ZBA approves 20-foot waterfront setback variance for 11 and 11½ Riverside Drive with conditions

The Canton Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant a variance allowing a 30-foot setback from the river for a proposed development at 11 and 11½ Riverside Drive, the board said. The approval reduces the waterfront-overlay requirement from 50 feet by 20 feet and was issued with conditions addressing the building’s corner encroachment, setback alignment with neighboring properties and a fence or other foot-impeding barrier to limit spillover effects.

The approval matters because the waterfront overlay raises the rear minimum yard from 30 to 50 feet; the applicant said the existing building was purchased for its deeper footprint and that cutting the structure to comply would be infeasible. Planning staff had flagged ambiguity about whether the proposed use would qualify as "water enhanced" or "water adjacent," which would trigger a planning special-use permit. Barry Walsh of planning advised that, on second review, the mezzanine facing the water could be read as water-adjacent, complicating whether the application should instead go to the planning board.

Board members applied the standard four-test review for variances. On neighborhood character, members said allowing a 30-foot setback would not produce an undesirable change and could improve an underused waterfront asset. They concluded that feasible alternatives—such as halving the building depth—were not workable for the applicant, but acknowledged the requested variance is numerically substantial. Members found no clear adverse physical or environmental impact from the reduced setback and discussed whether the request was self-created; they noted the building’s prior condition and the applicant’s acquisition were relevant to that determination.

In framing the approval, the board emphasized conditions intended to reduce visual and functional impacts. The board asked that the riverside setback be aligned to the average of adjacent properties so the new frontage matches nearby buildings, and that the small corner encroachment be addressed in the decision. The board also required the installation of screening or a fence (or a similar foot-impeding device) as a condition; final specifications for height and screening details were left to planning’s site-plan review.

Parking remained an unresolved operational issue. The site plan as discussed shows 11 onsite spaces while the code requires 17 (one per 300 square feet), a shortfall board members and public commenters worried could push vehicles into nearby municipal lots. The applicant stated they would not purchase additional lots before proceeding; the board noted municipal winter tow rules (Nov. 1–Mar. 1) would further limit overnight parking availability for any 24-hour use. The board left parking mitigation and exact screening specifications to planning and site-plan review.

Tim Nolan, the town’s code enforcement officer, confirmed for the board that a mezzanine counts as a story under the zoning definition, which influenced the water-adjacency discussion. The board directed staff to draft a written decision capturing the variance, conditions, and any required findings; the chair said the written decision would be prepared within five days and circulated to members and planning staff. The chair stopped the recording after announcing those next steps.

The decision is procedural: the board approved the variance with the outlined conditions, but planning-level site-plan review and any required special-use permit determinations remain a separate step. The board’s decision will be formalized in the forthcoming written document and circulated to planning staff for follow-up.