Zoning Board Approves Reconfiguring Condo Subdivision

The Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) has approved the redesign of two lots on Mammoth Road to allow the addition of eight condominiums to a lot previously allowed to hold 19 condos, and to reduce another lot that would have had nine condos to have only its pre-existing dwelling.
The developer, known as 381 Mammoth Rd., LLC, requested through attorney Morgan Hollis of the law firm Gottesman & Hollis that lot 57 be expanded to include all but 2 acres from another adjoining lot.

“The property consists of two lots, Lot 57 at 381 Mammoth Road and lot 60 at 389 Mammoth Road,” Hollis said at the Wednesday, Aug. 21 ZBA meeting. Both lots are located in an AR (agricultural/residential) zone and are under one owner. There is sewer and water available, and the intent is to connect up with the sewer and water in the development.”

Hollis said the proposal is to merge the two lots to make one development, cutting the 389 Mammoth Road lot, which is a frontage lot of approximately 2.89 acres, and leaving the remainder of the lot at 381 Mammoth at 17.8 acres, which is currently at 9.82 acres.
Hollis said the existing house at 389 Mammoth Road would remain and have 2.89 acres, and 381 Mammoth Road would increase from 9.2 acres to 17.81 acres.

“As you see at 389, there is a house and that house would remain on 2 acres, the rest of 381 and 389 would be combined for a total of 17.8 acres,” he explained, saying that would allow approximately 19 units. “What we’re asking for is 27 units. So the variance is to allow 27 units on a piece of land consisting of 17.8 acres, where only 19 units would be permitted. We’re asking for an increase in density.”

Hollis said they have added almost eight acres from one property to the other to accommodate the additional eight units. “We’re going to take some of the approved units at 381 and spread them over onto 389. We’re increasing the density that would be allowed on lot 60 and decreasing the density on lot 57,” Hollis said.

In October 2012, a variance was granted allowing 19 units on 9.82 acres, and with the addition of the eight acres from lot 60 added to those 9.82 acres, the developer is requesting that eight more units be allowed. Hollis said that originally, the two properties would have had two curb cuts; with this plan, only one curb cut is required.

Board Chairman Jim Smith asked where the sewer would be accessed and Jack Szemplinski of Benchmark Engineering said it was located on the other side of Mammoth Road and readily accessible.
Board member Larry O’Sullivan pointed out that the road went from a straight road to a “Y”-shaped road with a cul-de-sac at each end, and asked if the condos would be all single family.
Hollis said the units would be condominiums because the land would be owned by the developer, and separate lots would not be subdivided into separate lots.

Resident Pauline Caron asked if there would be a clubhouse and Hollis said that there would not be one. Caron noted that there was a gas line easement running through the property and asked how close a dwelling could be to the gas easement. Szemplinski said a dwelling could be placed right next to the easement, as there were no ordinances restricting placement near the easement.

Resident Tom Thibedeau, who is an abutter, said he was concerned about traffic increases in town and the density contributing to more traffic on Mammoth Road. O’Sullivan responded that they had discussed traffic in the past and that on the opposite side of the street there were two developments going in, one on Trail Haven Drive and another just north of it.

He asked if there would be another traffic light on Mammoth Road, where “there were none when we moved in. “The intention here is not significantly increasing density from what we last time approved. It is increasing density for that lot that we’re talking about here, but in my opinion they’re making it more feasible for us by having one intersection as opposed to two on Mammoth Road,” O’Sullivan said.

The board voted unanimously to grant the variance with two restrictions: that it have planning board approval and that the planning board approval be in an 18-month time frame.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.