ZBA MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 12, 2005
Members Present: Jane Roberts, Chairman, Coni Porter, Vice-Chairman, Gretchen Wittenborg, Carl Goldknopf, Alternate and Andrew Clukey, Selectmen’s Representative.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM.
Roberts opened the Public Hearing for Case #05-05: John Tommila requests a Variance under Article V, Section 127- 19, Table of Dimensional Regulations, of the Fitzwilliam Land Use Regulations to allow him to adjust a lot line that will result in decreasing the acreage of a conforming lot from 3.2 acres to 1.317 acres, Tax Map 41, Lot 13, Light Industrial District.
Porter recused herself. Mr. Tommila showed the Board a new map of the property. The Tommila Brothers lumber mill has used a portion of Lot 13 for 60 years and he anticipates no change in use with the variance. He said that Lot 13 is currently a dimensionally conforming lot with a house on it. With a lot line adjustment, a smaller nonconforming lot will be created. If he is denied the lot line adjustment he would have to move the lumber storage area from the back of Lot 13 and create a new yard. He said that the lot line adjustment he’s requesting would have no impact on the town. He noted that he has asked GRAZ Engineering to survey the property, but didn’t want to incur the expense if the variance would not be granted.
Wittenborg noted that a nonconforming lot may have an impact on future owners. Goldknopf asked why Mr. Tommila wants a lot line adjustment, why change the situation that exists. Mr. Tommila responded that he is trying to settle his mother’s estate, and that he may sell the portion of the lot with the house on it once a lot line adjustment has been made. A neighbor is interested in buying it.
Wittenborg noted that dimensions are different depending on which map you’re looking at. She asked if a change in frontage or driveway was anticipated.
Roberts read the Notice of Decision from the Planning Board, which states You are hereby notified that on April 5, 2005 after a duly noticed public hearing, the Fitzwilliam Planning Board voted 5 to 0 with 1 abstention to grant conditional approval on the application for a boundary line adjustment between properties known as Tax Map 41; Lot 12-1 located on Route 12 and Tax Map 41; Lot 13 located on Bowkerville Road, in the Light Industrial District. Conditional approval is based on the following condition: The applicant seeks a variance from the Table of Standard Dimensional Regulations to create a non-conforming lot.
The property is in the Light Industrial District, which abuts the Rural District at the property line. Both the house and the lumber mill are grandfathered in this district. Wittenborg clarified the dimensional requirements for the various districts. Rural lots must be 120,000 square feet or more and lots in the Light Industrial District must be 160,000 square feet or more.
Mr. Tommila said the flow of lumber at the mill would need to be changed if the variance isn’t granted. Currently there is a molding shop that utilizes flow from the area in question.
Goldknopf asked about driveway access, wondering if the current driveway will deed to the reconfigured Lot 13 or would continue to serve the mill. Mr. Tommila said the driveway belongs to Lot 12 (the mill), but that the driveway is so wide, estimated at 100 feet, that it could be used for both the house and the mill.
Ms. Porter asked to speak to the Board as a private citizen. She has walked the property and seen how the lot line adjustment would affect the property. The remaining lot, after a lot line adjustment, would have a back yard and a huge windbreak plus 20 feet or so between the house and the mill. The back portion of Lot 13 currently has huge piles of logs on it. It makes sense that that portion goes with the mill.
Wittenborg said she was comfortable with the whole idea, but is reluctant to give approval without definite measurements. Porter asked if the ZBA can grant a variance on condition that Mr. Tommila obtains engineering data. Wittenborg noted that without engineering data there is no lot for which the Board can give a variance, and suggested that when Mr. Tommila comes back with engineering data, the Board could grant the variance.
Mr. Tommila said he just wanted to get a sense that it’s OK before spending money for engineering.
Roberts asked the Board if they wanted to consider a variance contingent on engineering. Wittenborg said she wanted a sketch with actual measurements on it. Goldknopf asked if the Board could grant a contingency variance. Wittenborg responded that there was no entity to base a lot line adjustment on. Roberts said we still need hard facts.
Mr. Tommila noted that he has run a tape measure of the property and the numbers are ‘pretty close.’ His goal is to create a lot with 1.3 acres.
Goldknopf felt he had no problem granting a variance once the Board has a plan to look at, and Wittenborg agreed it was OK with her too.
