Zoning Board of Appeals, September 4, 2014 - NOBEL

Meeting date: 
Thursday, September 4, 2014

TOWN OF HOLDEN

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

HEARING

 

NOBEL CONSTRUCTION                                                                                 CASE NO. V 1407

The Zoning Board of Appeals held a continued public hearing on September 4, 2014 at 7:15 p.m. in Memorial Hall in the Town Hall, 1196 Main Street, Holden, MA on the Petition of Nobel Construction for property located at 31 January Lane for a VARIANCE to locate the driveway on the abutting property.

Members in attendance:  R. Spakauskas, R. Fraser, J. Deignan and R. Butler.

The Chairman called the hearing to order.  Mr. John Grenier of J.M. Grenier Associates, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. 

He distributed a copy of the plan indicating the location of the driveway to go over the property line to the abutting lot.  On the subdivision plan, there is a retaining wall that is abutting a wetland and is shown not to be more than 4 feet high.  After looking at it, it is at least 6 to 8 feet high.  The wall is at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac and he felt it would be a safety issue to go near it.  They want to push it away from the wall and give it a little bit of space so that they are not near the retaining wall.  They also have someone interested in buying the house and they have no problem with it.  The grade is flat and there wouldn’t be any issues with slopes.  This is a unique situation with the retaining wall and they felt it would be a safety hazard.

J. Deignan asked if the curb cut was in between the utility box and the wall.

R. Fraser said he has looked at this twice.  The proposed driveway is 12 feet wide with the remaining 18 feet to the power box.  He said he was in favor of agreeing with the Planning Board’s comments that they would not be in favor of crossing lot lines for the location of a driveway.  Mr. Fraser said there were other alternatives and it was best to keep the driveway on the property.

R. Spakauskas said there was a lack of an easement and questioned why it couldn’t be deeded.  Mr. Grenier said that would make the lot next door nonconforming.  He felt this was a potential safety hazard and their plan was in keeping with the other driveways and would fit very well in the neighborhood.

Since there were no further comments or questions, the public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.

The Board voted two in favor (R. Spakauskas and J. Deignan) and two opposed (R. Fraser and R. Butler).  The variance request was denied for the following reasons:  1)  There is sufficient space between the retaining wall and the electrical box to construct a driveway;  2)  There are other alternatives such as raising the height of the retaining wall, provide a guardrail or the placement of large boulders and 3)  The Zoning Board of Appeals agreed with the Planning Board’s original recommendation in their letter dated July 23, 2014.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ______________________________________

Ronald E. Spakauskas, Chairman