Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2004
Members present: Daniel Baker, Edwin Mattson, Jane Roberts, Gerald Neiman; Alternate, Margaret Wittenborg and Coni Porter
Selectmen present: Susan S. Silverman
Dan Baker agreed to chair this meeting and opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Public Hearings
7:30 p.m. Case #04-07: Thomas F. & June E. Parker request a Special Exception under Article V. Section 127-19 (F) of the Fitzwilliam Land Usage Regulations to allow a reduction in road frontage for one of three new lots to be created on property located at 139 West Lake Road, Tax Map 11; Lot 2 located in the Rural District. – Acting Chairman Baker opened this public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and read the case title aloud. Thomas F. & June E. Parker were present.
Mr. Baker explained the Boards’ procedure to the applicants advising them that first, the applicant explains his proposal to the Board, the Board then allows public comment either in favor of or against the proposal, and the speaker is asked to state their name for the record, and then the public hearing is closed and the Board proceeds to a discussion and a vote, to which the applicant is welcome to stay for.
Mr. Parker provided the Board with an old survey to review and explained that he and Mrs. Parker own two adjacent lots; one being 22 acres in size and the other being approximately 20 acres in size. Mr. Parker explained that there is limited frontage on the 22 acre lot, which they are proposing to subdivide and create two new lots out of. Mr. and Mrs. Parker intend to sell their existing home and build a new home on one of the new lots noting that the house they currently live in is too big for them and is getting older, and as they get older, the upkeep on their older home is more difficult.
Mr. Parker and the Board reviewed the survey and Mr. Parker explained that the 20 acre lot adjacent to the 22 acre lot is not germane to this application. The property extends to Webb Hill Road where Mr. Parker also has no legal access since the road was discontinued some time ago. Mr. Parker and his neighbor Jim Ayers did a boundary line adjustment several years ago which allowed Mr. Parker to obtain a 100’ strip of land which would allow access to the land in the back and actually allow for the creation of a hammerhead lot. Mr. Baker asked if it were protocol for an applicant to come to this Board before going to the Planning Board about granting a hammerhead lot and Mr. Parker stated that the application before them is not for a hammerhead lot but for substandard
road frontage for a lot. Mr. Parker explained that the lot has 247’ and the Land Use Regulations allow for a 50’ reduction in road frontage if the lot is doubled in size, and since he has 247’ he is seeking relief to waive 3’ of the required 250’. Mr. Parker then pointed out his estimated lines dividing the parcel into the three lots explaining that his proposal is a good division of land. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Parker if he went to the Planning Board for a preliminary or if he just came here. Mr. Parker stated that he only needs a Special Exception for the reduction of 3’ in the frontage requirement, and there is nothing requiring him to meet with the Planning Board first. Mr. Parker added that this is a Zoning Board of Appeals and Paul Grasewicz had actually recommended that he come to this Board first. Mr. Baker stated for the record and for the Board to be clear on that if this Special Exception were to be granted, it would not be granting a
subdivision, it would only allow for this 6 acre lot to have 247’ of road frontage instead of the required 250’ of road frontage.
Lastly, Mr. Parker reviewed the mandatory criteria for granting a Special Exception, and gave the Board his determinations regarding these. First, Mr. Parker stated that this proposal is in harmony as he is willing to go with a 6 acre lot to be granted relief of 3’ for the required road frontage, having 247’ and needing 250’; next, this proposal is not detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood as nothing will change; Mr. Parker feels that it is appropriate for the site in question, and it complies with all applicable requirements once you leave the road lines, and lastly with regards to dimensional requirements and special conditions making the meeting of these unduly burdensome, Mr. Parker said that the house has been there for 30 years and it has
always had 247’ of road frontage and he feels that denying this would be unduly burdensome given the amount of acreage that he has.