Roberts then asked Mr. Tommila to come back to the Board with engineering data and he agreed he would come back.
Roberts opened the Public Hearing for Case #05-06: Gap Mt Drilling requests a Variance under Article V, Section 127-19 E, to exceed height requirement in constructing an equipment storage/maintenance building on property owned by Gap Mt. Drilling, Map 12, Lot 13 on Route 12 S in the General Industrial District. Referred by Planning Board.
Goldknopf recused himself and Porter was seated on the Board.
Mr. Walters, GV Engineering, presented the application for Gap Mt. Drilling. He called the Board’s attention to the Table of Standard Dimension Regulations and Article V, Section 127-19E, noting there is some confusion about building heights. Gap Mt. would like the flexibility to build to a height of 50 feet, which is 10 feet in excess of the regulations, over at least a portion of the new building to accommodate the well drill derrick in the vertical position. He noted that the proposed building will meet and exceed the first two conditions: 1) that the minimum open space provided on the lot is 45% - their proposal allows for 98% open space; and 2) that the maximum building coverage on the lot is less than 25% - their proposed coverage will be 1.4%. The building will allow the owners to perform
maintenance on the equipment within the building.
Porter asked if the building would be behind trees. Walters answered yes and he noted that there were two sketches of the proposed building with higher bay. The decision would be based on the costs involved in building each design. He knew the Board liked the frame one better.
Wittenborg asked if the building would have office space and Mr. Walters said yes. Currently the office is in a trailer and the office space in the new building will be a small, 20’x20’ space with a bathroom.
Porter asked if a representative of Gap Mt Drilling was present and Chris Parker came forward.
Roberts asked about the elevation of the area where the building will be located. Mr. Walters said the proposed site was on a plateau only a few feet higher than Route 12 on which they have frontage.
Roberts asked if any abutters were present. None came forward. She asked if there were any other questions. Wittenborg asked if only a portion of the building would be 50 feet high and Walters responded that they thought so, but didn’t want to so stipulate at this time, in case the cost of building the bay would be prohibitive for the owners. Additionally, he thought they needed only 46 feet rather than 50 feet, but asked for 50 feet so they could be flexible with the final design, as necessary.
Hearing no further questions, Roberts closed the public hearing and the Board discussed the case.
Porter noted that the building will allow the business to function more efficiently. She thought it was a good use of the site and liked that the building was far back from the road. Clukey asked if there was septic and Walters said not yet, but a state approved system would be installed. Roberts asked if the Board was ready to vote and proceeded to read the Mandatory Findings that all of the following conditions are present:
1) No diminution in the value of surrounding properties would be suffered – the Board agreed unanimously with Porter that the value of the property and surrounding property would be enhanced. Wittenborg said there would be no diminution.
2) Granting the Variance would be of benefit to the public interest – Roberts, Porter and Wittenborg agreed that storing the trucks and materials inside would provide a cleaner looking, better maintained and safer site.
3) Denial of the Variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it – the Variance sought is dimensional and the Board agreed unanimously that it would be a hardship if the variance wasn’t granted.
4) By granting the Variance, substantial justice would be done – the Board agreed unanimously.
5) The granting of the Variance would not be contrary to the spirit of this chapter – The Board agreed unanimously.
A Notice of Decision will be posted granting the Variance requested.
Roberts opened the Public Hearing for Case #05-07: Julie Skinner requests a Special Exception under Article III, Section 127-11A, to open a retail business, a consignment shop, in the former post office building in the Residential and Historic Districts. Referred by Planning Board.
Anna Schierioth, rental agent for the property owner, attended the hearing.
Roberts asked how long it’s been since a business operated in the location. Ms. Schierioth recalled that there was a business in the space in the past year but it never opened for business. It’s been more than a year since a business has operated there.
