TOWN OF HOLDEN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
HEARING
WINTER HILL LLC V 1101
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on February 10, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmens Room of the Starbard Building, 1204 Main Street, Holden, MA on the Petition of Winter Hill LLC for property located on Winter Hill Road as shown on Assessors Map 237, Parcel 6 and Assessors Map 224, Parcel 88 and for property located on Summer Lane as shown on Assessors Map 237, Parcel 120 for a Variance from Section VI, Footnote 11, of the Town of Holden Zoning bylaws for relief from the 50-foot minimum lot width requirement between side lot lines.
Members in attendance: R. Spakauskas, S. Annunziata, R. Fraser, J. Deignan and R. Butler.
The Secretary read the application and Findings of Fact.
Attorney Scott Fenton, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. He also showed the Board a map of the lots on Summer Lane and Winter Hill. He explained that this lot was acquired before the regulations were changed in 2002. To build on this lot, the applicant would need a variance for the 50-foot lot width requirement. They would like to subdivide the premises and merge Lot X with 29 Summer Lane and Lot Y with the Winter Hill lot. The two resulting lots will then have the required frontage and area. The remaining portions of the premises and 29 Summer Lane will be deeded to White Oak Land Conservation Society. Construction of a dwelling on Lot X, with front-age on Summer Lane but serviced by a common driveway on Winter Hill Road, is more viable. The topog-raphy is such that there is a
huge gully along the frontage of Summer Lane and the only lot subject to this type of grade. This request is also consistent with a variance granted in March 2010 to the Winter Hill lot owned by Locke for area regulations.
R. Fraser asked if it was possible to move the driveway to the side of the lot so that each lot would have its own driveway, rather than the common driveway mentioned in the application.
Atty. Fenton explained that the way the bylaw is written, the town requires them to have one driveway.
J. Deignan asked for clarification as to which lot is ‘X’ and which is ‘Y’. He asked if one half of lot 41 would go to lot 41A; it was answered yes. The applicant pointed out which portion will go to White Oaks.
S. Annunziata questioned the fact that there is an easement on the Summer Lane lot and asked why it was not possible to have two driveways. Atty. Fenton said this is due to the topography and the vegetation area.
R. Fraser felt that, for safety reasons, the lot should have a Winter Hill address.
R. Spakauskas asked if the area designated for White Oak attaches to any other White Oak land nearby. It was answered yes, a significant amount of land to the north.
Attorney Todd Brodeur from the law firm of Fletcher, Tilton and Whipple, representing Diana Lados, 23 Summer Lane, addressed the Board. Ms. Lados, an abutter to the land in question, bought the property with an unbuildable lot, which seemed to be protected at the time, and the like-lihood for construction was minimal. The variance for relief from the area regulations submitted by the Locke family at 81 Winter Hill Road had not been granted yet. He felt that the applicant was creating his own deficiency and the lot should remain landlocked. The hardship was created when the subdivi-sion was layed out. The bylaw has a 50-foot lot width requirement in this case and his client is opposed to the granting of this variance.
S. Annunziata commented that at the time of the easement across Ms. Lados’s property, the 50-foot requirement was in effect.
Atty. Fenton said it was very unlikely that Ms. Lados will even see the house. He also disputed Atty. Brodeur’s denial of a hardship. When the lots were purchased, they were legal lots. It wasn’t until after 2002 when the zoning changed. It was also recommended by the Building Commissioner to handle it this way. By creating and building on lots X and Y rather than the two existing frontage lots, 29 Summer Lane and the Winter Hill lot, the homes constructed on the lots will be set further back from the road on longer lots. This would result in additional privacy to the owners and the abutters.
John Locke, 74 Raymond Street, addressed the Board. 81 Winter Hill Road was the home of his father who recently sold the property. It is a beautiful area, connected to sewer and the Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve the common driveway. Progress happens and he did not feel it was extraordinary to request a variance.
In summation, Atty Fenton said this request for a variance is a hardship due to the topography of the landlocked parcel.
Since there were no further comments or questions, the public hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m.
The Board voted 4-1 to approve the variance with the following conditions: 1) The Engineering Department should assign this a Winter Hill address; 2) Lot 41A will not be severed except when conveying an area to the White Oaks Conservation Society; 3) Greenery shall be placed from the edge of the property line to the edge of the existing sewer line. The abutter and the landowner must agree upon plantings (up to 5 trees); 4) The driveway easement must be removed from the Summer Lane lot.
______________________________________
Ronald E. Spakauskas, Chairman
| 
