Members Present: Jane Roberts, Chairman, Gretchen Wittenborg, Ashley Fletcher, Ed Mattson, and Dan Baker, alternate. Carl Goldknopf, alternate, was present and seated when Mr. Mattson left at 8:30 PM.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM.
Case #05-23 continued: Jeanne Drugg and Ben Drugg request an Area Variance under Article V, Section 127-17, Table of Standard Dimensional Regulations, to build a garage with less than the required setback, located at 12 Laurel Lane, Map 21, Lot 19, Rural District.
Roberts read the case and suggested taking up the garage request first, followed by the deck request. The Board agreed. Mr. Drugg submitted a new plan with dimensions noted. Roberts clarified that the garage meets the front setback of 20 feet on a private road. Mr. Drugg agreed, noting the garage is 14 feet from the edge of the road and the road is a 12 foot wide road. Roberts clarified that the stone wall does not run behind the garage, it ends at across from the corner of the house.
Mr. Drugg said he had scaled back the size of the garage from 20X24 to 20X22 to increase the distance from the side boundary to 10 feet. Roberts asked if the garage could be rotated 45degrees, increasing the distance from the boundary to the full 20 feet required. Mattson agreed, and asked if it could be moved. Mr. Drugg explained that rotating the garage would require changing the existing driveway, and the leach field and holding tank are directly behind the garage. Wittenborg remarked that the new plan does resolve the encroachment on the neighbor’s property and is much better than the current situation, noting that rotating it would create a tricky entry problem from the road.
Baker noted that we can’t lose sight of the fact that this making a significant improvement, adding in that lakefront area where lots are nonconforming current zoning requirements really can’t be imposed.
Fletcher confirmed that the garage is 12 feet high and the house itself is 35 feet high from the peak to the patio, meeting dimensional requirements.
Roberts confirmed Mr. Drugg was requesting a variance of 10 feet on the side setback.
Mattson moved, Fletcher seconded and the Board voted to move to a vote on the criteria for an Area Variance for the garage.
Ø The Board agreed unanimously there would not be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of granting of the variance because this plan resolves an encroachment and is an improvement over the current garage.
Ø The Board agreed unanimously the granting of the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the new plan is more in compliance with current zoning than the current garage.
Ø The Board agreed unanimously that since the lot is small and nonconforming an Area Variance is necessary in order to allow the garage to be built and situated as designed, and there is no reasonably feasible alternative. Reconfiguring the garage would interfere with access to it, and would be a financial burden.
Ø The Board agreed unanimously that substantial justice will be done by granting the Area Variance because it is closer to meeting the dimensional requirements of the bylaws.
Ø The Board agreed unanimously that replacing the existing structure with the new garage, improving setbacks and resolving the encroachment is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
Wittenborg moved, Fletcher seconded and the Board unanimously approved granting the Area Variance for the garage.
Roberts moved the discussion to the area variance requested for the proposed deck. Wittenborg noted the original sleeping porch was 10X20 feet, and the proposed deck is 14X24, exactly the width of the house. She noted that with the proposed octagon on the north corner of the porch, the proposed deck is considerably larger than the original porch.
Mrs. Drugg noted there had always been a porch in the proposed location, and when they built a foundation under the house the porch extended over a patio built at the same time.
Baker asked if there were any comments from abutters. Mr. Drugg said he had spoken to Mr. Spicer, who had written a letter in support of the variance for the garage, had also told him the deck as proposed was acceptable. He had spoken with Mrs. Dresser and her concerns were about the garage encroachment which has been resolved. Mr. Spicer’s letter is a part of these minutes.
Baker said the deck is clearly an aesthetic design but the encroachment into the setback is significant. The deck is just 8 feet from the boundary. Wittenborg asked if the deck were 10 feet wide, wouldn’t the setback be improved. The lot line is angled and a ten foot wide deck would improve it some, but not much. Baker noted the side setback requirement is 20 feet.
Mr. Drugg pointed out that they lost the deck that was originally on the south side of the house when the house was rebuilt. He said they were trying to add entertaining space, since the house is smaller than it looks, and a place to put screening vegetation that will benefit the neighbors as well.
Mattson moved, Wittenborg seconded and the Board agreed they were ready to vote on the criteria for an Area Variance.
Baker clarified that the variance is to build outside the original footprint. He noted that while this is a rural district, the actual area doesn’t reflect that. The Board has to look at the character of other properties and in this area houses are much closer to one another than in a rural district.
Ø The Board voted unanimously that there would not be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of granting the variance because the proposed deck is an improvement to the property.
Ø Mattson wondered about the impact of the deck on future neighbors. Fletcher thought that it wouldn’t be a problem if the project was done tastefully, and it looked like it would be. Wittenborg suggested the proposed change to the size of the deck is modest, given that the original porch was about 10 feet from the boundary. The Board voted unanimously that granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest for the above stated reasons.
Ø The Board voted unanimously that since the lot is nonconforming the Area Variance is necessary in order to allow the deck to be built as designed and that it is a reasonable use of the property because the area is so tightly cordoned.
Ø The Board voted unanimously that substantial justice will be done since granting the variance is permitting a reasonable use of the property.
Ø The Board voted unanimously that the use contemplated is a reasonable one and is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
Wittenborg moved, Fletcher seconded and the Board voted unanimously to grant an Area Variance for the proposed deck.
Mattson left the meeting and Goldknopf was seated.
Case #05-24: Joslyn Christian requests an Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirements for shed located within front setback at Hayseed Hattie’s Antiques on Route 12 South, Map 34, Lot 26 General Business District.
Roberts asked Ms. Christian if she had been told her shed did not meet setbacks and she said yes. She explained that the day it was delivered they couldn’t get it back where it was supposed to be because the truck couldn’t cross the septic system.
There were several questions about setback measurements. The letter from the Selectmen regarding the violation of setback requirements was not available and the Board decided it did not have enough information to decide the case.
Fletcher moved, Goldknopf seconded and the Board voted to continue the case to November 8, 2005 at 7:00 PM. The Land Use Assistant will inform the Selectmen that Ms. Christian is making progress toward resolving the problem and obtain a copy of the letter from the Selectmen and an accurate measurement prior to the next meeting.
Minutes: The Board reviewed the September 13 and 27, 2005 minutes. Wittenborg moved, Fletcher seconded and the Board approved the minutes as written.
Administrative: The Board read a letter from attorneys for Ramen Patel requesting a continuation of the Patel hearing for a Special Exception, pending a possible appeal of the Selectmen’s administrative decision. The hearing will be continued to November 8, 2005 at 8:15 PM. The letter is a part of these minutes.
Following the final reading of the amended Rules of Procedure, the Board agreed to continue the Clerk position with the charge to take notes during site walks, and to return to the use of the word ‘disqualify’ in this context, since it is more appropriate than the word ‘recuse.’
The Board accepted a letter of resignation from Edwin Mattson. It is a part of these minutes.
The Land Use Assistant will continue to contact possible alternate members for the Board.
Fletcher moved, Goldknopf seconded and the Board adjourned at 9:00 PM.
| 
