ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES
JULY 12, 2005
Members Present: Jane Roberts, Chairman, Coni Porter, Gretchen Wittenborg, Ashley Fletcher and alternate Carl Goldknopf.
Members of the public were present and are identified in the context of the cases that interested them.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM.
Roberts outlined Board procedures for the public and read the first case.
Case #05-15: Carol Ann Breault requests a Special Exception under Article III, Section 127-9 C to construct a two family dwelling on property located on Rockwood Pond Road and Upper Troy Road, Map 17, Lot 11, Rural District. Ms. Breault was represented by her son, Rob Breault and Les Black of Four Columns Realty.
Following a preliminary consultation with the Planning Board, the Breaults were referred to the Board of Adjustment for a Special Exception to build a two family home in the Rural District, which in the Table of Principal Uses is allowed by Special Exception if certain criteria are met.
Roberts invited Mr. Breault to tell the Board their plans. Mr. Black gave the Board a signed authorization from the current owners to proceed with the hearing. The Breaults plan to close on the property on the 20th of July. Porter noted that any exception granted would be on condition that the property is sold to the Breaults. Board members examined the description of the property, locating the conservation easement and the building lot on a surveyed plat, and the house design drawing.
Mr. Black described the proposed home as having two separate kitchens under one roof. The house is designed to accommodate two families, with Ms. Breault living independently in a one story wing of the home and her son living in the main two-story section. The home will be located on an 8.3 acre lot, which is part of a 28 acre parcel, and will be set back 200 feet from Rockwood Pond Road, buffered by trees from view of the road. The other 19.7 acres of the property are in a conservation easement, which will remain natural. When asked the height of the house, Mr. Breault guessed it would be ‘typical height.’ Roberts reminded him that buildings are restricted to 36 feet in Fitzwilliam. When Porter asked how many people will be living in the home, Mr. Breault said two, at this time.
Using a scale drawing, Mr. Breault explained the home is a custom built timber frame home in keeping with the character of the town and neighborhood, with living quarters for him and a small “in-law” apartment on one level for his mother. There will be one common entrance.
Porter asked if there were abutters in the audience to speak in favor of this project. John Holman, 338 Upper Troy Road, praised Mr. Breault for taking care of his mother, said he had no problems with the plan.
Jeannine Wharton, 38 Rockwood Pond Road, said there is nothing wrong with what this man wants to do, and thought that a 200 foot setback and buffer was a good thing.
Roberts asked for abutters who may want to speak against the project. Sue Pepe, 374 Upper Troy Road, said she was concerned that things could change with another owner. She’s concerned that if this project is classified as a duplex, it would open the potential of becoming an income producing property, which she does not believe is appropriate for the area or the land.
Steve Humphries, 69 Rockwood Pond Road, found what Mr. Breault is doing for his Mom admirable, but is also concerned that calling this a two family home opens the door legally for other homes like this in the area, which he agrees is not appropriate.
Gregory Droniak, 354 Upper Troy Road, echoed Mr. Humphries comments and said he would like to see the project reclassified as a single family home with an accessory apartment. He said he and his wife were from Connecticut and have seen land developed with duplex homes. Vito Pepe, 374 Upper Troy Road, thought the project would be detrimental to the neighborhood, and wondered if the Conservation Commission had seen the land. His concern is for aquifers, septic system, water supply, the brook at the back of the property and wild animals.
Jody Droniak, 354 Upper Troy Road, said she also admired what Mr. Breault was doing, but urged the Board to reclassify the project as a single family residence with an ‘in-law’ apartment. She distributed a petition with 23 signatures “strongly opposing the proposed construction of a two-family dwelling….and impress that it be maintained as conservation land and single family dwelling construction.” The petition is attached to these minutes.
Robin Ciaccio, Map 39, Lot 3-4, thought the plan looked nice but could be changed into a duplex or considered a multi-family dwelling, with the potential of increasing the incidence of crime associated with this type of housing. She fears it will be injurious to the neighborhood.
Lisa Lohman, who lives at 182 Upper Troy Road but is not an abutter, also thought the plan looked great but she’s concerned about its being called a two family home. She asked Mr. Breault to consider a community kitchen rather than two kitchens.
John Holman said he knows the land has a good perc rate and the building site is a long ways from the brook. He thinks the Board should work with the applicant, changing the classification to a single family dwelling if possible.
Mr. Black said the Planning Board had explored several options with his client, including a possible subdivision into two lots with two single family dwellings. He noted this plan takes the look and feel of the neighborhood and town into account and attempts to accommodate the land and the neighbors. However, if there is a different classification they could change the plans. He said Mr. Hagstrom designed the septic system.
