BOLTON BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of Meeting
July 19, 2005 at 7:30 P.M.
Present: Gerard Ahearn, Jake Foote, Russell Karlstad, Jackie Smith, Patrick Sullivan, Nat Tipton (Town Planner)
1. Variance Hearing – Landquest Limited
Present: Ron Roux, E.K. Karlsa, Doug Resnick (Landquest Ltd.), Betsy Cussen, Stephen Garner (Planning Board); Martha Remington, Richard Pelletier
The applicants explained they are requesting relief from the provision of Section 2.4.1.2 that limits the amount of houses served by one common driveway to five.
The applicant stated they received a special permit from the Planning Board for six backland lots and received endorsement from the Planning Board for four Approval Not Required Lots on Wattaquadock Hill Road. On April 23, 2005, a site walk was held between the applicant and Planning Board members to explore options for the common driveways. At this site walk, it was noted that the location of a proposed driveway to serve lots 1, 5, and 6 would be built on a steep slope and therefore might be unsafe. A suggestion was made to combine the driveway with a proposed driveway to the east that serves lots 2, 7, 8, and 9. The applicant stated this would also reduce public safety impacts as one less curbcut would have to be built.
The applicant stated the original driveway plan would pose a substantial hardship because this plan would compromise public safety. A question was raised if this was a self-imposed hardship since the applicant had proposed the original driveway configuration. The applicant stated the requested relief would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and in fact would improve public safety. The applicant also stated the common driveway would be constructed in a manner that exceeds Planning Board common driveway standards and would not increase the number of lots or houses on the entire site.
Richard Pelleiter recalled that the original limitation of five houses on a common driveway was set for fire and public safety protection, and stated that he felt the applicant’s argument did not the required standards under Chapter 40A, Section 9. Betsy Cussen stated that the proposed variance should not be granted because it could set an undesirable precedent. Ahearn and Tipton expressed concern that the applicant should not be granted a variance when they had a workable plan that met Town bylaws. Jake Foote and Patrick Sullivan stated that they preferred the plan that allowed seven houses on one common driveway because of the public safety concerns. Stephen Garner, a member of the Planning Board, stated the Planning Board supported the application insofar as it decreases the number of curb cuts.
On a motion by Jake Foote, seconded by Russ Karlstad, the Board voted 4-1 (Gerard Ahearn opposing) to grant the variance as requested.
| 
