2018-03-22-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

A Board Member, Mr. Clifford, stated that the hardship is not sufficient enough for a variance. A Board Member, Mr. McCarthy, agreed with Mr. Clifford. The applicant, Mrs. Law stated that they are open to finding a by-right option but it wouldn't be favorable to their neighbors. Mr. Williams asked what will happen to the utility pole on the property (it would need to be moved slightly). The Board Member Alternate, Mr. Cohen, asked the applicants if they opted out of the Neighborhood Conservation Committee, of which an article was coming up for in Town Meeting (the applciants opted out but the neighbor opted in). Ms. Law stated that the lot is difficult to build because of the way the lots are divided. Ms. Wood asked what the existing garage is used for (just a workspace. It's too short and narrow to use for cars and is difficult to access. They have never used the garage for a car as their minivan cannot clear the roof). Ms. Wood asked what the plan is for the existing garage (the applicants plan to knock down the wall and return the garage to the house). An audience member, Ms. Kathy Sullivan of 28 Partridge Road, asked the applicants why they are proposing the driveway so far to the left (Ms. Law responded that that is the level access point). Ms. Sullivan passed out a copy of the GIS map showing the lots. The lots are angled so severely so the developer could give each lot 150 ft of frontage. Ms. Sullivan asked if it's possible to change the lot lines (The Zoning Administrator, Mr. George, stated the minimum requirement is 150 ft and they would probably have to get variances and several A&Rs to create a new lot for every lot effected). An audience member, Mr. David Carroll of 32 Partridge Rd, stated that he is the most affected by the variance request. Because of the shape of the lots, the proposed garage will be in front of his house. He would like to reach a compromise with the applicants. Mr. Carroll also expressed concern about the drainage and with the utility pole. Ms. Law stated that they have had discussions with their drainage engineers and drainage will be taken care of and the utility pole will be put in an area as a matter of right. Mr. Williams suggested they may want to continue the hearing or withdraw and come in with a new proposal. The Board agreed that they would not vote in favor of this variance, but may be open to some relief. The Board advised the applicant that if they continue the hearing, they can only come back with less relief requested, not more.