Planning board approves small front‑setback and recommends two other variances for homeowner renovation

The Planning and Zoning Board voted to grant a 1.8‑foot front setback variance for a proposed one‑car garage and recommended two related variance requests to the town council on an application for a single‑family renovation.

Roger Lajoie, the applicant’s attorney, told the board that a rear bump‑out on the property preexisted the current owner and that a survey discrepancy (a 25‑foot line used by surveyors vs. the R1A 30‑foot setback) contributed to the encroachment. “My name is Roger Lajoie, applicant, attorney, with the law firm of Block and Scarpa,” Lajoie said, adding that the small rear projection had been in place when the owner purchased the house.

Staff summarized the three related requests: (1) an 8.5‑foot variance into the rear setback (the packet notes a preexisting 3.5‑foot encroachment, leaving roughly a 5‑foot net increase), (2) a variance to allow an additional front‑facing garage bay despite a 2016 ordinance discouraging garage doors that face the street, and (3) a 1.8‑foot front setback variance tied to the garage addition. A planning staff member reviewed the six statutory factors the board must consider for variances and explained which requests require board action versus administrative approval.

Board members pressed the applicant on alternatives and the site plan. One member asked whether the porch shown on the submitted drawing meant the applicant sought permission to extend a rear porch across the whole back of the house; Lajoie said the request was narrowly intended to legalize the existing bump‑out and that final building plans could change during the building‑department review. The board ultimately moved each item separately: it recommended that the council approve the rear encroachment limited to the existing structure, recommended approval of the front‑facing garage variance to council, and approved the 1.8‑foot front setback at the board level.

During discussion after the votes, one member urged staff to require clearer documentation of alternatives in future applications, saying that “one of the reasons that I voted nay” was a lack of evidence showing whether the applicant could have accommodated a garage without encroaching on the setback. Staff said the recommendation items would appear on the council consent agenda later in the week and invited the applicant to attend.

The board approved the previous meeting’s minutes and adjourned.