The May meeting of the Hudson Zoning Board of Adjustment involved a pair of variance requests from Project Surveyor, Dan Barowski, from Fieldstone Land Consultants regarding a proposed subdivision at 173 Bush Hill Road.
“My ultimate goal with these variances is to subdivide the existing parcel into two residential lots,” Barowski explained. “We feel a variance for the minimum, non-contiguous, dry, non-steep lot area not negatively impact the town, and would allow for more housing, which is much needed in the state.”
He described the existing parcel as “large,” with 7.37 acres of land with just one, single-family house for the entire lot. Over half the lot was too steep to build on or covered in wetlands, the idea being to construct a new dwelling on the proposed subdivision in one of the dry areas. Waivers were needed because the unusual, long shape of the lots did not have 200 feet of required frontage meant to act as a buffer between lots.
“We believe Musquash Brook also provides adequate buffering between the existing house and the proposed new lot,” said Barowski.
He asked the ZBA to consider the geography of the lot. The second variance request dealt with having too little contiguous, dry land for a home on a subdivision. The house already on the property was on less than one acre of connected land where two acres would normally be required.
“There’s almost 15,000 square feet of wetlands,” said Barowski. “They’re configured in such a way that would prevent a large, contiguous area.”
The existing home has been on the lot for decades.
The public hearing session saw opposition from neighbors.
“The land’s been sold to a developer who now wants to put anything wherever they can get it. I think it has a lot of impact in many ways and that’s my problem.” Robert Boutin of 167 Bush Hill Road, who was worried a developer being unable to build a second house did not fall under the definition of “hardship,” a factor the Zoning Board must consider. “I’ve been there for over 20 years now, the wildlife is just amazing in that area, it’s going to have a big impact on that.”
Abutter, Chris Cambrils, of 9 Woodland Drive sent an email to the Board to express concerns that new housing in the area would destroy the “privacy and seclusion” of neighbors.
Dominic Jarry and Kay Nash of 175A Bush Hill Road also wrote to the ZBA expressing opposition to the subdivision plan, pinpointing the lack of acreage and poor road conditions as incompatible with another house in the area.
Barowski responded by saying he would be flexible with the location of the new house to alleviate any privacy concerns while confirming he planned to meet all environmental regulations.
Chair, Gary Daddario, reminded residents that some factors, like the location and length of the driveway, were not exactly relevant to what the Zoning Board was there to address.
“Sometimes, because this is the first stop, people mentioning concerns that are really going to be discussed more at a different board, at a different time,” said Daddario. “It’s all conceptual here.”
The ZBA was only looking at the two variances, not the location of the house or driveway, factors that would be overseen by the Planning Board.
Board members were uncertain about how to move forward.
“This is a tough one. Overall, it’s a big enough piece of property that it seems like there should be two houses, and the property owner should be able to do something with this space,” Daddario admitted. “At the same time, we’ve heard legitimate concerns about the proposal, it’s a tough case.”
There was discussion as to whether the shape of the property, which made a legal subdivision difficult, should be taken into account.
“The hardship is that I can’t develop it if I can’t get a variance, that argument, it strains me some,” said Board member, Dean Sakati. “It’s a choice to want to build and do something.”
The Zoning Board unanimously voted not to grant either variance request.
