Members Present: Jane Roberts, Steve Filipi, Coni Porter, Gretchen Wittenborg, and alternates Cathy Davis (seated) and Sue Wood,
Others present: Mike Methe, Selectmen’s representative.
Meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM
Alternate Davis was seated for Ernst who was absent.
Case # 07-13: Dr. David St. Lifer and Dr. Anna Barth appeal for a UseVariance to open a holistic veterinary practice in a residential structure located at 406 NH Route 119 E, Map 12, Lot 35, Rural District.
Roberts asked that a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Haeberle, abutters, which was received today, be given to the applicants and to alternate Wood. Seated Board members received the letter when they arrived. Roberts summarized the letter and it is a part of these minutes. The Haeberles objected to the application to open a business in the rural district.
Dr. St. Lifer explained the nature of the proposed business. They will offer traditional and holistic veterinary services in their small animal practice. They will not have kennels, nor do they expect animals to stay overnight, except in emergencies, and then Dr. St. Lifer would stay overnight too. They explained that this is an alternative practice that will have a very low impact on the land or area. There will be no dog runs or animal waste outside. They don’t expect animals to be outside except when moving from a car to the facility. This alternative practice generates very little medical waste, limited surgery will be offered as a service to the town since the nearest veterinarian is 5 miles away.
Dr. Barth said the medicines used in a holistic practice are not harmful to the environment, unlike some ‘western’ medicines. They will use biodegradable litter.
They do not anticipate any changes to the exterior of the building, except for adding an access ramp, and few changes to the interior. They hope to have a small sign and if approved will go to the Planning Board for a full site plan review. They do not plan to have other employees at least in the first year or so.
Dr. Barth noted that in a holistic practice the visits are much longer than in a traditional practice, lasting an hour to an hour and a half. The traffic generated by the business would therefore be limited to maybe 6 cars a day. The existing driveway and parking area will be sufficient for business traffic. If more parking is necessary they will add several spaces which will be finished in gravel so they don’t increase the amount of impervious surface.
Wittenborg noted that the nature of the business isn’t really the issue – it is the fact that all businesses are prohibited in the rural district.
Dr. Barth said they chose this location because it is on a busy state highway, which makes it feel less rural. She said the current owners are moving away because there is so much traffic and noise. They realize that locating a business on a town road in the rural district might disrupt the rural feel of the site. She added that the site is a 2.5 acre parcel, not a small parcel with neighbors close to the house. Wittenborg noted there are other businesses on NH Route 119 E. Porter clarified that they were not planning on living in the house. They agreed.
Davis asked what would happen to the house if they decide to sell. Could it be used as a house again? Dr. Barth said they plan only minimal changes to the interior, adding it is a very nice house. Wittenborg noted that unless the variance is conditioned in some way, it will run with the land.
Roberts opened the discussion to public comment. Dancy Bluhm presented the Haeberle’s letter, stating they live right across the road from the proposed business. She said they may have misunderstood the nature of the business but thought the business might generate more traffic on the road as it grows and expands. The fact there are other businesses on the road doesn’t make it OK to have another.
Mrs. Lopilato, abutter, said she wasn’t thrilled to have business that may expand nearby. She added she didn’t want to live in a business district. She wondered if it was sold, would it have to be to another holistic practice. Roberts responded in the negative, adding that the variance could be restricted to these owners. Dr. Barth said she thought they would need to come to the ZBA again before they could expand.
Dr. St. Lifer asked if they lived in the house would the business be acceptable then. Filipi said there are a different set of regulations in that case, with the business being accessory to the primary use as a residence.
Mr. and Mrs. Guyette, abutters, expressed their opposition to the business. They said they spent $200,000 to renovate their home, which they bought in 1998, and they love the location and their neighbors. They bought in this location because it was rural. They pay taxes and they don’t see this business bringing any revenue to the town. They don’t see a need for this kind of business in Fitzwilliam. Mr. Guyette said their house was very close to the proposed business site. Mr. Guyette estimated it was about 75 yards away, adding that this was not what they came to Fitzwilliam for – it’s not a business district.
