Members Present: Jane Roberts, Chairman, Steve Filipi, Ashley Fletcher, Coni Porter and Gretchen Wittenborg.
Others present: Alternates Carl Goldknopf, Matt Buonomano and Jack Ernst.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM
Public hearing: Case #06-07, Lon Caracappa appeal for an Area Variance to encroach on side setback by constructing a deck on property located at 319 West Lake Road, Rural District, Map 24, Lot 3-03.
Roberts asked Mr. Caracappa to explain why it was necessary to be within five feet of a boundary line, when the setback is twenty feet.
Referring to a detailed plat of the area, Mr. Caracappa oriented the Board to his property, indicating the position of the proposed deck and its function. The boundary line is on the other side of the stone wall and the deck will come within one foot of the stone wall at one point. In this location the deck can be level at the height of the bed of his truck, to facilitate loading and unloading of heavy equipment he uses in his business, which is theatrical lighting. A ramp will enable him to load and unload yard maintenance equipment from the deck. He plans to consolidate all his equipment here and the deck will be used as a storage facility rather than a deck. Equipment will be tarpped for protection from the weather.
He feels it is the only place on his property that can accommodate his needs. Other possible sites interfere with the well radius, the septic field, a decorative turnaround in his driveway, the driveway itself and, if moved farther into the property, which narrows considerably, a driveway would cross the septic field. The Board looked at photos from various viewpoints.
Fletcher ascertained that the narrow end of the deck is 10 feet wide and a truck bed is 5 feet wide. Wittenborg clarified that there is no canopy planned for the deck. It will be on sonatubes and freestanding about 3 ½ feet off the ground. It is a quadrangle about 35 feet by 37 feet by 10 feet by 42 feet. Mr. Caracappa said he has a lot of equipment and doesn’t want to be crowded when asked why the deck was so big. Porter asked if he had considered a garage and he said yes, but it will have a concrete platform in the garage to support an observatory on top of the garage and so it couldn’t accommodate the equipment. Additionally, it would be difficult to put a ramp into the garage without disturbing a stone wall at the proposed location.
Roberts asked if this property was to be primarily a residence or primarily a business. Mr. Caracappa said it is a residence, and he is just storing his business equipment in lieu of a rented storage facility. Roberts said it still wasn’t clear to her why he had to be within 5 feet of the boundary line, instead of the setback of 20 feet. Mr. Caracappa said he had house plans already prepared, awaiting an energy audit before starting to build. Further, he doesn’t want to impinge on the driveway. Putting it closer to the road would entail a lot of leveling and then there wouldn’t be sufficient driveway width.
Wittenborg said Mr. Caracappa was asking the Board to consider a 75% adjustment to the setback regulation, and she couldn’t remember a time when the Board had allowed such a significant encroachment. Porter said the proposed structure will really encroach on a neighbor, perhaps not now but in the future. Fletcher suggested narrowing the deck by five feet, and decreasing the setback encroachment to 10 feet. Porter noted it wasn’t the Board’s purview to change an applicant’s plans. Mr. Caracappa said he would take that as a friendly amendment. He added that this is not a high profile project, but it is a difficult site.
Filipi voiced his concern that Mr. Caracappa was asking the Board to allow an outdoor storage area to be placed within a setback and setbacks give protection to neighbors. He said the equipment now is stored at ground level and can’t be seen from beyond the stone wall, but if elevated to the height of the deck it will be very visible. If Mr. Caracappa needs help loading, Filipi suggested a ramp from ground level to the truck bed, which would keep the equipment at ground level. Porter said she wasn’t convinced that one large deck was necessary and suggested several smaller ones.
Roberts suggested a site walk and the Board agreed. They asked that Mr. Caracappa stake the proposed location of the deck. The site walk is scheduled for June 27, 2006 at 5 PM. The Board will meet at 319 West Lake Road.
Porter moved, Fletcher seconded and the Board voted to continue the hearing to the next meeting, July 11, 2006 at 7 PM to enable the Board to do a site walk.
Public hearing: Case #06-08, James Baldwin appeal for an Area Variance to encroach on setback with an addition to building on property located at 55 Keene Ave., Map 25, Lot 16, Rural District.
Mr. Baldwin referred to materials in his application and explained that he wanted to build an addition to his cottage that connected it with an existing shed. The shed is in the setback and the addition would connect to it along the side farthest from the boundary line.
Roberts determined that Keene Avenue is a public way past Mr. Baldwin’s property. Wittenborg noted that this lot, at just under an acre, is one of the larger lots near Laurel Lake. Baldwin added that the cottage was built in about 1938.
A letter from Carl Hagstrom, septic designer, assured the Board that the septic system was designed to serve two properties and is satisfactory for seven bedrooms. With the addition and the second property, Mr. Baldwin will have six bedrooms in total. Mr. Baldwin said he had done a lot of renovation already and the new addition will blend in. At this location the peaks of the two structures will be in line. The addition is proposed as a two story structure.
Sue Wood, an abutter asked about size and height. The addition will be a smaller footprint than the existing cottage and will be under the regulation height of 36 feet. Fletcher said he drove by and feels the structure won’t be very visible from Keene Avenue. Wittenborg noted there were no structures to the west and the campground is to the north. She said the cottage was ‘adorable’ and built prior to zoning regulation. She feels the only good place for an addition is where it’s proposed, and said ‘it seems he’s chosen the least intrusive way to go, adding that a two foot encroachment is well within precedent.
Fletcher moved and Porter seconded a motion to grant the variance. The Board then voted on the criteria for granting an area variance, finding:
(1)There would not be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of granting this variance. Unanimous aye vote.
(2) The granting of this variance would not be contrary to the public interest. Unanimous aye vote.
(3)(a) An area variance is necessary in order to allow the applicant to use the property as proposed because of the special conditions of the property. Filipi noted that if the addition was moved two feet, out of the setback, water runoff from the roof would strike the shed, and the design would not be as good. Unanimous aye vote.
(3)(b) The same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden. Unanimous aye vote.
(4) By granting this variance substantial justice would be done. Unanimous aye vote.
(5) The use contemplated by the applicant as a result of obtaining this variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Unanimous aye vote.
The Area Variance was granted by a unanimous vote of the Board.
Election of Officers: By acclamation, Roberts was re-elected chairman and Wittenborg was re-elected vice chairman and clerk.
New Alternates: Roberts noted that the Selectmen had not re-appointed Carl Goldknopf and she thanked him for his service and perceptive remarks as an alternate on the Board. She introduced Matt Buonomano and Jack Ernst as the newest alternates.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM.
| 