Board member Coni Porter asked about the reduced road frontage that Mr. Parker was speaking about and was referred to Section 127-19 C. in the Land Use Regulations. Mr. Parker explained this to her. Board member Margaret Wittenborg asked if the pins on the property were put in in 1992, and Mr. Parker explained that some of them were and some of them were set years earlier when the Popple property had been surveyed. Ms. Porter asked about future plans for the 22 acre parcel as granting this would create a strip to access the back. Mr. Parker said that he and Mrs. Parker are looking to downsize and he has no future plans to develop the 22 acres. Mr. Parker added that there is no road frontage for the back either, and his only plans are to build a new house about half of the
size of what he and Mrs. Parker currently have. Selectwoman Susan Silverman added that the strip of land could allow for a hammerhead lot but that lot could not be further subdivided. Ms. Porter then sought clarification of what exactly they would be granting if this Special Exception were granted noting that most of their cases are referred by the Planning Board. Granting the Special Exception would give the applicant the right to subdivide his land with one of the lots having 247’ frontage provided that it meets all of the other criteria, so they would be granting a 3’ waiver in the frontage amount required.
Acting Chairman Baker asked for any abutter or public comment. Gerald Neiman asked if this were granted if it would then go to the Planning Board. Mr. Parker told him that it would and he intends to ask for a three lot subdivision, with two lots having frontage on West Lake Road and the third lot to be applied for would be a hammerhead lot. Mr. Neiman clarified that the applicant was asking for a Special Exception to reduce the frontage of one lot by 3’ to have a more logical division of the property lines, and then confirmed that without this approval the subdivision could still be done but in a more awkward manner. Mr. Parker said that was correct and the awkward manner would not be a good division of the land. Mr. Neiman noted that this would allow for a third lot
though. Mr. Parker stated that he intends to have plans drawn up for three lots.
Mr. Baker asked if there were any other comments. Mrs. Silverman stated that the applicant spoke of the Boundary Line Adjustment he had done several years ago and that opportunity would have been the best time to have done this and it would have made more sense to do it at that time. Mr. Parker stated that he didn’t realize he had only 247’ at that time.
With there being no further comments, Mr. Baker closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Board. Ms. Porter confirmed that this 3’ exception does not affect the subdivision. Mr. Baker said that the applicant has considered the fact that the lot could be created with the 250’ that is required, but the lots would not be symmetrical. Mrs. Wittenborg added that creating the lots that way could create a situation with potential problems down the road and the applicant is trying to avoid that by getting the 3’ exception.
The Board moved on to voting on the criteria with the following findings. The proposed use:
1. Is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter – The Board voted unanimously that this proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter and the subdivision process would be simplified as well.
2. Will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place – The Board voted unanimously that with all things considered, this proposal would not detrimental or injurious.
3. Is appropriate for the site in question – The Board voted unanimously that this proposal is appropriate for the site in question.
4. Complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter – The Board voted unanimously that this proposal complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter.
5. With respect to dimensional requirements establishes that there exist special conditions that make the meeting of these requirements unduly burdensome – The Board voted unanimously that special conditions exist that make meeting the dimensional requirements unduly burdensome.
Acting Chairman Baker asked for a motion noting the certain points relevant in the approval in that they are approving the Special Exception as requested for one lot to have 247’ of frontage, and that this approval does not constitute subdivision approval or acceptance of a hammerhead lot.
Jane Roberts moved to grant the Special Exception to Thomas and June Parker to allow one lot with 247’ of road frontage at property located at 139 West Lake Road, Tax Map 11; Lot 2 in the Rural District. This Special Exception is not subdivision approval and it is not acceptance of a hammerhead lot, both of which are to be acted on by the Planning Board. Margaret Wittenborg seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
7:50 p.m. Continued Public Hearing for Case #04-05: Frank Bateman requests a Special Exception under Article V. Section 127-19 (F) of the Fitzwilliam Land Usage Regulations to construct an addition onto the existing building located at 133 Rockwood Pond Road while having less than the minimum required side yard setback. This property is known as Tax Map 38; Lot 4 and is located in the Rural District. – Acting Chairman Baker opened this public hearing at 8:08 p.m. noting that this is a continuation of a public hearing held on May 11, 2004. A site walk was conducted on May 18, 2004. Board member Margaret Wittenborg recused herself from the Board to allow Alternate member Gerald Neiman sit on the Board since Mr. Neiman heard the case at the first public hearing and was present at the site
walk. Mr. and Mrs. Bateman were present. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Bateman to proceed.
