Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Variance Pool Shed topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners seek legalization of enlarged shed and patio for proposed Mount Pleasant pool; neighbors offered support, board asks for plan corrections and defers
Summary
Homeowners asked the board to legalize a 443 sq ft shed (to function as a pool house), a concrete paver patio, and small setback variances tied to a proposed pool at Mount Pleasant Lane. The attorney said immediate neighbors submitted letters of support; the board flagged mislabeled plans, asked for corrected drawings and suggested the applicants consider reducing the request before the July 16 continuation.
Blake Blanchard, attorney for the property owners, represented an application to legalize three interrelated items at a residence on Mount Pleasant Lane tied to a proposed pool: legalization of a pool house/tool shed (the applicant described it as roughly 443 square feet), a paver patio, and variances for parts of the patio/pool equipment that encroach on required setbacks (applicant cited one encroachment of about 0.9 feet and another area about 2.5 feet).
Blanchard told the board the shed has existed on the lot for many years (the owners and representation said the structure or an earlier iteration dates to the 1990s and that enlargement occurred around six years ago). He said the building department had not received neighborhood complaints and the applicant provided four letters from immediately adjacent neighbors in support. The project team said the structure would be repurposed as a pool house and that the patio area is largely screened from neighbors.
Board members examined site plans and identified mislabeled drawings: plans used the term "relocated" where the applicant intended "removed" for one existing shed, creating confusion about which structure would remain. The engineer for the applicant confirmed the right-hand shed on the plan is the structure the owners want legalized and that a second left-hand shed would be removed.
Committee members questioned why the shed could not be relocated to a fully compliant location or reduced in size, given the property's relatively large lot. The applicant team said topography, existing concrete slab and aesthetic concerns informed the location choice and that moving the shed would require additional power distribution and construction disturbance. Board members emphasized that when considering a variance they must weigh the five statutory or zoning criteria (including whether the hardship is self-created and the effect on neighborhood character) and noted that a narrower request or site adjustments would be more likely to be granted.
The board did not vote and asked the applicant to provide corrected plans and consider a reduced/minimized request. Members noted the matter could be carried to the next regular meeting (July 16) to allow more board members to participate and for the applicant to submit revised materials. The board also discussed the option of a site visit if necessary before final action.
The immediate procedural outcome: the board placed the application on the July 16 agenda for further review and requested corrected drawings and clarifying documentation on the shed's history, precise dimensions, and any site constraints (topography, utilities) that affect relocation options.
