APPROVED 01/26/11
After the Chase hearing 2010-3, the New Boston Zoning Board of Adjustment was presented with the next case 2010-4, by Doug Coyle of 289 McCurdy Road.
Members present: Chairman David Craig, Robert Todd, Phil Consolini, Greg Mattison, Laura Todd, clerk. All voting.
2010-4 Application for a Variance by Doug and Beth Coyle, 289 McCurdy Road, Map/Lot 12/19-6, to build a 10’x20’ pre-manufactured shed on blocks within the 20’ setback requirement. (please note that the applicant has changed the dimensions of the shed from 20’x20’ to 10’x20’)
Chairman Craig asked Mr. Coyle to present his application. No abutters were present at this hearing.
Mr. Coyle explained that the plan presented to the board was not accurate, the house and driveway were moved from their original proposed location and actually were closer to the property line where he wanted to place the shed.
Both Robert Todd and Chairman Craig had visited the site prior to the hearing, so were familiar with the property.
Robert Todd asked the intended use of the building. Mr. Coyle said he needed storage space for bikes, generator, lawn mower, etc. These items are now being stored in his garage and there isn’t enough room for his car. This location was chosen because beyond the driveway his well and in-ground gas tank are located. And behind the house are wetlands and a slope. The opposite side of the house is somewhat sloped and would be difficult to access in the winter. Mr. Coyle also said he had hired a surveyor to mark the property line.
It was stated that the driveway was 20’ from property line; the house was 25’ from the property line. The intention is to place the shed 3’ from the property line.
Phil Consolini asked Robert Todd if the driveway, utilities and septic could be within the setback. Bob said yes, except the septic had to be 10’ from the property line.
Robert said the shed could be place on the opposite side of the house where there is 35’ between house and tree line and a 3% slope. Dave said it would be inconvenient, especially in the winter months.
The criteria were reviewed, 1. Although the shed would be visible from the road, the neighbor on 12/19-16 house and garage were separated by a ravine and only somewhat visible. He intends to side the shed and roof with the same material as the house. 2. No harm, no foul. 3. Restricting this use doesn’t make any sense. 4. It is a high quality pre-manufactured shed. 5(a) the point of the setback is to protect the neighbor and the natural ditch does just that, (b) the need for additional storage space is a reasonable use.
Robert Todd moved to grant the variance because it met all 5 criteria and added one condition that the shed could not be placed any closer than 1’ from the property line. Phil Consolini seconded, motion passed unanimously.
Phil Consolini moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:05PM
Respectfully Submitted
Laura Todd
01/26/11
| 
