Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woburn Zoning Board accepts withdrawal of variance request for 1100 Main Street
Summary
The Woburn Zoning Board of Appeals accepted a request to withdraw, without prejudice, an application to reduce the minimum lot size to build a two‑family home at 1100 Main Street after members said the petitioner had not demonstrated the land‑related hardship required for a variance.
The Woburn Zoning Board of Appeals on an evening meeting accepted the petitioner’s request to withdraw without prejudice an application to reduce the minimum lot size at 1100 Main Street so a two‑family home could be built.
The petitioner had asked the board to reduce the zoning minimum lot size from 15,000 square feet to 11,558 square feet. The board’s presiding chairwoman said the statute that governs variances requires a showing of a specific hardship tied to the land — such as topography or soil conditions — before the board may grant relief from the dimensional requirement.
Joe Currier, who represented the homeowner at the hearing, described the house and the applicant’s options. “It’s a hard difficult decision for her to make the move financially. She can’t afford it no longer,” Currier said, adding the existing single‑family house is small and that renovating it “isn’t feasible.” He told the board the lot sits against a ledge and that groundwater and surface runoff from the hill behind the property limit usable basement space and complicate rebuilding on the existing foundation.
Board members questioned whether the described water and slope issues amounted to the required land‑related hardship for a variance. One voting member said, “I don’t believe there’s any justification to find a variance here,” and declined to support the request. The chairwoman reiterated that lack of lot area alone is not a hardship and that the board must find a connection between the land condition and the need for relief from the zoning standard.
Members also discussed other development options noted at the hearing: converting the existing structure to a two‑family use (which, under existing dimensional rules discussed at the meeting, would not require a variance), and the implications of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules. The chairwoman said a second ADU on a duplex would require a special permit, while a single ADU could be allowed as of right under the state law and local ordinance described at the hearing.
Concerns raised in discussion included vehicle traffic at the nearby bend in Route 38 and the practical difficulty of raising or replacing the foundation where the lot slopes toward the ledge. Board members and the applicant also noted a small clipped corner of the lot lies in Wilmington and discussed whether a paper road or additional land acquisition would be an option to increase lot area.
Faced with what the chair described as insufficient support for granting a variance — and after one member offered the petitioner the option to withdraw — the petitioner withdrew the variance request without prejudice. A motion to accept the withdrawal was made and seconded; the board voted in favor and the chair announced the withdrawal had been granted.
The petitioner may refile in a later month. The Zoning Board confirmed its next hearing date is November 19 and set a December meeting date; other routine agenda items (minutes approval, scheduling) were handled before the meeting adjourned.