Mr. Bateman thanked the Board for going to his property to view the site and see the challenge that he was faced with. Mr. Bateman stated that the Board had requested, that he have a surveyor go out to the property and establish the boundary lines, however, Mr. Bateman’s surveyor Mr. Goodrich has not responded to him as of yet. In an effort to solve this problem, Mr. Bateman went to the Cheshire County Registry of Deeds and obtained a copy of the certified plan that they have on file showing the property, which he turned into Margo earlier today. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Bateman if there was a description as to how far from the property corner to the house, or a point that could me measured and Mr. Bateman said that there is not. Mr. Bateman explained the solution he came
up with which was to enlarge the plan three times which now shows the scale of 1” being 3” which allowed him to measure the distances, and the closest corner is 3 ½’ from the house. Mr. Bateman questioned if they could be permitted to build no closer than 3’ from the property line.
Mrs. Roberts stated that at the site walk, Mr. Bateman pointed out the location of the well and the septic system, but she would like to know the actual distance from the house to these. Mr. Bateman said that the well is 18’ from the house on one end, and the septic system is 15’ from the other end of the house.
Acting Chairman Baker addressed Mr. Bateman and asked just to clarify that the plan being used is a photocopy that has been blown up, and Mr. Bateman stated that it is a photocopy of the original Mylar and that is what he has been using. Mr. Baker then clarified that what they are looking at is measurements taken from a photocopy that they cannot be sure are dimensionally accurate. Mr. Baker said that he needs to make that point and he explained that photocopies are not exact, they are facsimiles, and Mr. Bateman is talking about an enlarged copy of a relatively small dimension that he has taken from a photocopy that has been blown up three times. Mr. Baker said that the point needs to be established that this is not a legal survey, and he cannot accept this copy as such.
Mr. Baker added that the Board did ask for a legal survey because they are being asked to take a legal dimension that is within a fraction of the zoning ordinance which is very, very tight. Mr. Baker then mentioned the concern expressed by the abutter in a letter that was read at the first public hearing over the actual property line placement. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Bateman to continue.
Mr. Bateman stated that he has a pin on the property so if he could get the surveyor to come out he could get this taken care of. Mr. Baker said that he understands what Mr. Bateman is trying to do but he is very close to the property line and in the final analysis there are some things to deal with, and he explained to Mr. Bateman that first off he would have to question if this is an appropriate exception, because putting something so close to the line is contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Baker explained that you have the right to use your property within the setbacks, not by going to the line or within 2’ or 3’ of it and restricting others of the use of their property, and the Board is having a tough time with this. Mr. Baker added that the other
item that they have to deal with is the abutter whose property is currently in litigation for dissolution as he has expressed concern that clear boundary lines need to be established. Mr. Baker then told Mr. Bateman that he understands that he has spent a lot of time on this and he is trying to explain what the Board is up against as respectfully as possible, but he cannot get past these points and the fact that this is so close that it is beyond reasonable use which is within their purview to hear. Mr. Baker stated that he is not speaking for the other Board members, just for himself, and he thinks that there needs to be some discussion about this.
Coni Porter told Mr. Bateman that the minimum side yard setback for this district is 20’, and this is what the town tries to adhere to and this is what their job is, and the 3’ that he is requesting is very different than 20’. Ms. Porter noted that the property in dissolution will be heard in court next April and at some point this property will no longer be in dispute.
Gerald Neiman clarified that Mr. Bateman is asking the Board to consider a wide convergence of what the zoning regulations require and in addition to that he is asking them to grant a Special Exception on a boundary line that is disputed and then told Mr. Bateman that as difficult as this property is to do something with, he does have the option to expand upwards without changing the footprint, which Mr. Neiman understands is not their first choice, and then added that this would not need the Boards’ approval.
