Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Side Yard Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board agrees to draft conditional variance for 207 Grand Street after debate over side-yard equipment
Summary
Board members debated whether to formalize mechanical equipment and propane tanks installed in side yards at 207 Grand Street, raised concerns about precedent and emergency access, and reached a consensus to draft a resolution allowing equipment on the more screened/wider side while requiring removal from the narrower side.
The Zoning Board considered requests tied to 207 Grand Street to formalize existing mechanical installations, including above-ground propane tanks and exterior equipment placed in side yards. The property previously received variances in 2019, and the current owner seeks to retain or formalize the existing conditions.
Members discussed the five statutory variance factors, with several stressing the risk of setting a precedent if the board permits equipment on both side yards. Committee members cited emergency-access concerns (fire and rescue) if equipment occupies both side yards and discussed the proportionality of the variance given narrow setbacks (one side reported as 3.5 feet where 6 feet is required). The board reviewed plan drawings and a determination letter showing required side-yard dimensions and concluded both sides need relief but that one side is more substantial than the other.
After extended discussion about equity for a property owner and the neighborhood impact, the board reached a working consensus to direct staff to draft a resolution that would allow equipment to remain on the wider, more screened (northeast) side and require removal or relocation of mechanicals from the narrower side. Draft language should also address screening and exact setback/elevation numbers. The board did not take a final vote that night but asked staff to draft findings and a resolution for the next meeting.
Board members also requested follow-up information on plan dates, the affidavit of final cost (which listed $306,000), and clarification about which previously granted relief had expired. Staff and counsel were asked to prepare a draft documenting the board’s factual findings and the specific conditions discussed.
