Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Width Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press zoning board to deny house on narrow Sunset Drive lot
Summary
Neighbors told the Zoning Board they oppose a proposed two-story home on a lot with 37.23-foot minimum width, citing traffic, shared cesspools and safety concerns; the applicant argued the parcel meets a code exception for curvilinear roads and is buildable under existing filed maps.
A proposal to build a two-story house on a narrow Sunset Drive lot prompted a lengthy, emotional public hearing on July 7 as neighbors urged the Zoning Board to reject the variance request.
Randall Weickbrooke, representing applicant Robert Brandt, told the board the file map shows the parcel was created in 1928 and argued the request should be considered under section 68-83(b)’s exception for curvilinear roads. He said the lot measures 37.23 feet at its narrowest point but the property has 200 feet of road frontage on an unnamed roadway and is not a remnant parcel. "It was created in 1928; it was intended to be developed upon," Weickbrooke said, asking the board to view the parcel as buildable under the code exception.
Neighbors contested that account and raised safety, access and health concerns. Don Carlock, who lives at 17 Sunset Drive, said the parcel’s configuration and recent driveway work have created immediate impacts and flagged a shared cesspool that he said lies on the contested lot: "I'm opposed to it," Carlock said, describing potential legal and health complications if the lot is developed while shared septic arrangements remain unresolved.
Other residents painted a similar picture of a crowded block. Kevin Collins, who lives across the street, told the board the area already experiences heavy traffic from nearby commercial uses and that adding a residence will worsen parking and safety risks. "It's too tight," Collins said, adding that existing curb cuts and commercial turnover make seeing and maneuvering dangerous. Chris Gallino, two houses down, said small children and frequent congestion make the location inappropriate for additional frontage development.
Board members and counsel pressed both sides on legal and technical points: whether the unnamed road qualifies as public right-of-way under the local road registry, whether the exception in 68-83(b) can be used as a basis for relief when the lot falls short of one or more exception criteria, and whether merger or other deed restrictions apply. The town’s counsel and planning staff noted the question of access and health-department jurisdiction (for cesspools) is separate from the board’s zoning determination but said those concerns will be relevant to any subsequent building permit review.
The hearing produced multiple requests for documentary evidence. Neighbors offered to provide recent surveys and photographs; the applicant said he had a filed map and historical evidence but acknowledged some records were imperfect. The board did not take a final vote on the application that night and discussed options for follow-up, including review of the filed map, confirmation of the unnamed road’s status, and consultation with the town highway or DPW office.
Next steps: the board asked parties to provide additional survey materials and evidence about access and easement history before taking further action. No formal decision was recorded in the transcript of the July 7 meeting.