Mrs. Bateman told the Board that they have also provided a plan of the house itself in relation to the addition which the Board also asked for, and added that their neighbor Mr. Welsh is not disputing the boundary line.
At this point Mr. Baker read aloud the letters that were filed over the past few days with regards to this case. Letters were submitted by Charles & Sharron Wojciechowski, Robert Welsh, Phyllis Bateman and Polly Knowles. Three of the letters are in support of this application, however, Mr. Welsh wrote again noting that it is imperative that accurate and current boundary lines are clearly established and properly surveyed, and reminded the Board that this abutting property, Map 38; Lot 05 is under litigation in the Cheshire County Superior Court. Mr. Baker stated that these letters are being entered as part of the record for this case.
Mr. Baker picked up where they left off with two points that need to be addressed; they do have a dimensional map that does more clearly delineate the main house, the living room and the proposed addition, and they have a redrawing of approximately 3’ from the lot line at one point, and 7 ½’ from the other point. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Bateman if he had any further comments or statements for the Board or if he had any questions. Mr. Bateman asked if there was any other possible way to solve this problem to get this lot line variance. Mr. Baker told Mr. Bateman that the Board is very concerned and they will take a vote if that is what he wants, but it may be better to withdraw the application and come back at a later time after the abutting property is worked
out, and this is not a guarantee that the application would be granted, however, Mr. Bateman may be able to work something out with the abutter. Mr. Baker told Mr. Bateman that these are options that he has and Ms. Porter noted that he could always come back before the Board.
Mrs. Bateman told the Board that she wanted to say that she thinks that the abutter, Mr. Welsh is saying that he wants the property surveyed, and not that the lines are not where they are saying that they are. Mr. Baker noted that the specific request was that the property be surveyed and that the abutters receive a copy of it. Mrs. Bateman asked the Board if she could speak with her husband for a moment. Mrs. Bateman told her husband that they should withdraw the application because the Board would not vote in favor it. Mr. Bateman withdrew his application and thanked the Board very much for their time. This continued public hearing was closed at 8:23 p.m.
8:05 p.m. Case #04-09: Claire Borowski requests a Special Exception under Article III. Section 127-11 (G) to allow a combined business/dwelling at property located at 68 NH RT 119 West, Tax Map 32; Lot 9 located in the Residential and Historic Overlay District – Acting Chairman Baker opened this public hearing at 8:25 p.m. and read the case title aloud. Claire Borowski was present. Mr. Baker explained the procedure in that the Board hears from the applicant, asks for public comment either for or against the proposal and then the public hearing is closed and the Board has discussion and considers the criteria. Mr. Baker asked the audience to address the Board with any questions and then asked Ms. Borowski to tell the Board what she proposes to do.
Ms. Borowski told the Board that she would like to take the first floor front room of the property and make it into an antiques shop. The property is the former Betty Henry house located on the Common between the Blake House Museum and John Fitzwilliam’s property. The Board clarified the property as lot 9 on the map that Ms. Borowski submitted with her application. The building has two dwelling units. This would be a one room shop primarily open on weekends. Mr. Baker questioned if there was a description of what she was proposing to do on the application. It was noted that the Planning Board minutes reflect this as well as the public notice. Mr. Baker asked the applicant to put this information on the application and this was entered into the record.
