Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves front-yard variance for 13 Water Wagon Road after staff review
Summary
At a public land-use meeting the board approved an area variance allowing a replacement pole-barn to be sited about 6 ft 6 in from the front lot line instead of the 60-foot setback; staff said combining the two parcels would have avoided the need for the variance and no formal conditions were imposed. Vote tally was not recorded in the transcript.
At a public meeting on a land-use appeal, the board approved an area variance that will allow a replacement storage building at 13 Water Wagon Road to sit about 6 feet, 6 inches from the front lot line rather than the 60-foot front-yard setback required by town rules.
The chair moved to approve the variance "as requested" and in line with the draft findings and resolution presented to members; the motion was seconded and a vote was taken. The transcript does not record a roll-call or numerical tally for the final motion; the chair noted that the decision could be appealed within 60 days.
Staff member Mason summarized the request, saying the applicant plans to tear down an old storage building and erect a pole-barn-style structure slightly outside the original footprint so that posts can be set into undisturbed soil. "They just need a front yard setback for... they have an old storage building they're planning on tearing down and placing and want to build just slightly outside of the original footprint," Mason said during his presentation.
Architect George Bryhuis, who identified himself as assisting staff, described the parcel’s zoning history and technical rationale. He said the lot was previously in an agricultural district and is now zoned R2, and that the existing building is a pre-existing condition. Bryhuis told the board that the applicant prefers to keep the two parcels separate for future flexibility; staff later noted that combining the parcels would have removed the setback conflict and that, if paperwork to consolidate the lots were in process, staff could accept in‑process permits.
Board members reviewed the variance standards on the record. The chair asked whether the variance would cause "an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties," and members replied that they did not expect such an effect. Members discussed whether the requested reduction—from 60 feet to roughly 6 feet—was "substantial," and noted that the severity was mitigated by the fact that the public road frontage lies hundreds of feet away from the existing structure.
When asked whether any conditions should be applied, members agreed there were none beyond the approval as presented. The chair said permit approval would be limited to the proposed construction as described; "if you did build something unusual, that wouldn't really be covered," the chair added.
The chair closed the matter by reminding those present of the 60-day appeal window. The transcript shows no named vote tally; the record states only that the motion passed and that no opposing comments were recorded during the meeting.
Next steps: the permit and any required administrative paperwork will proceed through staff review; combining the two parcels remains an option staff said would eliminate the need for the variance.
