Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board approves variance to allow narrower side-yard setbacks at 412 South Lawrence Street

Planning Board · April 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Board unanimously approved a variance reducing the side-yard setback from 10 feet to 7.5 feet at 412 South Lawrence Street, allowing a 21-foot building width on a 36-foot lot; staff recommended approval after finding the request met variance criteria.

The Planning Board voted unanimously to approve a variance that reduces the required side-yard setback from 10 feet to 7.5 feet for a single-family home proposed at 412 South Lawrence Street. Committee member Mr. Thomas moved to accept the variance as reported by staff; Mr. Cox seconded and the motion carried on a voice vote.

Staff told the board the lot is 36 feet wide and that without the requested 2.5-foot reduction on each side only 16 feet of building width would be available. The staff report outlined four criteria for granting a variance — no adverse effect on public health or neighbors, special property conditions not created by the applicant, elimination of unnecessary hardship, and preservation of the zoning ordinance’s intent — and recommended approval. As staff stated, "In this case, the required setback for the side yard is 10 feet." (Staff member)

A representative for the applicant identified himself on the record as "Seth or Varden" and said he was representing Mark Roper, the property owner. He asked the board for the modest reduction, telling the board, "All we're looking for is a reduction of 2.5 feet on either side" to allow construction of a reasonable single-family detached home. Staff confirmed required public notices were posted and that no public comments had been received.

The motion to approve was moved by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Cox; the board voted "aye" and the motion was agreed to. Staff said it would follow up with the applicant at the earliest convenience to address next steps.