Mrs. Roberts noted the Planning Board minutes and that they mentioned that an antiques business is selling and the two previous businesses in this building were service businesses; real estate and interior design. Mrs. Roberts said that she knows of some crafts that were sold there in one of the rooms although she doesn’t recall if she had a sign. Mr. Baker noted that that was before zoning. Ms. Porter added that the Planning Board also said that because there had not been a business in the building for more than a year, a Special Exception was required and she questioned if this refers to a change in the use. Macreay Land, Planning Board member was present and told the Board that the previous business was a Home Occupation, and had this proposed business been that
then she would not have had to come here. This proposed business is a retail operation and needs a Special Exception for retail sales which is a necessity. Mrs. Wittenborg asked if the Planning Board had evidence that there has not been a business there for more than a year now noting that there has been a sign there which began a detailed conversation of the differences in Home Occupation vs. Home Business and the Town’s regulations regarding such. Mr. Landy explained that the most recent business in this building was interior decorating which is a service business not a retail business. Selectwoman Susan Silverman provided some additional information on Home Business and Home Occupation. Mrs. Wittenborg noted that the distinction between the two is not a huge difference and Mr. Landy said that this is a gray area and historically a business has been conducted from the premises as are most of the houses on the Common. Mr. Baker said that he thinks that the point for
the Board is that Home Occupation is a permitted use in the Village District under the guidelines of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Baker asked for additional questions. Mrs. Roberts clarified that the shop would be open on weekends to which Ms. Borowski said that she planned to be open primarily on weekends as she works Monday through Friday, but she may decide to open on a Friday afternoon. Ms. Borowski is not looking for any restrictions. Ms. Porter asked about parking. Ms. Borowski said that she and her tenant park out front and she does not have designated parking. Ms. Borowski feels that there is plenty of space along the street and she has never seen a problem with it. Mr. Mattson asked what the State says about winter parking and Ms. Borowski said that they do not allow overnight parking during the winter.
Mr. Baker asked what the square footage of the shop would be. Ms. Borowski explained that the house is 3,300 sq. ft. and she would use one 14x14 room, roughly 300 sq. ft. Ms. Porter asked Mac Landy who was present in the audience how may cars are at his shop at a time typically, and Mr. Landy said two if he was lucky. Brian Luddy stated that he owns an antiques shop on Richmond Road and he did not have to appear before this Board, but he often has two cars at his shop and a lot of the time there is only one car there. Mr. Baker asked for any other questions for the applicant of the proposal. There were none. Mr. Baker then opened this to the public.
John Fitzwilliam told the Board that he would like to point out that the Blake House Museum actually ran a similar retail operation until recently and they did this with no off-street parking and there were no problems with traffic or parking, and he himself has a had a clock shop right next door for 17 years, and he has had no problems nor does he see a competition with Claire’s parking ability.
Les Black introduced himself noting that he is here with his wife Deb Black, and they are the owners of the Christmas in Fitzwilliam Store directly across the Common from the proposed use, and he would like to respectfully suggest to the Board that the real significance of the previous uses of this building whether they were legally different, and the current uses of the surrounding buildings, and the fact that a small personal business such as an antiques shop, is an appropriate use for a building on the Common, and is in keeping with the area. Mr. Black stated that he and his wife fully support this application.
John Fitzwilliam told the Board that that the Whittemore Block building was actually an active retail store back in the mid-19th century and the sign for that still hangs there.
Macreay Landy added that there is additional parking along Richmond Road.
Brian Luddy told the Board that he just wanted to say that he is in total support of this application and he thinks that it is a good use for the Village area and it attracts people to the other businesses.
John Fitzwilliam added that he too, would like to vouch for Claire’s use of the property.
With there being no further abutter comment, the public hearing was closed at 8:47 p.m.
Mr. Neiman addressed Acting Chairman Baker regarding this application and said that unless he is reviewing the ordinance incorrectly it is not for the use of a Home Business or Home Occupation which requires on-site parking, but rather for 127-11 G. a combined business/dwelling with retail sales, and where on-site parking is not a requirement. Mr. Baker said that he was trying to determine in the beginning what this application was for and Home Business/Home Occupation was discussed, but the application is for a Special Exception under 127-11 G. submitted by the applicant, not the Planning Board. There was then some discussion about the district and then what is allowed in the district. Sections 127-11 and 127-14 were reviewed. Margo told the Board that the Planning Board did refer this under 127-11 G as the minutes
state. The Planning Board reviewed 127-14 Home Business/Home Occupation and this does not qualify for that because of the parking, so they referred Claire under 127-11 G. Combined business/dwelling, because the parking is not an issue for that and it covers the business and dwelling uses. Mr. Baker referred Mr. Neiman to the Table of Principal Uses and there was more discussion. Mr. Baker stated that a Home Business/Home Occupation is allowable in the Residential District and Ms. Borowski would not need to come before the Board for this, but she is not here for that use, she is here for a combined business/dwelling which requires a Special Exception in the Residential District.
