April 12, 2006 – No corrections/additions.

Global edit, change "Osborne" to "Osborn".

Global edit, change "Van-Ry" to "VanRy".

Page one, under approval of minutes, last line, change "halw" to "half".

Incoming

James Kirsch to Attorney Bernard Campbell dated 6/15/06 re: Casey, 36 Stickney Road, Map 23, Lot 32.

Zoning Board Budge printout dated 6/30/2006.

Tim Dziechowski, Conservation Commission Chairman dated 7/12/06 re: Brian Boyle variance request 20 Winslow Drive, Map 13, Lot 29-7.

Outgoing

Janet Porter dated 6/15/06 re: Home Business Renewal approval, 6 Linebrook Road, Map 15, Lot 19.

Attorney Bernard Campbell dated 6/27/06 re: Zannini Variance decision, 8 Salem Road, Map 2, Lot 31.

Legal Notice for ZBA meeting of 7/12/06.

Mr. Polito recused himself.

Boyle Construction Co., Inc. request for Variance from Article IV, Section 410:8 to allow construction of a dwelling 55’ from Wetland (45’ variance) as opposed to the required 100’ wetland setback on property located at 20 Winslow Drive, Map 13, Lot29-7, TR 2 Zone.

Abutters list was read with the following present: Boyle Construction Co.

Mr. Boyle explained that the subdivision was a 66-acre cluster subdivision with 33 acres of open space. There are 27 lots in the subdivision. There is a letter from Jim Gove, a Soil Scientist, which indicated that the wetlands were not high valued wetlands. Mr. Boyle showed the Board a plan he brought depicting all of the lots, where the wetlands were and approximately where all of the foundations were going on each lot.

This particular lot is 1.59 acres and if you take a 100’ setback from the wetland it pretty much restricts 60% of the lot. Mr. Boyle said that based upon the plan he has now, and although he cannot guarantee that no other lot will be before the Board for something, he does not see problems with other lots being affected by this particular wetland. Mr. Carter asked if this was the plan was the one that went before the Planning Board. Mr. Boyle thought that because this was from Sublime Engineering, he believed some version of this plan was submitted. Mr. Carter asked about the foundation size because on the plan it looked as if all the foundations were the same size. Mr. Boyle explained that this drawing was developed by the original developer two years ago and was for marketing purposes. The home sizes will not all be the same. Currently there are two homes being constructed that are 4,000 square feet. The proposed house on this lot is approximately 3,500 square feet, and is a ranch that is 98 feet long. This house would not fit on any other lot because it is a ranch. The only way this home fits on the lot is some sort of relief to the 100’ setback.

The Board reviewed the letter from Gove Engineering. Mr. Zannini asked if Mr. Gove was aware of all the runoff that this type of home would produce. Mr. Boyle said that he did. Mr. Friel opened the hearing to the public and asked for Mr. Dziechowski’s input. Mr. Dziechowski of the Conservation Commission explained that this was sort of a rock basin in a field. It is about six inches deep and it dries out in the Summer. Mr. Dziechowski said it is small and he believes what the applicant is trying to do is reasonable and also that there is going to be a deed restriction for an undisturbed buffer around the lot which is more valuable than having a 100 foot area that someone could put grass on to the edge of the wetland. Mr. Zannini asked if the wetlands had permanent markers every so many feet. Mr. Dziechowski said that they do not. Mrs. Killam does not have a problem with this proposal, but would like to this opportunity to say that a 100-foot setback in all cases, in her opinion, is very restrictive. This is a perfect example of why the Board gets asked for so many variances.

Mr. Carter asked about the deed restriction and asked for Mr. Dziechowski input on how to handle it. Mr. Dziechowski explained it was in the letter from the Conservation Commission. Mrs. Killam said the Town has no way to enforce a deed. Mr. Friel said it will be in the Board’s approval and the file.

The Board reviewed the following criterion:

Based on the discussion, the Board agreed this criterion was met.

Mr. Carter did not believe the 33 acres should be linked to this request and was not a consideration for the approval but did believe this still met the criteria. Ms. Rochford agreed. Based on the discussion, the Board agreed this criterion was met

3. I. Mr. Carter said that weighing heavily was the input from Conservation and Gove Soil Scientist regarding the value of the wetland. Based on the discussion, the Board agreed this criterion was met. There is only one wetland, which is clearly shown on the plan that pertains to this lot, even though there are other wetlands in the subdivision. Based on the discussion, the Board agreed this criterion was met

II. Based on the discussion, the Board agreed this criterion was met

4. Based on the discussion, the Board agreed this criterion was met

5. Based on the discussion, the Board agreed this criterion was met

Minutes Transcribed from tape.

Respectfully submitted ________________________________