03:43The application presented by the homeowner was described as complex, necessitating a site visit by a board member to clarify the homeowner’s intentions. The proposed addition, initially marked between 14 and 16 feet, would not encroach closer to the road than the existing structure. This alignment with the current house was seen favorably by the board in terms of potential approval.

09:54One of the main points of discussion revolved around the proposed front setback variance. The homeowner requested to maintain a 25-foot distance from the property line, resulting in a 43-foot distance from the street, consistent with the neighborhood’s layout. However, the agricultural zoning status of the property, rooted in historical context, impacted the deliberations.

17:10The carport design, initially proposed as a 24 by 24-foot structure, was deemed impractical. Suggestions were made to reduce its size to 20 by 20 feet, which would allow for an 8-foot distance from the side property line. This required a variance of 12 feet for compliance. Discussion ensued about possibly further reducing the carport to 18 by 18 feet if necessary. The board emphasized the importance of the carport’s open design to prevent issues such as vehicle doors hitting walls and to maintain the neighborhood’s visual appeal. It was agreed that an open structure would allow more light and preserve the area’s atmosphere.

The homeowner expressed the need for additional living space due to a growing family and the absence of a garage, necessitating weather-protected vehicle storage. The board acknowledged these valid reasons for the proposed additions, including the benefit of preserving aesthetic appeal by tucking the carport further from the deck, which might require modifying the deck’s size. The importance of accommodating the homeowner’s needs while adhering to property constraints was underscored.

A contentious point was the side property line variance, where the board deliberated whether an 8-foot distance would be acceptable. If the board agreed to the 20-foot carport and 16-foot addition, further variances would be necessary to ensure uniformity in property line compliance. This led to a discussion on the importance of maintaining consistent variances on both sides to avoid future discrepancies.

Additionally, the board considered imposing conditions on the carport, particularly the side bordering the property line. Suggestions were made to keep that side open for ventilation and compliance with zoning regulations, preventing future enclosure that might convert the carport into a garage. The homeowner clearly stated no intention of enclosing the carport, underlining its sole purpose for storage.

Another discussion point involved the topography and layout of the property, which includes a septic tank located behind the house, limiting space for construction. Board members deliberated the possibility of an elevated structure to accommodate the carport, although this option was not pursued. Consideration was also given to adding a lean-to on the carport’s side, though it was deemed potentially complicating.

The board drew parallels to a neighboring house that successfully added a carport under similar conditions and acknowledged that many area homes, built in a uniform style during the 1960s and 70s, present challenges for new designs. Variances were seen as necessary for such updates, with a specific focus on achieving a 20-foot carport through a 12-foot variance requirement. The side setbacks required a two-foot variance due to the property’s 18-foot side.

Throughout the discussion, the board remained mindful of the design choices’ implications, particularly concerning aesthetics and neighborhood relations. The open design of the carport was agreed to be more visually appealing and potentially beneficial for the property and neighborhood in the long term. Future ownership changes were considered, prompting caution in decision-making to ensure the design remains favorable regardless of the owner’s circumstances.

Brief mention was made of another property on Lake View Street, where a carport-to-garage transition under a continuous roofline was considered. Additionally, a change to Bungalow Street, recently made a dead-end, was noted to have frustrated residents who used it as a thoroughfare. Uncertainty remained regarding whether this alteration was a town decision or made by a committee, with the area’s historical private ownership complicating public access and maintenance issues.