Rochester’s Zoning Board of Appeals still hasn’t changed its mind about a requested variance of the town’s 40-foot minimum setback requirement for an existing pool shed at 2 Bishop Road that it had previously cast doubts about approving. On August 24, the board ended up repeating the same message, leading to a further continuance to September 28.
Consulting engineer John Romanelli had said at the previous ZBA meeting that the 12×16-foot shed at 2 Bishop Street is less than 40 feet from 0 Bishop Street because he made a mathematical error when drawing the lot lines. Now the owner of 0 Bishop, Mark Wilson, wants to sell his vacant lot and needs his parcel to be a legally conforming size. But the pool shed owned by his client, Logan Smith, 2 Bishop Road, is massive, filled with electrical and plumbing infrastructure and would be difficult to move to make the lots conform.
On August 24, Romanelli proposed as a solution moving the lot lines of 2 Bishop Road by 10.1 feet to make the lot less nonconforming. He speculated that he would have to gain Planning Board approval first if that is the solution the Zoning panel would endorse.
Board members replied they were not ready to endorse anything. ZBA Chairman David Arancio said the problem remains that it is a self-created hardship and that the board would find it hard to grant a variance for such a case.
ZBA member Richard Cutler asked if anything on the 2 Bishop Street lot besides the pool infrastructure would prevent the property owner from moving the shed from its current location. The property owner’s wife, Rebecca Smith, said the shed is on a concrete slab that covers underground plumbing for the pool. “It would be extremely difficult and inconvenient to move it,” she said.
Cutler explained that to qualify for a variance, there would have to be something on the lot that would help or hinder a plan from happening. Board member Jeffrey Costa said he has sympathy for the petitioners, but the analytical side of him tells him something different. “It’s not my problem,” he said. “It’s self-created. I can’t vote on (a lot-line problem) that doesn’t exist yet.”
Board member Thomas Flynn put it more bluntly. “State law is harsh toward granting a variance if you caused the problem yourself,” he said.
Romanelli then requested the continuance, and the board granted it unanimously.
Earlier on the agenda, Arancio noted it appears Town Planner Nancy Durfee’s recent proposal to create an informal bylaw review study group will not happen, according to input from Town Counsel. As a result, the ZBA agreed to form its own bylaw review subcommittee.
Planning Board Chairman Arnold Johnson then described starting the type of bylaw study work that Durfee had wanted to see her own proposed group take on. Johnson said he, Building Commissioner Paul Boucher and Durfee have already begun discussion on Zoning Bylaw revisions regarding “in-law accessory apartments” and “back-lot development” regulations. He said he will share these revisions with the Zoning panel as the new subcommittee begins its bylaw review work. He noted all the town boards need to work together on such an important undertaking. “And keep the flow of information going,” he said.
The Zoning panel agreed to form the subcommittee when all board members are present on September 28.
The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals’ next meeting will be held on Thursday, September 28, starting at 7:15 pm at Town Hall, 1 Constitution Way.
Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
By Michael J. DeCicco