Danvers Zoning Board Deliberates on Shed Variance Amid Neighborly Tensions

During the recent meeting of the Danvers Zoning Board, members faced a debate over a variance application for a partially constructed shed on Conan Street. The applicant, Steven Giblin, sought approval to retain the shed, which exceeded the permissible size and violated setback requirements. The shed’s proximity to a neighbor’s property line sparked objections, leading to a discussion about zoning compliance and personal grievances between neighbors.

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.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

is discussed during:
in these locations: