Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roof Pitch Case 740 Road topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goshen ZBA approves variance to let existing 4:12 roof remain at 740 Road
Summary
The Town of Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant an area variance allowing an existing 4‑on‑12 roof pitch to remain on a building at 740 Road after applying the five‑factor test; the board concluded the prior approvals and lack of safety issues weighed in favor of relief.
The Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals voted to approve an area variance allowing an existing building at 740 Road to retain its 4‑on‑12 roof pitch instead of the code‑required 8‑on‑12 pitch.
Board counsel reviewed the five‑factor statutory test for area variances and members debated each factor, with several finding no undesirable change to neighboring properties or significant environmental impact. The board also considered that a permit and certificate of compliance issued years earlier showed the 4‑on‑12 pitch. In response to a board member’s question, the building department verified that the plans submitted in 2016 and the certificate of compliance had shown the 4‑on‑12 pitch and acknowledged the prior sign‑off.
“The building department issued a permit with the plan showing the 4 on 12. A certificate of compliance was issued showing the 4 on 12,” a board speaker stated during the hearing.
Members differed on whether the numerical difference was “substantial” but several said the roof’s visual impact on the surrounding commercial/industrial area was minimal; the board also heard that the roof had not produced structural problems during recent severe winters. After deliberation, the board made a motion to approve the variance and voted to grant it. Staff said standard written conditions would be attached to the decision and that the written decision would be circulated and signed.
Because the record showed prior municipal approvals and a long period in the existing condition, the board concluded the applicant had a reasonable basis for relief and that the balance of benefits to the applicant outweighed detriment to the neighborhood. The board did not identify immediate safety or drainage problems connected to the pitch and noted any planning‑board or code conditions would still apply.
The board’s decision was recorded as approved; staff will prepare a written determination describing findings on the five factors and any standard conditions. The board did not specify an effective date in the hearing record; the decision will be finalized once signed by the chair and filed with planning staff.