Julie Skinner introduced herself and told the Board she plans to open Chloe’s Closet, a consignment store with infants, children’s and trendy teen and women’s clothing. The upstairs will be used as office and storage space. Porter asked about bathroom facilities and Ms. Skinner responded there is a bathroom upstairs but access will be closed to the public. Goldknopf asked about parking and Ms. Skinner noted the driveway on the left as you faced the building was adequate for five cars. Wittenborg said it was a shared driveway, noting that it is listed as a right-of-way on the tax map. She asked to see the assessment file for the property and it was obtained. Ms. Skinner said she wasn’t aware that it was a shared drive. Both Wittenborg and Porter said there
was parking in front of the building and on the Common. When asked how busy she anticipated being, Ms. Skinner said her hours would be Wednesday through Sunday 10AM – 6 PM and on Friday they would be open until 8 PM. She anticipates that during the day Moms with infants will shop. She’s not expecting huge crowds but there’s no shopping nearby.
Ms. Skinner described her plans for the interior, planning to use the back ‘barn’ as the children’s area with round racks for women’s clothing in the front. It’s not the quantity but the quality of the clothing.
Wittenborg, referring to the assessment file, said she couldn’t find title for the right-of-way immediately, but it looks like the old post office used the shared driveway. Porter noted the Board has allowed businesses there in the past without resolving the parking issue, and Clukey said the post office was pretty busy.
Gary Taylor, an abutter, expressed his concern with the parking situation, indicating that frequently his tenants were blocked from entry by cars belonging to people shopping in that building. He has had to call the police to remove cars in the past. Mr. Camara, also an abutter, asked if there was a parking plan.
Ms. Schierioth noted that Ms. Skinner is not the owner of the building, but is a tenant and the Planning Board referred her to the ZBA. The building has been a business space for many years, and it’s the best use of the property.
Wittenborg said the owner should be contacted for information about the driveway. Ms. Skinner said she had asked the owner for a survey of the property and was told he did not have one. Ms. Skinner said she will spend money to upgrade the interior and put in new steps outside to the left of the porch, creating a new entryway, for safety reasons. That would leave two parking spaces at the front of the building. Goldknopf reiterated that the building is in the Residential District but the septic system won’t handle a residential use, so the best use for the building is as a business, or it should be torn down.
Roberts asked if the public had any comments. Bob Camara introduced himself as a small business owner who wanted to see a business there, but noted there have always been parking problems with all the owners including the post office. Ms. Schierioth noted that parking is a problem all around the Common – it comes with the territory. She suggested using signs to keep tenant spaces clear.
Porter said it was hard to predict what will happen once the business is open. Mr. Camara said it would be easier to predict if there was a parking plan. Goldknopf said that parking is not in the ZBA's jurisdiction. Clukey said the Planning Board sent Ms. Skinner to the ZBA because there was a lapse in the business use. The Planning Board did not ask to have a site plan review for this business. Porter noted that an empty building is not good for the town. Goldknopf said the Board can’t set any requirement for parking and Schierioth said Ms. Skinner has to resolve it with the building owner.
Roberts closed the public hearing as the Board indicated it was ready to vote. She read the Mandatory Findings for a Special Exception. The Board of Adjustment shall not issue a Special Exception unless, without exception, it shall find that the proposed use:
1) Is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter – the Board agreed unanimously that it was in harmony, since there have been retail businesses at that location in the past.
2) Will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place – The Board agreed unanimously it would not be detrimental, in fact it would be much better to have an occupied building than an empty one. Both Goldknopf and Porter said it would be good for the neighborhood. Goldknopf added it was a low impact business.
3) Is appropriate for the site in question – Goldknopf noted that there was not much else the site could be used for. The Board agreed unanimously that the business was appropriate to the site.
4) Complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter – The Board agreed unanimously that the business did comply.
5) Not relevant, since there are no dimensional issues.
A Notice of Decision granting a Special Exception will be posted.
Minutes: The Board listened to the tape of the February 8, 2005 meeting. Porter moved, Roberts seconded and the Board approved the minutes as written. The Board reviewed the minutes of the March 9, 2005 meeting. Goldknopf moved, Porter seconded and the Board approved the minutes as written.
Administrative: Roberts wished that more applications were fully completed and Porter noted that the Board has talked about revising the application. Gillis will draft a revision for the Board. Porter asked about requesting engineering data. Wittenborg suggested coordinating the application information more fully with the assessment file for the property in question. She wants the applicant to explain plans more specifically.
Roberts noted there will be election of officers in May and the Board will appoint member/alternates at that time.
Porter moved, Goldknopf seconded and the Board voted to adjourn at 9:10 PM.
| 
