Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Common Driveway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks variance to serve three lots from one driveway at 101 Sandersdale Road
Summary
Christopher Hanson asked the Town of Charlton Zoning Board of Appeals for relief to serve three A&R lots from a single common driveway to avoid multiple crossings of a perennial stream; the board continued the hearing for 30 days to allow the applicant to seek input from the Conservation Commission and DEP.
Christopher Hanson, the record owner and applicant for a 15-acre parcel at 101 Sandersdale Road, asked the Town of Charlton Zoning Board of Appeals on Jan. 16 for a variance to serve three A&R lots from a single common driveway to avoid multiple stream crossings.
Hanson told the board the parcel "has a perennial stream that runs across" the frontage and that most of the buildable upland is toward the rear of the property, so he proposed a single common driveway to concentrate disturbance. "So the variance and the relief that I'm looking for here is due to the wetland stream, all the good buildable land is up in the back," Hanson said.
The board’s zoning enforcement officer and building inspector noted the town bylaw allows a common driveway by special permit from the planning board but limits such permits to serving two lots. The enforcement officer said the applicant had submitted an A&R plan showing three conforming A&R lots but that the common-driveway concept plan itself had not been recorded. The enforcement officer advised the board that the Conservation Commission and the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) typically question plans that propose multiple stream crossings and could prefer a single crossing if feasible.
Board members asked Hanson to present alternatives to the Conservation Commission and to the DEP, including a plan showing two separate access points, and to secure any formal responses before the ZBA makes a final decision. The enforcement officer recommended a continuance so the applicant could submit the common-driveway concept and a stream-crossing plan to conservation for formal review.
Hanson described the proposed common driveway as roughly 400 feet long, with the first house about 250 feet up the driveway; he said the plan would keep roughly 90% of disturbance outside the 200-foot riverfront buffer. He also said the plan includes a hammerhead turnaround near the top of the driveway and that the proposal would limit disturbance at the street to a 30- to 40-foot swath for the initial 400–500 feet.
After discussion, an unnamed board member moved to continue the hearing for 30 days to allow Hanson time to present the concept plan to the Conservation Commission and to obtain any determinations or comments. Another board member seconded the motion. The board voted in favor; the motion to continue carried and the matter was continued for 30 days.
The hearing was continued to allow Hanson to file a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) or other formal submission with the Conservation Commission, and to return with conservation’s response and any DEP guidance. The board noted that if conservation or DEP indicate two crossings are acceptable, the applicant may not demonstrate the hardship needed for a zoning variance; if conservation says only one crossing is acceptable, Hanson may be able to document a hardship to justify relief under the zoning bylaw.
