Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Reconstruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bristol Planning Board tables reconstruction request amid setback rule dispute
Summary
The Planning Board tabled a proposal to tear down and rebuild a nonconforming structure after members debated whether a full rebuild must meet new setback rules or can be approved as a reconstruction to the "greatest practical extent." The board asked MMA legal for clarification and postponed a final decision to its August meeting.
The Bristol Planning Board voted to table an application to demolish and replace a grandfathered nonconforming structure after members disagreed about whether a full rebuild triggers the town’s setback rules for new construction.
At issue was a modest existing 16-by-16 structure sitting 29 feet from the road and a proposal to replace it with a larger home. Town staff advised the board the application falls under the land-use ordinance’s reconstruction section, which allows reconstruction or replacement provided the result complies with setback requirements “to the greatest practical extent.”
"My concern here is that if you were expanding on an existing structure under the ordinance…if this is a reconstructed structure and the original footprint can be relocated or reconstructed beyond the required setback area, then it must meet the setback requirements," the Chair said, arguing a full rebuild could be treated as new construction under the ordinance.
Joe, a town staff member who spoke during the review, told the board the application "is on the reconstruction portion of the land use ordinance," and noted the board or its designee must determine the "greatest practical extent" standard.
Applicant Mike Jackson explained the current building is nonconforming and that his plan would place most of the new structure inside the existing grandfathered building envelope. Jackson said the plan had been developed with the intent to reduce the degree of nonconformity, not increase it.
Board members diverged on interpretation. Some said the ordinance’s language about reconstruction implies boards should require the new footprint to meet setbacks wherever practicable; others said that when an original footprint cannot practically be moved, the planning board’s reconstruction standard applies and can allow limited nonconformity.
Several members recommended pausing the decision until the town’s legal advisors could confirm whether the planning board or the board of appeals has the authority in cases where a demolition-plus-rebuild might effectively be a new structure. The board voted to table the item to the first meeting in August and to request guidance from MMA Legal before returning to the question.
The board’s direction leaves the applicant able to revise plans or seek an appeals board variance depending on the legal guidance. The item will return to the Planning Board with the legal interpretation and any additional materials the applicant submits.
