TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING MINUTES
06/20/06
Approved 09/10/06
Applicant: Michael Seraikas (wetland scientist) for Kimberley Britton & Heather Doucette, 282 Twin Bridge Road, NB, for a Variance to Article II 204.4 requirement of the 200’ square @ 50’ from front setback.
Members present: Chairman Dave Craig, Ed DiPietro, Greg Mattison, Phil Consolini, Chris Golomb, Laura Todd, clerk.
Chairman Craig called the meeting to order @ 7:03PM.
Minutes from previous meeting were approved by Ed, 2nd by Greg and passed as written.
Dave reviewed the application and invited Michael Seraikas to present.
M. Seraikas pointed out the original survey (done by Harry Murray 1989) showing tract #5, the portion of this application. He showed the square on the plan. He did a topo survey, flagged wetlands. He then presented a colored plan saying the blue area was the top of bank of river, white was 20’ setback and green area was upland (contiguous). This plan showed the approx. location of proposed septic, house and driveway.
Ed DiPietro asked if this is a separate lot.
M. Seraikas said it was not contiguous by was shown as one.
Laura said it does not have to touch to be one lot.
Other questions were where the house is on the other part of the lot, and if the river separates this lot.
M. S. showed where the existing house was located and said yes the river separates the lot. He then went on to say and show that all other requirements were met, that a rectangle with the same area as the 200’ square would fit on the lot.
Attorney Tom Cooper (Concord) said the total sq. ft. is in excess of the requirement technically, a change in the shape other than a square it is exceeded.
D. Craig asked if the board had questions, (none), then asked if abutters had questions.
Rick Weidner, 66 Woodbury Road, questioned where the house would be located and what type of building it would be. He said he had no objections as long as the environment was respected.
Floyd Goyette, 62 Woodbury Road, was also concerned about the location of the house, but was fine if it was done properly.
Paula Stockinger, 56 Woodbury Road, questioned how the variance would be written and if they could subdivide further. She is okay if they cannot subdivide any further.
Phil answered there is not enough land to subdivide.
C. Golomb wondered if the board would be setting precedence with this application.
D. Craig said every application is different.
Mark Suennen, 325 Twin Bridge Road, said he had no objection. Commented that the land was the appropriate size, the ordinance was poorly written.
Atty. Cooper said the applicant has no intention to do anything other than what is on the application and the ZBA could attach what would be necessary.
Jay Marden, Gregg Mill Road, said he had two concerns. 1. the law was being diluted, it was written so we wouldn’t have unusual lots like this. 2. the proximity of this land to the river, which is sensitive.
D. Craig asked Mr. Marden if he knew the purpose of the 200’ square requirement.
J. Marden said to keep lots standard lots.
M. Seraikas reviewed the shoreline protection act requirements for the board and said they could be met.
Phil Consolini said he was a member of the Planning Board when the regulation for the 200’ square was written and the purpose was to prevent weird shaped lots.
C.Golomb asked the dimension of the lot dept. 123’ across.
D. Craig read the ordinance concerning the 200’ square.
Paula Stockinger asked about the criteria that had to be met.
D. Craig asked M. Seraikas to speak to the criteria.
M. Seraikas read the criteria from the application (seecopy of application)
J. Marden said the applicant did not meet #1, #2. It would diminish property values in the area, the area is natural, and the house would be too close to the river.
Janet White, 19 Parker Road, said the Shoe line Protction Act does not cover this part of the river.
Discussion followed as to whether the existing house needed a variance when it was built. It was determined that it did not.
M. Seraikas said there is enough area for the house and you probably wouldn’t be able to see it.
J. Marden commented that if they are building on a slab and using a pump septic system design, reflects what kind of land this is, too close to the river.
Phil Consolini said this doesn’t meet the criteria.
D. Craig said he doesn’t think they have the right to subdivide unless they meet the requirement and is concerned about setting precedent. If this was a lot of record and it couldn’t meet the square that would be different. Phil was on the board when the ordinance was written and knows the purpose of the ordinance. Not in favor at this point.
Atty. Cooper said heard testimony of intention of 200” square requirement be a square – consider the rational basis in terms of what you are trying to accomplish. Think it bears further examination. If footage it has been met. If a square is required then there needs to be a record of why it is set this way. What is the rational basis for this.
Ed DiPietro said we are not here to re-write the ordinance,
Atty. Cooper asked to put the application on the shelf.
D. Craig asked if he meant to continue. Yes was the answer.
D. Craig said you can withdraw the application, but not sure, you can continue unless there is something specific reason to continue. So, we can vote, you can withdraw or continue for a specific reason.
Atty. Cooper asked for a short recess to discuss options.
At 8:05 they returned and withdrew the application without prejudice.
Ed, 2nd by Dave, adjourned the hearing at 8:15.
Respectfully submitted
Laura Todd
06/21/06
| 
