Although Mark Pepin of 44 Bennett Road was granted a Variance to build an addition to his house and a new garage fewer than 40 feet from the side setback, it wasn’t without some criticism from the board and a Conservation Commission member who showed up to urge against the garage.
Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Richard Cutler started out on September 27 by telling Pepin, “Your site plan is a little bit lacking.” He pointed out that an existing shed on Pepin’s property was not marked on the plan, “of course…” said Cutler pessimistically.
Cutler asked Pepin the purpose for the addition, which, in addition to adding a garage, is to extend the kitchen and add a new laundry room with a bathroom. Cutler also wanted to be sure the stairs in the garage would not lead to some habitable space.
“Would you consider getting a smaller car so you don’t need such a big garage?” Cutler said to Pepin, who modestly replied that he and his family own three cars and a lot of tools needing storage.
“Anything else we need to know?” Cutler asked.
Pepin said he initially considered a different location for the garage, “Which would have worked out, but there was more room on this side,” said Pepin pointing to the plan. “We had to encroach too much on that side.” Pepin pointed out the location of a leeching pit where the garage could not be built.
Cutler said he would “point out the obvious” to the board, saying that Pepin’s house is within an older subdivision with smaller lots.
Conservation Commission Chairman Michael Conway asked the ZBA whether Pepin could show any significant hardship, one of the requirements for a variance.
“I have not heard of any hardship shown,” Conway said.
“Well, he alluded to the hardship,” said Cutler. “The hardship is he’s really showing here where the septic system is located, so you can’t really put the garage towards the back – of course, he could make it smaller.”
“Or,” said Conway, “you could take the position the garage, in and of itself, is not necessary… [and] you don’t have to put an addition on it.”
“That’s true,” Cutler said. “We could.”
“I’m looking, basically, how close to the property line he’s going,” Conway said. “From that standpoint, I really have no objections. … But I do want him to show significant hardship because that’s what the bylaw calls for.”
“Ya,” said Cutler. “Unfortunately, most people that come before the ZBA … are supposed to be demonstrating the hardship, so we have to pull it out of them.”
According to Pepin, in order to build the addition in another spot, he would have to clear-cut an undisturbed forested area of mature trees.
“Shape of lot hardship is acceptable,” said Cutler. “Whether that’s considered a hardship or not, that’s up for the board to decide.”
One ZBA member said he thinks, although a garage is not essential, property owners should have a right to a garage.
ZBA member David Arancio said, given the conditions of the subdivision, “Clear-cutting existing tress would not be to the neighborhood’s benefit,” another requirement of a variance.
The variance was granted, but Pepin cannot come closer than 25 feet to the setback, the garage cannot be used for living space, and no commercial activity is allowed.
In other matters, via a letter from his attorney, Jack Goyette of Snow’s Pond Road withdrew his application without prejudice, so abutters have no need to appear for the October 11 public hearing that was advertised.
The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for October 11 at 7:15 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.
Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
By Jean Perry