Zoning board approves variance findings for owner to demolish and rebuild deteriorated Pollard Road house on same footprint

The Lincoln Zoning Board of Adjustment voted through the required variance findings after hearing testimony that a severely deteriorated house at a nearby Pollard Road parcel would be demolished and rebuilt on the same footprint with added dormers.

At the meeting the applicant, who introduced himself as "My name's, Chip Dunham or Arthur Dunham," said the proposed project would "tear it down and build on the same exact footprint" and that the ridge height and footprint would not change while dormers already covered by a land‑use permit would be added. He asked the board not to require a full set of architectural drawings for rebuilding on the existing footprint.

Board members discussed neighbor concerns, setback rules and building safety. Committee member Miles recalled the first public meeting and said neighbors had objected when dormers were added and that, because the present proposal involved a full tear‑down, the applicant might need to return to the planning board to address setbacks. Miles suggested moving the house "to the west about 7 or 8 feet" to meet setbacks. Another board member said the structure appeared to be "severely rotting, not built to code" and that it posed a potential hazard.

A nearby resident, Dave Patterson of 166 Pollard Road, identified himself and told the board he supported the project, saying the owner was "improving the neighborhood" and urging the board not to delay the work because of the owner's financial burden.

During the hearing the applicant and other speakers also raised procedural points: the applicant said he and others had consulted zoning staff and that the property's poor structural condition was discovered only after opening walls. Board members and participants discussed whether the building should be condemned, whether a demolition plus new building constitutes a new structure for purposes of setbacks and permits, and the role of the town planner and building department in ruling on those technical points.

The chair read the standard four variance tests (public interest, spirit of the ordinance, substantial justice, and effect on surrounding property values). The board polled on each test and members verbally agreed the application met the criteria, noting the structure's condition, that the rebuild would not increase ridge height or change the footprint, and that the project would upgrade an uninhabitable building into livable space. The board recorded voice approval on the findings.

The board did not specify in the transcript whether additional conditions would be added to the permit beyond confirming the footprint and design would remain substantially the same; members discussed adding language clarifying the rebuild stay within the existing footprint and that the applicant should file required paperwork with planner/building staff.

The meeting closed with the usual directions to complete permit paperwork and with neighbors and the applicant leaving the record of their concerns and support.

The board's action clears the way administratively for the applicant to proceed with permitting steps tied to the land‑use permit and variance findings; the transcript shows the board read and approved the variance findings but does not record any building‑department final determination about condemnation or whether a new building permit review must follow for a complete demolition and rebuild.