With there being no further questions or discussion the Board moved to voting on the criteria and found that he proposed use:
1. Is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter – The Board voted unanimously that this proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter.
2. Will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place – The Board voted unanimously that this proposal is not detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood and commented that it fits into the neighborhood beautifully.
3. Is appropriate for the site in question – The Board voted that this proposal is appropriate for the site and is located right next to a historic museum.
4. Complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter – The Board voted unanimously that this proposal complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter.
5. With respect to dimensional requirements establishes that there exist special conditions that make the meeting of these requirements unduly burdensome – This item is not applicable to this application.
Margaret Wittenborg moved to grant the Special Exception to Claire Borowski for a combined business/dwelling. Coni Porter seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Mr. Baker told Ms. Borowski that she would receive a notice of decision in the mail.
8:20 p.m. Case #04-08: David Spicer requests a Special Exception under Article V. Section 127-19 (F) to allow a reduction in the front and rear yard setbacks to demolish the existing seasonal cottage and replace it with a three-bay garage for boat storage at property located at 8 Spicer Point Road, Tax Map 21; Lot 20 located in the Rural District. – Acting Chairman Baker apologized to the applicant for being so late and opened this public hearing at 8:55 p.m. and read the case title aloud. Mr. Baker explained the Board’s procedure for public hearings in that they first hear from the applicant who presents his case, and then they ask for any abutter comment either for or against the proposal, then they close the public hearing and have discussion among themselves and then
they vote on the criteria unless they determine that further information is needed. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Spicer to present his case.
Mr. Spicer explained that he has a nonconforming lot on Laurel Lake with a nonconforming structure on it; a seasonal cottage with two septic systems of which at least one is operational. Mr. Spicer is proposing to tear down the cottage and remove the septic systems, and build a three bay garage to store boats in. A diagram of the proposed building was attached to the application and Mr. Spicer said that he has not ordered the building yet as he wanted to obtain approval first. Mr. Spicer currently owns three boats.
Mr. Spicer told the Board that the other alternatives he sees are to fix the cottage up, which needs a lot of repair, or replace it and then rent it out during the summer. Mr. Spicer noted that his desire is to build a garage for boat storage which he thinks is a more conforming use for the property. This is a shoreline issue with the current building line being within 8’ of the reference line of the cottage and Mr. Spicer explained that he has applied for the appropriate waiver and he has been dealing with Darlene Forst at DES with regards to this.
Mr. Spicer provided the Board with some other benefits that this proposal would provide which include the septic system being within 30’ of the lake, the fact that the cottage is over 90 years old and removal of it would be beneficial to the neighbors and the neighboring properties. Mr. Spicer explained that on one side of the property is his cottage (western side), and this lot is actually more than 180’ from the public way. Spicer Point Road is off of East Lake Road and the driveway goes to Mr. Spicer’s cottage and his sister’s cottage. This lot adjoins the bottom part where the 45.4’ is shown on the drawing is a surveyed road with deeded rights for the properties on that road. Mr. Baker asked if the existing driveway as drawn on the plan is
access to another property. Mr. Spicer said it is the access to his cottage which is a separate property from the property that this application is for. Mr. Mattson asked about the abutting property which belongs to Mr. Spicer’s sister. Mr. Baker asked if the driveway is an access by deed and Mr. Spicer said that it used to be until he bought the property. Mr. Spicer explained that where it shows driveway right of way is where he has a right of way over Buddy Stone’s property. There is no access granted on the deed so Mr. Spicer could put the garage anywhere on his property. There was some discussion about possibly moving the driveway, etc.
