Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning Board denies variance for 79 Summit Drive to create public trail access to Joe English Hill
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously denied a variance to subdivide 79 Summit Drive and create a roughly 20-acre parcel intended for a public trail to Joe English Hill, citing the 16-foot access stripas inadequate for emergency access and concluding the proposal did not meet variance criteria under the RA district.
At a 2026 meeting, the New Boston Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request for 79 Summit Drive that would have created a roughly 20-acre parcel intended as public conservation land and non-motorized trail access to Joe English Hill.
Board members concluded the proposal failed multiple variance criteria. One member said the narrow access "would hinder the access for emergency vehicles" and warned that, as presented, "you're gonna have to call the Army National Guard" to reach someone stranded on the hill. The chair summarized the board's decision: "So it's unanimous that it's not granted."
Presenters for the applicants had argued the carve-out would conserve the north face of Joe English Hill, preserve a locally important trail and align with the town master plan. Pete Maloney of the Conservation Commission described the plan as "carving out a portion of about 20 acres" that would be dedicated for public use and reached by a 16-foot right-of-way off Joe English Hill near Jessica Lane. He told the board the conserved parcel would serve "about 30 homes."
Members on the board, however, said the RA district's definition of "public use" does not clearly include trails and they questioned whether the 16-foot access satisfies safety and frontage requirements in Article 3 §309.1. One member said the proposal did not show the necessary hardship or preserve the spirit of the ordinance and another recommended a conservation easement as a preferable alternative that could better meet legal standards while preserving access.
The board moved to oppose granting the variance, citing emergency-access concerns, the ordinance's definition of public use and failure of variance criteria; the motion was seconded and passed by unanimous voice vote. The denial means the applicant and town must pursue an alternative approach if they wish to secure permanent public access to the hill.
The board encouraged continued negotiation between the landowners and conservation interests, and members noted that other tools—including a conservation easement or a different frontage arrangement—might achieve the conservation objectives without running afoul of the zoning requirements.
