Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning Board denies variance to move shed at 76 Shore Drive
Summary
The Zoning Board of Adjustment denied Variance #26VAR04 for 76 Shore Drive, concluding the applicant did not meet all five legal criteria for a setback variance; the motion to deny carried 5-0-0. The request was prompted by plans for a new gravity-fed septic system.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 5-0-0 on July 7, 2026, to deny Variance #26VAR04, a request by property owner Kenneth Lefebvre to relocate an existing shed within required setbacks at 76 Shore Drive to accommodate a new septic leach field. Board member Steve Carten moved to deny the variance because not all variance criteria were met; Lorraine Bohmiller seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Lefebvre told the board he discovered a failing septic after buying the house and, working with septic designer Matt Barnard, proposed a gravity-fed system closer to the house which would require moving the shed. Barnard presented site plans and photos, explaining the lot’s triangular geometry, a raised leach field driven by a high water table, and the trade-offs that led the applicant to prefer the proposed location. "I was literally going to pick it up and place it as is in the new location," Lefebvre said when describing how he intended to relocate the shed.
During deliberations the board considered each of the five statutory variance criteria. Motions recorded on the floor found the applicant satisfied criteria #1, #2, #3 and #4 but did not meet criterion 5A(I) or 5B; the board did find criterion 5A(II) was met. Chair Larry Denton and members discussed that although the proposed location might be less nonconforming, the specific hardship requirements governing setback variances were not fully met in this instance.
The board noted a letter from abutters Ronald and Claire St. Cyr stating they had no objection was entered into the record. The board also observed that a new septic system could still be installed closer to the house consistent with septic design needs, but that the shed need not remain inside the setback area as proposed. The denial leaves the applicant able to pursue alternative layouts that keep the shed out of setback areas or return with revised plans addressing the board’s hardship findings.
