Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Killingworth ZBA grants limited side‑yard variance for Chittenden Road garage, requires shed be moved
Summary
The Killingworth Zoning Board of Appeals approved a conditional 4‑foot side‑yard variance for a proposed 24-by-24 garage at 123 Chittenden Road, requiring the applicants to move an existing frame shed out of the setback; the board said cost and aesthetics are not grounds for hardship.
The Killingworth Zoning Board of Appeals on June 23 approved a limited, conditional side‑yard variance for a proposed garage at 123 Chittenden Road, contingent on the applicants removing an existing frame shed from the setback.
The decision came after the applicants, listed in the hearing notice as applicant Alan Jamel, described a small, wooded retirement lot and proposed a 24‑by‑24 garage that would sit about 16 feet from the house. The applicants told the board that the driveway, well and septic locations and the lot size constrained placement and that a garage would meet their storage needs.
Board members repeatedly stressed the local legal standard for a zoning hardship: it must stem from a physical constraint of the land, not from cost or a desire to preserve an architectural feature. The board discussed multiple options short of full relief, including angling or narrowing the garage, pulling it forward slightly, or reshaping it to reduce encroachment into the side‑yard setback.
The board noted that a mobile wood frame shed on the property occupies setback area and could be moved to reduce existing encroachment. During deliberations members calculated that the shed (described by participants as about 16 by 10 feet, roughly 160 square feet) could be shifted or removed to offset some of the new structure’s impact.
After discussion the board voted to grant up to a 4‑foot side‑yard variance for the proposed garage on the condition that the existing frame shed be moved entirely out of the side‑yard setback. The board described the action as a compromise that improves the net condition of the site while keeping to the hardship standard.
“We’ve been in Killingworth for about four years now…we would like to add some storage space, a garage,” said the applicant during the hearing, describing the lot’s constraints and the applicants’ preference for a 24‑by‑24 structure. The board did not accept cost or aesthetic loss as the legal basis for a hardship and asked the applicants to consider reconfiguration options that would minimize encroachment.
The motion as recorded set the condition that the frame (portable) shed be removed from the setback; board members indicated the vote was unanimous among those present. The board also advised the applicants that they may return with revised plans or submit a new application if the solution does not work for them.
The board clerk will prepare the motion for the record; full minutes are expected within seven days and a notice of decision within 14 days.
