Kensington zoning board approves frontage variance for Amesbury Road lot over neighbors’ objections

The Kensington Zoning Board approved a variance on Map 3, Lot 9 for a three-lot subdivision along Amesbury Road, finding the applicant met the town’s variance criteria despite objections from nearby residents.

The vote followed public comment from neighbors who argued the parcel is largely wooded and that creating an additional house would change the area’s character, raise safety concerns for emergency access, and reduce nearby property values. One commentator, identified on the record as an abutter, said an appraiser estimated property values ‘‘will decrease between 5% and at the most 15%’’ and summarized that as roughly a 10% loss on a $1 million home. Chair (S1) noted the board had considered written submissions and testimony from the rehearing and that town staff had confirmed legal notice of the meeting.

Why it mattered The board’s decision allows a reduction in the town’s minimum frontage requirement for the lot (the application cited a variance from Article 3, Section 3.20.2(b)). Neighbors said the change would permit subdivision and greater clearing of trees on a site they described as ‘‘all woods’’ and argued the change could impede emergency access and wildlife. The chair told the board that the fire chief had, in a November 17 conversation with staff, ‘‘indicated that he had no concerns’’ about the frontage as it relates to emergency access and that any site-plan details would be reviewed later by the planning board.

What the board discussed and decided The board considered the standard variance factors in sequence: whether granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest and whether it would observe the spirit of the ordinance; whether substantial justice favored granting the variance; whether surrounding property values would be diminished; and whether unnecessary hardship existed owing to special conditions of the lot.

After deliberation the board found the applicant met each requirement. Members voted that the variance was not contrary to the public interest and that the spirit of the ordinance would be preserved, that substantial justice would be done by granting the variance, that surrounding property values would not be diminished by granting the variance, and that unnecessary hardship existed because of the lot’s configuration, a power-line easement, and other site features. With one member recused, the board proceeded with a four-member panel and approved the variance.

Public concerns and exchanges Neighbors repeatedly pressed the board about on-site safety review, driveway width, and the potential need for a secondary water source for firefighters; they also stressed loss of privacy and precedent if the variance were allowed. The chair repeatedly emphasized the limited scope of the hearing—frontage only—and noted that driveway siting and detailed site-plan matters fall to the planning board. A public commenter asked, ‘‘Do you feel confident at this point knowing that nobody has even gone out to look at it?’’ and the chair responded the fire chief had ‘‘indicated that he had no concerns’’ about frontage for emergency access.

Vote and next steps The board approved the final motion to grant the frontage variance for the three-lot split (the hearing proceeded with four eligible voting members after an early recusal). The chair said a written notice of decision and findings would be issued within five days and that there is a 30-day appeal period from the notice date. Any site-plan approval, detailed driveway locations and technical access issues will be handled by the planning board if and when the applicant submits for that stage.

Procedural background This matter had been heard previously; the board initially denied the variance, the applicant requested rehearing and submitted new materials, and the board granted rehearing. The November 4 public hearing and subsequent continuances and re-notices were part of that procedural history. The board also accepted a written letter from abutters into the record for today’s rehearing.

What remains clear The variance permits reduced frontage for Map 3, Lot 9; it does not itself authorize any specific driveway locations or clearing plan. Those details will be examined later by the planning board and by other applicable agencies. The decision is subject to the town’s appeal process; the chair said the applicant has 30 days to appeal from the notice of decision.