Ms. Porter asked if she could look at the tax map for this property and Margo provided this for the Board to review. Ms. Porter asked about trees on the lot and Mr. Spicer pointed out where there are trees and told the Board that he would not be taking down any trees. Ms. Porter questioned if the State would approve this and Mr. Spicer explained that under RSA 483:B he is authorized to rebuild to the current building footprint, and the only time you can change the footprint is if it makes the situation more conforming or a better situation, and this has to be approved by the State. Mr. Spicer noted that the State is looking at this as they are getting rid of a septic system close to a lake. Mr. Baker asked if it was septic system or a holding tank and Mr. Spicer said that it
is a septic system and there are two tanks of which one is operational and evidently some time back when the first tank needed replacing, rather than take the first one out, another one was put in adjacent to the first tank.
Mrs. Silverman asked if there would be water in the form of a well to this cottage and Mr. Spicer said no. Mrs. Roberts clarified that this would be used strictly for storage. Mr. Spicer said that there would be no water, sewer or heating, just electricity. Ms. Porter noted that the roof line is actually lower on the proposed structure and Mr. Spicer said that this would be less intrusive to the neighbors. Ms. Porter asked Mr. Spicer why he wanted to rebuild in the same spot and Mr. Spicer said that he thought that it would be less intrusive to keep the front of the building where it is and not move the driveway. They reviewed the lot dimensions, building dimensions and setbacks. Ms. Porter asked if a dock or anything else would be added and Mr. Spicer said that he has
always had a dock and he removed a deck that hung over the shoreline, and he has no plans to build anything. There is a boat landing and the garage would be for dry storage for his boats. Mr. Spicer stated that he believes that this proposal is more conforming to the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mrs. Silverman asked about the layout of the building and which way the bay doors would be facing. Mr. Spicer said that he may expand the driveway a little bit with gravel. Mrs. Silverman asked if he would be pouring a slab and Mr. Spicer said that he would have footings and a concrete slab would be poured.
Mr. Mattson clarified that Mr. Spicer does have to apply with the State to which Mr. Spicer said that he submitted his application to the State on April 30, 2004 and it is a request for a waiver that would allow him to rebuild a structure within 8’ of the shoreline. Mr. Baker questioned if the Board had all of the same information that the State has and Mr. Spicer said that he did not file a copy of the Shoreland Protection Act application for the State with the Board previously, and gave Mr. Baker a copy to put in the case file.
Mr. Baker asked if there were any abutters present who wanted to speak on this application. Jeanne Drugg was the only abutter present, and told the Board that she felt that Mr. Spicer had put together a good plan.
Ms. Porter questioned if Mr. Spicer had spoken with his other abutters or if he received anything from them. Mr. Spicer said that he has spoken with Stillman Stone many times as he has been thinking about doing this for a few years now. Mr. Spicer noted that Mr. Stone does not have a problem with this, and he has not been able to speak with Robert and Susan Jones.
There was some discussion about the square footage and Mr. Mattson noted that this proposal does increase it substantially and questioned if this would be an issue for the State. Mr. Spicer said that the State was taking the reduction of the second floor into consideration. The cottage is 16’x25’ with two full bedrooms. Mrs. Silverman noted that the fact that this is changing the use from a dwelling with a septic system and water, etc., to a storage use without septic facilities makes a big difference in the impact; however, she is concerned about the construction phase of this project and excavating near the lake. Mrs. Silverman added that she feels that this proposal is a favorable change in that this would never be a dwelling again and this area is so dense
with dwellings. Mr. Baker asked if there is a foundation underneath the cottage and Mr. Spicer explained that it is sitting on granite blocks but he doesn’t know how far down they go. Mrs. Silverman asked how they would prevent erosion being only 8’ from the lake. Mr. Carl Goldknopf a resident of Rhododendron Road present at tonight’s meeting stated that in reality, you do not have to put a 4’ deep foundation in under a structure, especially if it is not occupied, and you could put sauna tubes in the corners and run a 2’ grade down along the edge and not have to dig down 4’; you could drill down 4’ in the corners and use a porous back fill material like crushed stone or something, that would allow whatever water is underneath there to drain below the foundation so that it would not be susceptible to frost. Mr. Goldknopf noted that a structural engineer could come up with a good design to do this. Acting Chairman Baker thanked Mr. Goldknopf
for his input. Mr. Spicer stated that he did not know how deep the foundation would be or what exactly would be done for this.
