Town of New Boston
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
05/19/05
Approved 06/21/05
Members Present: Chairman David Craig, Ed DiPietro, Greg Mattison, Robert Todd and Laura Todd, clerk.
Application for a Variance by Clifton Labree, Map/Lot 9/21, 102 Wilson Hill Road, Article II, Section 204.9, Steep slope ordinance.
Chairman Craig opened the hearing at 7:04PM, all members present would be voting.
Mr. LaBree presented his application, providing a plan of the subject property for viewing, (no plan provided for the file). He said that a year ago, he spoke to Nicola of the Planning Board; he wanted to delineate the cemetery and another lot from the house. He just wanted to break the house away from the rest of the property, which essentially would be a 3 lot subdivision. Since the steep slope regulations has become effective, he does not see any sense in going to the expense of showing contours ($1000 to $3000) and suggested the USGS maps, they are not totally accurate, but would give an indication of the general terrain. Nicola said it was not adequate. So, he is here asking for a variance.
Chairman Craig asked for clarification. Are you saying that your plan is not adequate for subdivision, because you are not showing contous?
Mr. LaBree, correct, as a result of the steep slopes. This subdivision is not for a housing development, it involves no homes, no building, just a delineation of a large tract, into two smaller tracts and a small tract for the cemetery.
Again, Chairman Craig wanted to be sure he understood and asked if Nicola is saying the plan was insufficient for planning board purposes because you do not have contour lines on it.
Mr. LaBree, correct.
Chairman Craig, said with out regard to the variance issue you may still have the same problem he asked Bob Todd for input.
Bob Todd said in order to have a completed application, he has to show contours at intervals of not more than 5 feet from either aerial mapping or ground survey.
Mr.LaBree said he thought that this was what we wre here for.
Bob Todd asked, are you asking for a variance to that requirement?
Mr. LaBree, yes.
Chairman Craig asked are contour lines a requirement of the planning board for subdivision.
Bob Todd said yes, because of the new steep slope ordinance.
Chairman Crain then asked the applicant; are you asking us to grant a blanket variance to the steep slope ordinance so you don’t have to pay the expense to provide contour lines?
Mr. LaBree said to take that one-step further, if I or someone else came before the planning board, with a subdivision plan to this property, they would become subject to the requirement.
Bob Todd said subdivision has to be reviewed on its merit and the steep slope ordinance requires a subdivision plan show contour lines.
Chairman Craig said you are asking us to vary the requirement for steep slopes, but we don’t know where the steep slopes are and where you need the variance.
Mr. LaBree, stated before the steep slope ordinance became law; I could have taken this plan and gone through the planning board with no problem. He then asked if we had the authority to grant a variance to the ordinance if nothing was going to be built on it.
Bob Todd read the steep slope ordinance.
Ed DiPietero asked where the steep slope are on the property.
Mr. LaBree showed on the plan where a slope was, near the pond and the well. The rest of the property is relatively flat.
Bob Todd had a suggestion, that Mr. LaBree do a topographic survey on that portion of the lot and his lot as well, that would be equal to a building lot (which is two acres) and put a note on the plan saying that any building on the lot would be limited to that building envelope. You would need topo only on the two acres on each of those lots.
Mr. LaBree said he understood what Bob was saying and indicated which two lots this could be done on.
Bob Todd then explained to the Zoning Board members exactly what he had suggested to the applicant. Mr. LaBree would mark out on the plan an area that was build able that was at least 2 acres (less than 15% slopes) for one lot and his ome lot. The cemetery is not a residential lot so the town does not have jurisdiction over it. A note would be put on the plan and those two areas were the building envelopes and all other area are not build able.
Mr. LaBree said he understood that the larger tract of land could not be built upon with this suggestion and after it was delineated, he planned to put it in a trust for the family. His main concern was the cemetery and the 2 ½ acres wit it and he wanted that to be tied up. What Bob said sounded reasonable to him.
Chairman Craig questioned whether the planning board could grant a subdivision approval without all the information they needed.
Bob Todd explained that we would grant a variance to the requirement that the whole property have a topographic survey, just the two build able lots would need it at this time and a note on the plan would indicate the remaining large lot was not a build able lot.
Mr. LaBree showed an abutter (Diane Boutin) what he intended to do.
Ed DiPietro said that eventually someone might want to develop this larger lot, and the stipulation right now would be that it was not developable.
Chairman Craig said does the steep slope ordinance not prevent a subdivision, but does prevent building up on it.
Ed DiPietro felt that it depended who was interpreting it.
Bob Todd said that was not correct, in order for the Planning Board to accept a plan for subdivision approval, the contours showing steep slopes must be on the plan. Bob then reviewed his suggestion again.
Chairman Craig said we don’t know if there are any steep slopes on this property, you ae just asking for a variance because you don’t want to bear the expense of mapping.
Mr. LaBree said it would not add any value to it, except possibly to the next owner, and while I am around it will stay as it is.
Chairman Craig asked what the cost for doing the whole property would be.
Mr. LaBree said between $1000 and $3000.
Chairman Craig said he is concerned about setting precedence by granting a variance for a dollar amount. The law says this board must find certain things to grant the variance. He then asked the applicant to address the criteria for his application for a variance.
Ed DiPietro said the intent of the law was to prevent development on steep slopes.
Mr. LaBree answered the criteria as follows;
#!, nothing will change except the delineation of the tract into two additional.
#2, nothing is changing except creating a second lot of record.
#3, denial will increase the cost to document the cemetery lot to $2000, $3000 and add nothing to the value of the property.
#3aa, preservation of cemetery and intent to look ahead to a time when he is not here and have the homestead stay in current use and control the view.
Mr. LaBree asked if he turned the land over to the town for conservation, what would happen.
Bob Todd read the ordinance and it did not give exception to conservation lots.
Bob Todd moved to grant the variance to Article II, Section 204.9 of the ordinance, the applicant has shown #1, the proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because there is no contemplated change in use that would affect the surrounding area. #2, would not be contrary to the public interest because, consistent with all surrounding property uses and not the center of public attraction. #3, denial would result in unnecessary hardship because the cost of compliance is not off set by any public gain. #3aa, area variance is needed to enable the applicants proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property because; his intended use only impacts a small amount of the large residential lot. #3bb, the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method
reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because; a topographic survey of the entire property would not contribute significantly to the decision that has to be made relative to the subdivision, the same objective can be achieved by surveying the lesser amount of the property. #4, granting the variance would do substantial justice, there are no public interest impacted, no property values diminished and the planning board would be furnished with information necessary to make decisions on approval of the subdivision. #5, the use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because; the variance would allow enough data to be presented to show that 2 lots are build able and that is the objective of the applicants subdivision, and any further subdivision would come under this ordinance. Therefore the variance require that the applicant provide the Planning Board with topographic surveys on at least 2 build able acres on lot 21 and
2 acres on a second proposed lot 21 that is designated as 2.547 acres. Furthermore, a topographic survey of driveway section itself to show it is in compliance. The remainder of property not surveyed has to be designed as non-build able at the present time. 2nd by Ed DiPietro
Chairman Craig said this is an unusual application and unique situation; he wanted the record to show we are not setting a precedent for future applicants.
Mr. LaBree wondered if the driveway would need engineering and upgrading, it had been in existence for 100 years.
Bob Todd said the applicant might be asked to do that.
The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted
Laura Todd
05/23/05
minutes approved 06/21/05
| 
