Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
February 10, 2003
Members present: Daniel Baker; Clerk, Gerald Neiman, Coni Porter and Jane Roberts
Members absent: Kerry Gagne, Michael Methe; Chairman and Edwin Mattson
Mr. Baker opened the meeting at 7:33 p.m.
Mr. Baker told the applicant present this evening that they have four Board members present currently, and a full Board is five members. Mr. Baker continued by explaining that he would prefer to recuse himself from this case because he is a listed abutter, and if he does this, it would be a three member Board hearing this case. Mr. Baker told the Board that someone would have to chair the public hearing if he recused. Mr. Baker noted that the applicant would also have to be advised of the appeal process should he decide to go forward with the hearing this evening with less than a full Board.
Gerald Neiman agreed to chair the public hearing. Daniel Baker recused himself from the Board.
7:35 p.m. Case #03-01: Jeffrey Poston requests a Special Exception from Article V: Section 127-19 (F) of the Zoning Ordinance to replace the front stairs of the structure located at 12 Brigham Hill Road; Map 7, Lot 1-2 with a handicapped ramp while having less than the minimum 75’ required front yard setback. This property is located in the Rural District. –
Gerald Neiman told the applicant that there are only three members of the Board present this evening which is a quorum, however, the applicant has the right to continue the hearing until a date when a full Board can hear the case, or he can waive the full Board and proceed with the hearing this evening. Mr. Poston stated that he preferred to proceed this evening. The applicant was also advised that in the event his application were denied and he wished to appeal the Board’s decision, there is a process to be followed and it would not be granted simply because there were only three members present to hear the case. Mr. Poston told the Board that he understood.
Acting Chairman Neiman opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. and read the case title aloud. Mr. Neiman noted that all abutters were notified and there were no attendees from the public present. Mr. Neiman asked the applicant to tell the Board about his application.
Mr. Poston told the Board that his house was built in 1987 approximately, and is set back 50’ to 55’ from Brigham Hill Road, South. Two weeks ago the applicant’s wife’s 86 year old aunt from Oregon moved in with them. Mrs. Poston’s aunt has several medical conditions that preclude her from being able to go up and down stairs without assistance from him. Mr. Poston is looking to put a handicapped ramp on front of the house, which may come out 1’ further than the existing brick walkway. The ramp would go over the existing walkway and steps. Mr. Poston said that this project would be as close to ADA codes as possible, and explained that the front door prohibits full compliance in that there is a 31” height difference between the front door and the current walkway.
There is 18’ of lateral space between the driveway and the walkway, so the slope on the part parallel to the driveway would be greater than what ADA wants.
Coni Porter asked if their aunt was in a wheelchair, to which Mr. Poston stated that she uses a walker, but it is very difficult to use this on the steps. Mr. Neiman asked about the current number of steps. Mr. Poston stated that there are three steps and a half-step to get into the house. Mr. Neiman noted that a plan had been submitted with the application. Mr. Poston provided the Board with three additional drawings; A1, A2 and A3, and Mr. Neiman stated that they are to be made part of the record. The diagram shows a down slope of 1 to 12, which means 1” of rise for 12” of horizontal, which is ADA code. Mr. Poston said that the plan is an approximation.
Jane Roberts asked if this was the only way that the ramp could be put on the house, or if there were any side doors. Mr. Poston said that there are no side doors, although there is a deck off of the back of the house, approximately 6’ off of the ground. He explained the doors on the front of the house, of which there are actually three, and this plan has been figured to go to the door nearest to the driveway, which is located on the North side of the house. Coni clarified the location of the driveway, etc. Mr. Poston said that the front of the house is the only reasonable place to put this. The ramp would be made of pressure treated wood.
