Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Administrative Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rye ZBA upholds planning administrator in Three Rivers Farm appeal over nonconforming‑structure test
Summary
The Zoning Board denied an administrative appeal challenging the town’s reading of §190‑6.3 (replacement/expansion of nonconforming structures), leaving the Planning & Zoning Administrator’s March 12, 2026 directive intact and requiring the applicant to seek variances for proposed work.
The Rye Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 6 denied an administrative appeal filed on behalf of Three Rivers Farm (1373 Ocean Boulevard), concluding the Planning & Zoning Administrator did not err in her March 12 decision about whether proposed work required variance relief.
Dan Philbrick, speaking for the trust, argued that the replacement structure would be "more conforming overall" than the existing building when measured by bulk/volume and therefore should not be subject to variance requirements. Town attorney Eric Maher countered that the ordinance must be read in full, giving operative effect to its language and that section 190‑6.3.A (expansion) and 190‑6.3.B (replacement after destruction) should not be read in isolation. Maher said a proposal must comply with the zoning ordinance unless a specific provision allows otherwise.
Board members questioned whether an "overall bulk" or footprint approach could be used to avoid a variance for an element that increases nonconformity on a particular side, noting that allowing a wholesale read‑around could circumvent ordinary notice and review requirements. Member Gregg Mikolaitis and others said the issue is procedural: the town's letter required variance relief and the Board found no error in that administrative determination.
The Board voted 5‑0‑0 to deny the administrative appeal, meaning the Planning & Zoning Administrator's determination stands and the applicant would need to apply for variances to proceed with the proposed work.
The decision is limited to the zoning interpretation at issue and the board cautioned speakers not to stray into character or collateral disputes in public remarks.