Mr. Breault remarked that the speakers’ points were well taken and were the ones he would make in their situation. He said his doctorate is in environmental chemistry and he wants to protect the environment as do his new neighbors. The 19.7 acres of conservation land is the reason he chose this particular location and said that the character of the community is the reason they designed the home to look like a single family residence with an accessory apartment. He emphasized that it is not his intention to change it to a multi-family use.
Roberts asked for rebuttals. In response to a question, Wittenborg said the current land use ordinance gives no option for building a new residence with an accessory apartment. Only owner occupied, single family homes built before 1987 can be altered to have an accessory apartment, which must be less than 800 square feet. The Planning Board referred this applicant to the Board of Adjustment because they want to build a home that will be occupied buy two families, and that is classified as a duplex under a zoning ordinance that was passed by the Town in November 1989.
Stephen Humphrey noted this plan was not the ‘horror show of a duplex we first thought…” but wonders if the Board can impose legal restrictions on the property to prevent it from becoming a two family dwelling. Mr. Breault said the home is not designed to be divisible and it will be converted back to a single family residence when his mother no longer needs the apartment.
Mr. Black offered that his client would be willing to stipulate that the common entrance cannot be changed to become two entrances. A member of the audience suggested such a stipulation would not protect against its being a duplex.
Mr. Droniak said he understands the lot is 8 acres and has the potential to be subdivided, which could open the possibility of there being two duplexes built on the property. He wondered about other properties on Upper Troy Road. He worries that this project could open the door for duplexes all along the road. Mrs. Droniak said duplexes are not characteristic of the Town. Mr. Black noted there are a lot of hypotheticals, all of which would do more damage to the land than Mr. Breault’s current plan.
Mr. Pepe said he’s walked the land and the proposed building site is the highest on the land and suggested a tall house could be seen in the neighborhood. Roberts reminded the audience of the requirement for structures to be 36 feet or less. Mr. Pepe wondered if there was enough frontage for two homes, worrying that the Board’s action might set a precedent. Mr. Breault wondered if the neighbors’ preference was for the property to be divided and two homes built. Mr. Humphrey confirmed that the property couldn’t be divided without further Town involvement.
Porter moved, Fletcher seconded and the Board voted to close the public hearing. The Board proceeded to discuss the project.
Goldknopf said he didn’t believe that the ordinance was clear on the number of kitchens in a single family dwelling and suggested that single family dwellings can and do frequently have two kitchens. Porter suggested the Board refer the applicant back to the Planning Board. Wittenborg disagreed, saying the plan is for two dwelling units on one site, and suggested the Board consider the sense of the statute. Porter agreed saying the client brought this particular plan to the Board, designed as two dwellings under one roof, and the Board needs to vote on what is before it.
Roberts asked if there were other questions or comments. Goldknopf said he didn’t think there should be a two family dwelling on that site; it wasn’t in keeping with the character of the area or the town. Wittenborg reiterated that she sees before her an application for a dwelling with two units; and looking at the statute sees closure of the option for a single family residence with an accessory apartment. She believes the proposed use is in harmony with the ordinance and complies with all applicable requirements of the chapter. Taking into account opinions of the abutters, she is bothered by the possibility of the project being detrimental to the neighborhood, but noted that farther down on Rockwood Pond Road the neighborhood is denser. She said restrictions are not appropriate.
Goldknopf asked if there could be any stipulations and Wittenborg replied no, that is not the Board’s issue or jurisdiction, adding she believes the applicant qualifies for a special exception. Goldknopf asked if they could limit it to one family, and Wittenborg said no.
Porter thought the problem was not with what the applicant plans but with what will happen in the future. She said the plan looks like a duplex and asked if the applicant would consider redesigning the house. She said it was sad to open an entire rural district to duplexes. Wittenborg remarked that the Board can’t ask for a redesign, and repeated this application is for an allowed use. Mr. Breault said it was designed so his mother could keep her dignity and independence, and assured the Board and abutters the house will not look like a duplex – it is a house with a wing.
Wittenborg noted she understood abutters’ concerns but the Board has to apply the ordinance and this is an allowed use; and perhaps the definition of dwelling unit could be clarified regarding the number of kitchens allowed in a single family dwelling.
Roberts moved, Wittenborg seconded and the Board voted to move to a vote on mandatory findings for a Special Exception.
The Board found the proposed use to be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the chapter; four ayes, one abstain.
The Board found the proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place; four ayes, one nay.
The Board found the proposed use to be appropriate for the site in question; four ayes, and one nay; one member said the timber frame home is very attractive and another added that the proposed setback is very generous.
