Commission amends and approves variance for Middle Caswell Lake cabin after neighbors and applicant testify

The Planning Commission on May 18 approved an amended Resolution 26‑07 granting a variance from the borough’s 75‑foot water‑body setback for a proposed two‑story recreational cabin on a pie‑shaped lot at Middle Caswell Lake.

Planning staff planner Natasha Grover presented the staff report and recommended denial, concluding that the lot contains buildable area that could accommodate development while meeting setback requirements and characterizing the request as primarily owner preference to preserve birch trees rather than a unique physical hardship. Grover also reported a site visit showing pilings had been driven and that preliminary foundation work had begun prior to approval.

Applicant David Tucker, speaking for owners Paul and Elizabeth (surname transcribed as Connect), described the lot constraints: a roughly 90‑ft‑wide cul‑de‑sac lot with utility easements and limited usable area, a desire to preserve a small grove of birch trees, and prior driven pilings ("We drove steel piling with a rock hammer. Approximately 20 steel piles"). He said the proposal sought a compact, two‑story 1,132 sq ft recreational cabin that would minimize the ground footprint.

Several neighbors and nearby property owners testified in favor of granting a variance, citing historic lot platting (1968), narrow lot geometry, and shared concern for maintaining lake access. One neighbor who owns multiple adjacent lots said many older lots in the neighborhood require variances to be buildable in modern code.

Commissioners initially debated the resolution’s draft language, which mixed denial‑oriented whereas clauses with a final 'therefore be resolved' clause. Commissioner Fonov moved to change the recommendation from denial to approval and asked staff to revise the resolution language to reflect the commission’s intent. The commission recessed for about 10 minutes while staff redrafted the findings to remove conflicting 'not' qualifiers, add language that the 0.3‑acre parcel has limited legal buildable area and that denial would interfere with current drive‑and‑only lake access, and confirm the variance would be no more than necessary to permit reasonable use of the property.

After the revision, Commissioner Fonov confirmed the amended findings reflected the commission's intent, and the commission approved the amended Resolution 26‑07 with no objections recorded in the transcript. The approval reversed staff’s recommendation and included the edited findings adopted into the resolution.

The record shows the commission weighed competing goals: adherence to Title 17 setback requirements that preserve shoreline buffers and the practical limits of historic lot geometry and access. Staff noted the possibility of crafting a narrower variance if the applicant relocated the structure within an identified buildable area on the parcel, but after public testimony the commission elected to grant the variance as amended. The commission did not record a roll‑call vote in the transcript; approval was made by voice and amendment to the resolution language.