Roberts noted that 75 yards is sufficient distance away from a neighbor in the rural district.
Mr. Coll, abutter, said he didn’t disagree with the proposed business but doesn’t like the precedent of allowing a business in the rural district. Mr. Guyette asked why they couldn’t have the business where they lived now. Dr. Barth said that wasn’t relevant.
Porter said she had driven by the site and noticed an “open” sign on a house in the neighborhood. It was determined that it was an antique or barn sales business in the Rodding’s home.
Wittenborg said the Board’s decisions do not set precedent. Each case is decided on its own merits and the Board comes to each case with an open mind.
Mr. Guyette asked where their customer base would come from; adding Fitzwilliam isn’t looking for this. Mr. Methe said this was not germane to the issue under consideration. The issue is can this property be converted to a business in a rural residential district. Roberts added that the Board can’t make decisions on opinions – the Board wants to see people do what they want with their property within the zoning ordinance.
Porter said the case comes down to the impact on the neighborhood.
Roberts closed the session to public input and the Board deliberated on the case.
Filipi said he originally thought this request was for a home business, but felt that since it is not the Board would need to regulate how the business might expand.
Wittenborg said that she has long experience living with animals and with holistic treatment. It is a growing field and a low impact business. She thinks it would be terrific for the community. She questions how rural the area is on an enormously high traffic road. Citing the town Master Plan and its focus on growth and road maintenance, she thought this business would not burden the town with increased maintenance needs.
Davis said there is lots of other land in town and is inclined to consider the neighbors’ feelings, and adding a business changes the way people look at an area. She said she’s inclined not to have a business in a rural area.
Porter said she too was wavering. This area feels residential rather than rural. She’s worried about no one living in the house all the time – concerned about the upkeep of the area. Wittenborg said it was not the Board’s business how the property was maintained. She feels strongly that this is not the same kind of rural property that we have in other parts of town because it is on a state road.
Filipi read the zoning ordinance describing the rural district as primarily for residences. He agreed the traffic generated by the business wouldn’t have an impact on the state road, but a business changes the overtone of the district. He added that town zoning encourages home businesses.
Roberts asked for a motion if the Board was finished with the discussion. Mr. Methe said the Board needs to grant or deny the use variance and the site plan review will manage the other issues. He added that if you change the use of the property you change it forever. Wittenborg said the Board could limit the use to one specific use. Methe expressed concern with how stipulations on the property would be enforced.
Davis moved to close discussion and consider the mandatory findings criteria for deciding a use variance. Porter seconded.
The Board of Adjustment proceeded to Article IX, Section 127-42E of the Fitzwilliam Land Use Code, Mandatory Findings for a Use Variance and found that:
(1) There would not be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of granting this variance.
Wittenborg agree, Porter disagree, Filipi agree, Davis disagree, Roberts agree. Passed.
(2) The granting of this variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
Wittenborg agree, Porter agree, Filipi agree, Davis agree, Roberts agree. Passed.
(3)(a) The zoning restriction as applied to the property interferes with the reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property within its environment
Wittenborg agree, Porter disagree, Filipi agree, Davis disagree, Roberts agree. Passed.
(3)(b) There is not a fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property.
Wittenborg disagree, Porter agree, Filipi disagree, Davis agree, Roberts agree. Passed.
(3)(c) The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others.
Wittenborg agree, Porter agree, Filipi agree, Davis agree, Roberts agree. Passed.
(4) By granting this variance substantial justice would be done.
Wittenborg agree, Porter disagree, Filipi agree, Davis disagree, Roberts agree. Passed.
(5) The use contemplated by the applicant as a result of obtaining this variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
Wittenborg agree, Porter disagree, Filipi disagree, Davis disagree, Roberts disagree. Failed.
Use Variance is denied since the Board failed to find that all the above conditions were present.
Minutes: Wittenborg moved, Filipi seconded and the Board approved the minutes of the September 11, 2007 meeting as written.
The Board discussed procedures and how to run a more efficient and effective meeting.
Several Board members will attend a training session sponsored by the Local Government Center with the Town of Hinsdale on December 8, 2007.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 PM.
| 