The Board found that the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of the chapter; five ayes.
The Board agreed that the fifth finding regarding dimensional requirements was not relevant.
The Special Exception was granted and a Notice of Decision will be sent to appropriate parties.
Goldknopf asked that the case be revisited if the Board finds that more than one kitchen can be located in a single family dwelling.
Case #05-17: Lawrence and Susan St. Laurent request an Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Regulations for shed and carport setbacks located at 55 Old Troy Road, Map 9, Lot 9, Rural District.
Roberts read the case and asked the applicants to describe their intentions. Mrs. St. Laurent said the shed has been located at the current site for eight years, ever since they moved there, and they had received occupancy approval once. They didn’t realize the ground level deck and patio or portable carport needed to be within setbacks. When their single wide mobile home was replaced with a double wide home the bank discovered the setback violations for the shed, carport and deck.
The Board looked at a drawing and photographs of the property and structures. Goldknopf asked how long the structures had been in place and Mr. St. Laurent answered eight years for the shed, one year for the carport, and a couple of years for the deck. Wittenborg clarified that the double wide was in compliance and only the outbuildings were out of compliance. The St. Laurents agreed, and Mrs. St. Laurent noted the deck was in compliance with the single wide.
Roberts asked if there were any other questions from the Board, or if there were any abutters wishing to speak for or against the application.
Noting the property is wedge shape, Wittenborg clarified that the shed is two feet out of compliance with the front setback; the carport, angled to the rear boundary, is 4-9 feet from the back line; and the patio and deck are 8 feet out of compliance with the rear boundary. Porter noted that the outbuildings are to the side and behind the home and there are woods behind the property.
Porter moved, Wittenborg seconded and the Board voted to close the public hearing.
Porter said she didn’t see a problem with the plan as the violations are so minimal, and there really isn’t a choice given the shape of the property. Roberts noted the carport was out of compliance by 16 feet, which was a lot. Wittenborg asked if there was documentation on what property was behind the St. Laurent property. It was generally agreed that the map indicated the property backs on the Morgan Reserve in the town of Richmond. Goldknopf noted no one has complained about the situation and if the structures were to be moved he thought they would have to go into the front yard.
Roberts asked if the Board was ready to vote on mandatory findings and they agreed they were. The Board voted unanimously that the application meets the four mandatory findings and granted an Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirements. A Notice of Decision will be sent to appropriate parties.
Case #05-16: Gregory and Jodie Droniak request a Special Exception under Article III, Section 127-9 B of the Fitzwilliam Land Use Ordinance to convert one Bed & Breakfast unit to an accessory rental apartment on property located on Upper Troy Road, Map 39, Lot 3-02, Rural District.
When Porter asked how old their home was, Mr. Droniak replied it was built in 1940. Fletcher determined the square footage of the accessory apartment was 440 square feet. Porter clarified the Droniaks run a Bed and Breakfast and live in the main house. Mrs. Droniak said that with the town’s approval they plan to convert an attached Bed and Breakfast unit to an efficiency apartment, which they will rent for longer periods. The Board looked at the plans and Mrs. Droniak said they have no firm plans to rent at this time, that they are just proposing this plan.
Responding to a question about whether a renter would have use of the basement, Mr. Droniak said there were two basements, which could be closed off and the renter wouldn’t necessarily use the basement. A member of the public remembered this building had been an apartment from 1971 until 1992. Several abutters said they had no problem with this application.
Porter moved, Fletcher seconded and the Board voted to move to a vote on the mandatory findings. Wittenborg told the Droniaks that if a Special Exception was granted it would be based on the plans as presented. The Board proceeded to vote unanimously aye on the four mandatory findings, finding the fifth not relevant. Porter moved, Fletcher seconded and the Board voted to grant a Special Exception with the condition that the rental apartment will be contained on one floor and the basement will not be used by a renter.
Administrative: The Selectmen met with the Board of Adjustment and appointed Ashley Fletcher a full member of the Board.
The Board agreed the revised application for appeals seems clearer and more user-friendly. Their intention is that applicants complete the application by themselves.
Minutes: Roberts moved, Porter seconded and the Board approved the June 14, 2005 minutes as written; clarifying that an Area Variance was granted to Dave White. The minutes will reflect this.
Rules of Procedure: To amend the Rules of Procedure the Board must read them at two consecutive meetings before the meeting to vote on the amendments. The first reading of the Rules was completed.
Election of Officers: The Board agreed to elect Jane Roberts Chair for the next term.
Fletcher moved, Porter seconded and the Board adjourned at 9:40 PM.
| 
