In the public comment portion of the meeting, abutter George Mayurinik expressed concern that the long driveway would run along his property line. “It will be right outside my living room window, and right by my deck,” he said. His deck is 45 feet from his property line and the proposed driveway, Mayurinik said.
“It will have an immediate impact on me and my privacy,” he said. “It will impair my use and enjoyment of my property, due to the lack of privacy, and it may diminish the value.”
Mayurinik also criticized the configuration of the new lot, calling it a “panhandle” lot and expressing concern about police, fire and ambulance access and complications from snow plowing.
His neighbor David Nelson spoke on his behalf. Nelson suggested Peloquin and George find another way to get access to the back of Lot 4. “With a little reengineering, access could be squeezed between two of the 3-acre lots,” he suggested, adding, “The ‘hardship’ is being created by the developer.’
Putting the access road between lots 5 and 6 would necessitate crossing a wetland, George said, and “Conservation doesn’t like that.”
George offered to plant a row of trees as a buffer between Mayurinik and the access road/driveway.
The board drew back for its deliberations. Perkins observed that keeping Lot 8’s 15 acres undeveloped in exchange for a shortened frontage and long driveway is “a decent trade-off. That’s a lot of land going untouched.”
Perkins reiterated that the ZBA should ask George to put in a tree buffer. While Virr said, “That’s not our purview, it’s the Planning Board’s,” the ZBA agreed to request that the Planning Board put in a requirement for the buffer, and to make that part of their conditions for approval.
The board voted 4-1 to grant the variance. Member Joe Carnevale was the dissenting vote and said he voted no because in his opinion, “It doesn’t meet the criteria for a hardship.”
