Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors’ drainage concerns addressed as ZBA hears Myeritz garage setback variance
Summary
A long evidentiary hearing on a side‑yard variance for a recently rebuilt garage focused on stormwater, historic footprint evidence and a settlement between neighbors; engineers testified that runoff is not directed toward the neighbor and the board reserved decision.
The Zoning Board heard extensive testimony in the Myeritz (transcript: Myeritz/Meeritz/Mayowitz) side‑yard variance case after an as‑built survey showed a rebuilt two‑car garage sits roughly 2.1–2.2 feet from the north property line, short of the 3‑ft zoning requirement. Attorney Keith Archer described a mismeasurement discovered during the as‑built survey and said the owners seek a small area variance (roughly 10 inches).
Tom Dixon, a partner and professional engineer with Nelson & Pope, testified that his firm conducted a site visit during a rainfall event and monitored groundwater for 30 days. Dixon said gutters and leaders on the reconstructed garage direct water toward the center of the property, that he observed no northerly runoff or ponding at the north line during the monitored storm, and that groundwater in the area is high (about 4 feet below grade), which can contribute to basement water issues at the neighboring property. "It is my professional opinion that the runoff from the garage is being contained and is not impacting the property to the north," Dixon testified.
Michael Lynch, a licensed real‑estate appraiser, offered historical imagery and a 2007 survey showing a prior garage in essentially the same footprint; he argued the rebuilt garage reflects a historical condition and that moving or rebuilding the structure to meet a three‑foot setback would be costly (estimates cited by the applicant roughly $35,000–$40,000). Lynch also addressed the five factor test for area variances, saying the condition appeared longstanding and that approval would not alter neighborhood character.
Board members pressed on why the reconstructed garage was not returned to a conforming location; Archer said a mismeasurement occurred because measurements were taken from a fence that was not the true property line and that the work proceeded under a building permit. The attorney pointed to a settlement agreement and a boundary‑line agreement submitted for the record between the Myeritz owners and the neighboring Hawhurst family; Archer said that the earlier dispute had been resolved and that the Hawhursts would not appear at the hearing.
The board asked clarifying questions about violations previously issued and whether they were resolved; the attorney reported those matters were addressed via the town attorney's office. The owner, identified in the record as Christy Loenstein Myowitz, confirmed the demolition and reconstruction occurred in 2023 as part of a continuous project that included a new pool and that the rebuilt garage replaced a deteriorated structure.
After extended testimony and questioning the board closed the hearing and reserved decision. The board will issue a written decision after reviewing the submitted surveys, the Nelson & Pope drainage report, the settlement and boundary‑line agreement, and other exhibits.
