Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 04/19/05 Northern Sky
TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING MINUTES
04/19/05


Approved 06/21/05

Northern Sky Holdings, LLC (Dave Craig, Manager) application for “VARIANCE” to Article III, Section 314, map/lot 18/8, 5 River Road.

Board members present:  Vice Chairman Harry Piper, Ed DiPietro, Phil Consolini, Greg Mattison, Laura Todd, clerk.  Robert Todd and David Craig recused themselves.

H. Piper opened the hearing @ 10:30 PM, and asked Laura to call the roll call.

Applicant D. Craig gave the background for the application and turned the presentation over to Rick Kohler.

Rick Kohler explained that the request was for an area variance to Article III, Section 314 to permit parking within 2 ft of the property line.  The sideline requirement is 10’ and the rear is 20’.  The proposed parking would be 2’ in the rear setback and 10’ from the side setback, with the pavement to 5’ of the side setback.  He went on to explain the property is commercial zoned, but is not large enough for the proposed parking.  He indicated the abutting properties were commercial properties and their parking area on the site plan.

E. DiPietro asked how many parking places are proposed.

Rick said 1052 sq. ft. divided by 250 sq. ft. per parking space = 5, plus 3 employee and 1 handicap gives a total of 9 spaces.  He also said the driveway had received state approval.

H. Piper asked if there would be any structural changes.

Rick said no, just outside lighting with it pointing down @ 75 degrees.

P. Consolini asked if the driveway was one way.

Rick said yes, he then explained that the southern most and northern most parking spaces would be for employees, giving the most maneuverable spaces to the clients.

Greg Mattison questioned the lighting hours.

Rick said only during office hours.

E. DiPietro commented about the limit the lighting hours might have on the rental space.

P. Consolini asked about the sewer line under the proposed parking.

Rick said there would be a sleeve to protect it.

H. Piper said with that the square footage of the building and size of the lot, there could be no commercial use without a variance.  He then invited the abutters to speak.

Mary Frances Barone of 8 River Road spoke to her concern about the increase in traffic.

H. Piper assured her that s single-family unit has 8 car trips a day, this could be a 2 family unit which would increase to 16 trips a day.  He doubted that the commercial use would reach 16 trips a day.

Scott Dana of 7 River Road, said he believed when this area was zoned commercial it was for home office business use only and low volume.  He is very concerned about the side setback at his property line, especially regarding snow removal and the possibility of the snow melting and causing flooding in his back yard.  He then asked that the side setback to his yard be explained again.

Rick addressed his questions.

Greg Mattison asked if there was a drainage plan and if it was required.

Rick said there is a plan and it is not required.  He then went on to explain the infiltration system and the slope of the proposed parking area.

E. DiPietro asked about shrubs and buffers at the Scott Dana property line.

Rick, said that shrubs and trees would be salvaged to create a buffer.  He also explained about the filter socks and fertilizer to stabilize and the juniper shrubs for plantings.

Scott Dana warned that people would park to the end of the pavement and wanted the pavement to end at the 10’ setback.   He is concerned that once it is paved and D. Craig moves he will have no enforcement.   He is also concerned that building could be placed on his property line.

H. Piper said no building would be allowed.

Discussion continued about Scott Danas concerns.

H. Piper said the issues Scott Dana raised were not part of the Zoning Board review and should be addressed at the Planning Board level.

Phil Consolini moved to approve the application for a variance, 2nd by Greg Mattison.

P. Consolini spoke to his motion saying the 2’ is justified; the building could not be used commercially without it.

Greg Mattison reviewed the criteria, with all passing.

The motion passed unanimously.

Respectfully submitted
Laura Todd
04/21/05