The Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously rejected a proposal to divide a 16,000-square-foot lot at 184 Reedsdale Road on Monday night, concluding that the applicant failed to meet the strict legal requirements for a zoning variance. The plan, submitted by Elmanda Dami, sought to create two non-conforming lots to allow for the construction of a new dream house in the rear of the property, but board members found no evidence of a legitimate hardship related to the land’s soil or topography.

Attorney John Barry, representing the applicant, characterized the current property as a pork chop shape that is largely underutilized. He argued that the existing home sits too close to the busy main road and that the large backyard could be better used for a second single-family dwelling. Barry contended that the primary hardship was economic, stating economically the site is very unutilized. It’s a huge lot due to the shape of the lot. However, the proposal required significant relief from town bylaws, as neither of the proposed lots would possess the required 75 feet of frontage on Reedsdale Road.

Board members expressed immediate skepticism regarding the lack of frontage and the potential impact on the neighborhood. Nicholas Gray noted that the proposal essentially asked for a second lot with zero frontage, questioning the precedent such a move would set. How does this project not derogate substantially from the intent of the zoning bylaw? Gray asked. That’s what I’m struggling with. Another board member raised concerns about the lack of environmental data, asking if any studies [had] been done on the ground—on groundwater issues or anything affecting the neighborhood.

The hearing took a contentious turn during public comment as neighbors from Center Lane presented evidence of severe drainage issues in the area. Suzanne Bridges of 71 Center Lane shared video footage of recent storms that left the street impassable for vehicles. I would never call [having a large backyard] a hardship, Bridges said, noting that the current property is often poorly maintained. We on Center Lane get all of the water... We couldn't even have cars come down the street during that flooding. Resident Rachel Shuy echoed these concerns, explaining that her family has already spent tens of thousands of dollars on sump pumps and French drains to combat local runoff.

In final deliberations, the board agreed that the application did not meet the three legal hurdles required to grant a variance. Chair Kathleen O'Donnell clarified that personal preference does not constitute a legal hardship under state law. I’m not finding grounds for the three provisions, O'Donnell said. Deficiency in lot frontage is unfortunately not a circumstance that’s supposedly related to the soil conditions or the shape or the topography of the lot... It’s not really a hardship to say I can’t have a second house on my land.

Motion Made by N. Gray to close the public hearing. Motion Passed (3-0). Following the closure of the hearing, the board moved to a final vote on the requested relief. Motion Made by K. O'Donnell to grant the requested variance for Case 2883. Motion Failed (0-3), effectively barring the lot division.