Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Lot Width topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA approves 3.6‑foot lot‑width variance tied to four‑lot subdivision at 84 Anderson Street
Summary
The board granted a 3.6‑foot lot‑width variance for Lot A (proposed 81.4 ft vs 85 ft required) connected to a proposed four‑lot redevelopment at 84 Anderson Street, noting planning board review and recent state changes that can exempt some housing actions from environmental review.
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Lot Width topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dan Fuller of Hudson Land Design presented a proposed subdivision and lot‑line realignment affecting 84 Anderson Street and adjacent parcels. His team said the plan would create four buildable lots after demolition of existing dilapidated structures; only Lot A would fall short of the R‑1‑10 minimum average lot width (proposed 81.4 feet vs 85 feet required), creating a 3.6‑foot variance request.
Board counsel noted recent amendments referenced in the hearing to the state’s environmental laws that, as discussed, can exempt certain housing actions from environmental review; counsel recommended including a statement in the ZBA minutes reflecting the exemption determination. Fuller said the planning board had already reviewed technical comments and that the conceptual building footprints shown would fit within the proposed lots.
Members debated whether approving the variance would result in additional side‑yard variances later; counsel said future variance requests would be considered on their merits but recommended a minutes note explaining that lot‑line realignment could affect future decisions. Several members said removing abandoned, dilapidated buildings and adding housing is likely an improvement for the block; most also characterized the lot‑width difficulty as self‑created but nonetheless acceptable in context.
The board approved the lot‑width variance for Lot A by unanimous roll call, instructing staff to include counsel’s suggested note about environmental review and timing/extension language in the minutes. The approval advances the subdivision process back to the planning board for final land‑use approvals and map filing.

