allowed by local procedure.
