Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shed Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves rear-yard variance but denies extreme side-yard reduction for existing shed
Summary
Daniel Lacowen sought variances for a shed at 833 State Street. Neighbors disputed the property line and presented surveys. The board approved a reduced rear-yard setback but rejected a request to allow the shed within six inches of the property line, and suggested alternatives including moving the shed or submitting additional survey documentation.
Daniel Lacowen told the Board that a backyard shed at 833 State Street did not meet setback requirements and that a recent survey showed the corner of the shed had been two inches over the prior line; he said he had moved the shed about six inches after learning of the issue.
Neighbors responded that the shed sits very close to the property line and that dirt had been piled against the neighbor's fence, which the neighbor said had caused rot and visibility and maintenance concerns. One neighbor described the corner area as historically awkward, attributing fence jogs to an old tree and earlier lot-line markers.
Board members asked for documentation and discussed whether an existing easement or historic survey affected setback calculations. The chair proposed tabling the matter to allow submission of easement or survey documentation, but board members agreed to split the matter into two separate motions so the rear-yard relief could be considered separately from the side-yard request.
The board voted to grant a rear-yard variance that reduced the rear setback to 2 feet (variance of 3 feet from the listed requirement), and later voted not to grant the requested side-yard reduction to 6 inches (the side-yard request failed or was not approved in the transcript record). Board members suggested options to bring the structure into compliance, including moving the shed slightly where possible, rotating the shed, or filing a modified application that reflected accurate bearings and survey measurements.
Board members recorded that the applicant may return with adjusted plans or further documentation. The transcript shows back-and-forth about surveys and property stakes; board members recommended the applicant discuss permit requirements with the building department if relocation were chosen.
The transcript records multiple related motions and clarifications; the meeting minutes or audio record should be consulted for an official roll-call tally on the side-yard motion.