With there being no further questions or comments this public hearing was closed at 9:27 p.m. The Board moved onto discussion of this application.
Ms. Porter stated that she felt that it was important to discuss how to approach this noting the last application before them that dealt with the Shoreline Protection Act. Ms. Porter questioned conditional use approval by this Board if the State application is approved. Mr. Neiman said that he didn’t think that was necessary because without acceptance from the State, it doesn’t matter what this Board does, this decision would be moot. Mrs. Silverman noted that the Board could put conditions on any decision that they make, and in this case they should consider language stating that this structure would not be dwelling space, and she added that this is not to say that the applicant would look to do this but it is just precautionary for the future. Mr. Goldknopf
asked to respond to that and said that there is nothing stating that in the future a future buyer with the intent of turning it into a home could not do that. Mr. Baker stated that they would have to go through the proper channels. Mrs. Silverman said that since the Board has some concern about the other case they heard and Mr. Spicer may not own this property forever; attaching a condition would make this more restrictive. Mr. Baker questioned how binding a condition would be if someone were to go through the application process and a septic system were approved, etc. Mrs. Silverman said that when a person comes in with an application, the person that issues permits would review the property file and see that conditions had been attached to the property stating that the property was not to be used for dwelling purposes, and as far as enforcement issues go, this would give them something to go by. Mr. Neiman said that he feels that there is a value in putting a condition on
this; that there not be any occupied living space in this structure noting that they are being asked to consider a change in the boundary and the structure, not in the use of the structure, and although the Board understands what the intended use is, the application is not for the use, so why not condition that the structure is not to be used as a home or residence.
With their being no further discussion points, the Board moved onto voting on the mandatory findings and found that the proposed use:
1. Is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter – The Board voted unanimously in favor of this item with Coni Porter noting that this proposal is an improvement in a high density area with a low impact use, and Gerald Neiman noting that the proposed use promotes and preserves health and welfare to the town.
2. Will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place – The Board voted unanimously that this proposal would not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood with Gerald Neiman noting that the change in use from a residence to storage is an improvement, the removal of the septic system is an improvement and a reduction in the overall height to be seen is beneficial to the neighborhood.
3. Is appropriate for the site in question – The Board voted unanimously that this proposal is appropriate for the site.
4. Complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter – The Board voted unanimously that this proposal complies with the requirements of this chapter.
5. With respect to dimensional requirements establishes that there exist special conditions that make the meeting of these requirements unduly burdensome – The Board voted unanimously that special conditions exist with regards to dimensional requirements in that the location of the driveway, and the existing nonconformance of the lot make meeting these requirements unduly burdensome.
Acting Chairman Baker noted that all of the items of criteria have been met and asked for motion noting the point that the Board found to be relevant in that the new structure is to be used as a storage facility and not as a residence.
Gerald Neiman moved to grant the Special Exception to David Spicer on the condition that the structure to be built is to be used strictly for storage, and specifically, is not to be used as a home occupation or a residence. Jane Roberts seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Administrative Work
*** Review and approve May 11, 2004 Meeting Minutes and May 18, 2004 Site Walk Minutes - Coni Porter moved to accept the minutes of May 11. 2004, and the May 18, 2004 Site Walk minutes. Margaret Wittenborg seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Correspondence
*** Notices of Decision issued by the Planning Board (May 2004) – Reviewed
Other Business
Mr. Baker reminded the Board that election of officers is supposed to be done in May and they did discuss this at their last meeting. This was not on the agenda this evening. Mr. Baker told the Board that he has been on the Board for almost fifteen years and he wants people to seriously consider taking a role. Mr. Baker added that Mike Methe left the Board and Gerry may be leaving which will make it very difficult for the Board. Mr. Baker is willing to stay on for one more year and renewed his appointment for just that. Mr. Baker stated that they need to comply with their charter. The election of officers will be on the next meeting agenda.
Mr. Baker adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margo M. Best
Administrative Assistant
Land Use Boards
| 
