Woodbridge ZBA denies setback variance for 141 Newton Road after neighbors object

The Woodbridge Zoning Board of Appeals on July 13 voted to deny a front-setback variance for a detached accessory building at 141 Newton Road after extensive public comment and board deliberation.

Attorney Brian McCann told the board the lot’s unusual legal frontage and the location of historic leaching fields created a practical difficulty that justified relief. "The hardship that we are claiming arises from the configuration of the lot and the siting of the septic systems," McCann said, noting the house faces Newton Road while legal frontage is on Prospect Court and that a concrete pad and steel frame for the garage had already been erected.

The applicant, property owner Tiffany La Bella, told the board the violation was unintentional and that she stopped work when she learned of the setback requirement. "It was an honest mistake," La Bella said. She said the building will be landscaped and that she would close the Prospect Court access and restore trees to limit what neighbors see from the road.

Neighbors told a different story. Michael Braverman, who submitted written comments, said the issued building permit explicitly referenced Prospect Court and questioned whether ignorance of that note could be the basis for a hardship. "To claim a hardship out of ignorance of not reading your building permit strains credulity," he said. Several neighbors also raised aesthetic and safety concerns and disputed the building’s characterization as a simple garage given plans for a loft and plumbing.

Board members focused their questions on three technical points: the date and terms of the zoning permit (dated Oct. 17), whether construction remained continuous under the permit, and whether any feasible alternate location on the lot would avoid the need for a variance. The applicant and counsel said the floor plans and health department approvals are in the record and that proposed mitigation (evergreen buffers and a stone wall) could be made conditions of approval.

During deliberations, members emphasized the ZBA’s legal test for a variance: whether a unique hardship exists and whether the requested relief minimizes nonconformity. One member noted that if an alternate location that avoids the variance exists, the board should favor that option. The board then considered a motion "to not grant a variance as described for the 30-by-50-foot structure located where it is." The motion was seconded and carried, and the chair stated the variance was not granted.

The chair and staff told the audience that the denial does not preclude the owner from revising the plan, relocating the structure, or seeking other remedies, including appeal to town counsel or the property court. The building official also noted that some aspects of the building (floor plans, health permit) are in the administrative record and that questions about use beyond setbacks fall to other departments.

The decision followed nearly two hours of testimony during which neighbors repeatedly asked why a building permit was issued without a survey and why multiple contractors and permit reviewers apparently missed the setback. The board’s denial leaves the owner with options to revise the design, seek a different relief path from planning and zoning, or pursue an appeal.

The ZBA concluded the public hearing portion and moved on to other agenda items; minutes and training announcements followed. The town file will reflect the board’s finding and the record of the public comments and exhibits.