Mr. Neiman clarified that the back side of the house couldn’t be used because it was too high. Mr. Poston stated that this was correct and explained the 6’ height plus the area from the back lawn to the driveway where there is a 4’ high retaining wall. There would be a lot of length to run, height to accommodate, etc., as the land slopes. Coni clarified that the ramp would sit on top of the current walkway and steps. They are not planning to remove these things at this time, although they may look at making this more permanent this summer. Their concern right now is something to accommodate them because the ground is frozen. Coni noted that this is temporary, and asked Mr. Poston if he would come back if something changed with the permanent structure. Mr. Poston said that he would come
back if he needed to. Coni asked if he had given any thought as to how this would be made more permanent and Mr. Poston said that the only thought he has had so far is running some steps parallel to the second landing, and this is not definite, just a thought. Mr. Neiman explained that as long as the applicant stayed within the dimensions presented in the application he would not need to come back.
Mr. Neiman asked the Board if they had any questions about landscaping or other issues. Coni noted that this is pretty close to the edge of the road and asked if it was a dangerous intersection. Mr. Poston said that traffic has increased quite a bit due to Turtle Rock Rescue, and there are also some large trucks due to this. Mr. Neiman noted that the diagrams indicate that the ramp would extend from the front of the house 12’ 7 ”, and currently, the front of the house without the stairs is between 50’ and 55’ from the road, so there would be more than 30’ from the ramp to the road. Mr. Poston said that was correct.
Mr. Neiman asked the applicant if he had anything further that he wanted to tell the Board. Mr. Poston told the Board that he hopes they approve this because carrying their aunt is a lot of work. He is away from the house for 12 hours a day easily, and his wife has a repaired back, and in the event of an emergency this ramp would make it a lot easier.
Mr. Neiman closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m.
Mr. Neiman stated that the Board must review the mandatory findings. Mr. Neiman asked if there was any discussion from the Board. Jane Roberts stated that she felt that this request was very reasonable. Mr. Neiman agreed and said particularly because it is for the benefit of a handicapped person to use the home. The Board reviewed the mandatory criteria for the proposed use:
1.) Is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. –
Mr. Neiman noted that the Town’s code indicates that the purpose is to promote and conserve the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the town, among other purposes, and he feels that this is the case with this application. Coni Porter and Jane Roberts agreed and the Board voted unanimously that this application meets this finding.
2.) Will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place. –
Coni Porter said that she does not think this would be injurious, but she thinks that the road may become an issue for the applicant. The applicant said that he does not think it will be an issue. Mr. Neiman stated that the neighborhood is one of residences and this ramp is for the benefit of the inhabitants and he does not see any harm in that. The Board voted unanimously that this proposal would not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood.
3.) Is appropriate for the site in question. –
Mr. Neiman stated that once again with this being for a residence and the reasons stated, he feels this application is appropriate for the site in question. The Board unanimously agreed.
4.) Complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter. –
Mr. Neiman noted that the special exception the applicant is seeking is for a setback, and other than that exception, he feels this meets the requirements of this chapter. The Board unanimously agreed.
5.) With respect to dimensional requirements establishes that there exist special conditions that make the meeting of these requirements unduly burdensome. Mr. Neiman noted that they have heard testimony that the driveway is next to the house and the rear of the house would require a far greater ramp with a much higher grade. Mr. Neiman said that he feels this is a special condition and he would grant this under these conditions. The Board unanimously agreed with this statement.
Coni Porter made a motion to grant the Special Exception for the application submitted by Jeffrey Poston. Gerald Neiman seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Administrative Work
*** Review and approve September 16, 2002 meeting minutes – Gerald Neiman moved to accept the minutes of September 16, 2002 as written. Jane Roberts seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
*** Review Notices of Decision issued by the Planning Board (Oct. – Jan.) – Postponed.
*** Review letter received from Joan McLaughlin – Mr. Baker noted that this is informational only and there is no action to be taken by the Board.
Correspondence
*** Review letter from Gardner, Fulton & Waugh P.L.L.C. re: staff announcements
*** OSP’s State Planning Newsletter (Dec./Jan.)
At 8:26 p.m. Jane Roberts made a motion to adjourn. Coni Porter seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Margo M. Best
Administrative Assistant
Land Use
| 
