0:28The meeting’s most significant issue revolved around the shed, which was built larger than regulations allow without a permit. The shed, measuring 10 feet by 14 feet, was constructed 5 feet from the rear property line and 7 feet from the side property line, whereas zoning laws require 20 feet. Giblin explained that he replaced a smaller structure without realizing the new shed’s size necessitated a permit. He expressed a willingness to comply with requirements, stating, “If I had known, I would have built a 10 x 12 shed.”

Further complicating matters, a letter from neighbor Linda Turkot highlighted her objections to the shed’s location, which she claimed affected her property’s enjoyment. Turkot, unable to attend the hearing, asserted that Giblin had ignored zoning office communications. Her concerns were rooted in the shed’s perceived obtrusiveness and non-compliance with setbacks. In response, Giblin defended his actions.

18:56As board members deliberated, the issue of zoning compliance took center stage. One member articulated concerns about granting a variance without a clear hardship, a requisite for approval. Another member suggested resizing the shed to align with zoning laws, thereby eliminating the need for a variance. The discourse highlighted an ongoing balancing act: respecting zoning regulations while considering the practical implications of compliance.

The tension between Giblin and Turkot underscored the meeting. Giblin argued that moving the shed closer to Turkot’s yard, as zoning compliance would require, might exacerbate neighborly tensions. The board was cautious to separate personal grievances from zoning matters.

Some members were inclined towards denying the variance, citing the absence of a justifiable hardship, while others favored a compromise that would allow for the shed’s modification to meet regulations. The board chair suggested the applicant consider withdrawing the application if it appeared unlikely to gain approval, advising Giblin that denial would necessitate rectifying the situation within a specified timeframe.

Ultimately, the discussion highlighted the complexities inherent in zoning decisions, especially when they intersect with neighborly disputes.

0:28In addition to the shed variance case, the meeting addressed other agenda items, including the withdrawal of an application for residential units on Pine and Silven Streets and a continuance request for expanding a single-family home on Oak Street. However, these items paled in comparison to the detailed scrutiny and debate surrounding the shed variance application.