The January 27 meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals heard only one petition, but through carefully examining that petition, a process that took almost an hour, a favorable decision was delivered.
Coming before the ZBA with a request for a variance was Ben Bailey for property located at 0 Gerrish Road. In the announcement of the public hearing, it was noted that Bailey sought relief from frontage requirements of 225 feet to 79.8 feet, a difference of 146 feet. At issue was whether or not the variance, based on a perceived hardship, was self-induced and one that the applicant could have avoided.
From Bailey’s perspective, as he articulated, “the (ZBA) has the opportunity to do what the Planning Board can’t,” namely approve a private driveway 12 feet in width versus a standard roadway 20 feet wide.
Bailey is a member of both Rochester’s Planning Board and Conservation Commission and has recused himself from deliberation and voting in prior public hearings before those bodies.
The property in question, which borders on Longbow Lane, has been owned by Bailey for some time. As he explained to the ZBA, he had previously received a Form C subdivision approval from the Planning Board. Now he wished to gain access to Lot 29B via a 12-foot-wide driveway but filed with the ZBA for a variance due to the lack of required frontage. Bailey said the driveway would be a “kinder, gentler” accessway than a road that would be much wider and would necessitate cutting down many large trees, especially along Longbow Lane.
Delving into the technical aspects of the request were members Kirby Gilmore, Donald Spirlet, Jeff Costa, Richard Cutler, Davis Sullivan, Tom Flynn and Chairman David Arancio.
Each member asked questions geared to better understand why the request constituted a hardship, could the hardship have been avoided and just what the future of various lots in the subdivision might be.
Bailey said the lot would be sold and has been approved by the Planning Board. He was asked if Lot 29E would be developed. He responded that it would not be and that it is currently a tree nursery. He also said that Lot 29F “has plenty of uplands.”
But in coming back around to the issue of whether or not the variance requested was indeed a hardship, Flynn said, “I understand the petition, it’s reasonable, but is this a self-imposed hardship. Can zoning issues be resolved by using part of Lot 29E for frontage?” Bailey said that it was always intended that Lot 29E be combined with the lot where his house is located.
In support of his contention that the building of a roadway (which would be his right to construct) versus allowing, via a variance, the much smaller driveway, Bailey said, “The plans are already approved, but a road would create a hardship for the neighbors. … This is an opportunity for the ZBA to do what the Planning Board cannot.”
Once the board members were satisfied with their questioning of the applicant, the public was invited to speak. Of the half dozen abutters making their voices heard, every single one was in support of the less intrusive driveway plan.
Given the overwhelming support of those most impacted by the construction of an accessway, they agreed to grant Bailey the variance requested.
The Special Permit hearing for a monopole telecommunications facility filed by Industrial Tower and Wireless LLC was continued without being reopened until February 10.
The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for Thursday, February 10, at 7:00 pm.
Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
By Marilou Newell