Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
November 25, 2003
Meeting opens at 7:00 pm
In attendance; Roger Phelps, John Gryval, Dale Sanford, Kevin O’Connell, and Daniel Dineen, Loren White.
Board heard minutes from November 4, 2003 meeting and accepts minutes as read. Board reads mail.
Letter from Dr. Khouw read into record as mail.
Next meeting date set for 12-9-03, case 03-7.
Hearing 03-5 opens at 7:30, hearing fee paid by Anfuso’s with check # 5495 for $189.70.
John explains process to applicants. Asks applicants if they would like to see any board member step down, they decline.
Dan Dineen steps down to allow Loren White to sit on case.
Mr. Anfuso explains to the board how he got to this point in the process. That he has been operating a Blacksmith shop on the premises for a couple of years as a hobby, but is getting too busy to consider it a hobby anymore.
John questions the applicant about signage, traffic, customer count, employees, and is future growth.
Mr. Anfuso replies that there is no signage, little traffic with only a couple of customers a week, and he’d like to grow, but also has other interests.
Roger clarifies to the applicant that he’s looking to operate a business in a residential zone.
Mrs. Anfuso Describe the barn built in 1987, where they operate the shop.
John notes that no abutters are present and asks why they’re coming to the board now, have there been complaints?
The Anfusos state no problems.
Jarvis Adams speaks from the audience stating his support for the Anfuso’s business.
John explains legal concerns.
Kevin questions work type, noise.
Roger goes over code concerns as to what is allowed.
Mr. Anfuso describes business again.
Public session closes at 7:50.
Motion made to grant special exception at the current level with limited expansion to fall within the guidelines of the ordinance.
Motion seconded and passed at 7:55.
Hearing of case 03-6 opens at 8:00 pm.
Sitting on Board: Roger Phelps, John Gryval, Dale Sanford, Kevin O’Connell, and Daniel Dineen.
John recaps case to date, Mr. Cooper is presented invoice for $249.12 and pays with check #1540.
Mr. Michaels, Mr. Cooper’s attorney, presents his case to the board.
Attorney Michaels shows the building area outside of the wetlands buffer and floodplain. Discusses hardship definition and the Simplex case.
Specifies why he believes they qualify for a variance and goes through the variance checklist. He states that the foundation is substantially completed, and that they meet the minimum fifty-foot setback. Attorney Michaels admits there were errors, but if it were a two-acre lot, the lot would qualify. Attorney Michaels states that the 97.5 foot reduced setback can’t be established and that it would cost twenty thousand dollars to move the foundation.
Attorney Michaels states septic location was not bad faith mistake by client. He also states no diminishing of values in area as other houses in area also have same setback, and public interest would be served, as they’ll be staying out of the floodplain. He also states that due to degree of past development that refusing the Equitable Waiver would deny his client reasonable use of his property, and again visits the Simplex case.
Attorney Michaels closes stating that he believes they have meet the requirements for Equitable Waiver, and one should be granted.
Dan Dineen asks why the map has no Engineer’s stamp?
Tom Carr states the map is a copy of his, highlighted to show the floodplain and wetland buffer, and is the same as the original, He also states the floodplain and wetlands decided location.
John Gryval describes the original septic to the forum.
Kevin questions the structure being substantially completed with only the foundation done. Mr. Michaels replies that the foundation is the structure in question. Kevin replies he doesn’t believe that that was the legislatures intent, that they meant the end purpose, the whole structure.
Tom Carr asks if building permit is available, Kevin shows him a copy.
John asks, when they filed for the building permit, whom’d they ask about the setback.
Tom Carr replies at the start it was Peter Hopkins and Daryl Cooper, and that wetland and setback couldn’t be violated; he made assumption based on inspection, that he was OK to go.
John Gryval and Tom Carr go over map, discussing wetlands buffer and elevation.
John asks what was the foundation original cost, replies Twenty One Thousand Plus.
John asks if any more to be said in favor of granting waiver, any opposed?
Eileen Khouw asks if mistakes have been made, can more be made?
John: No, violation is still violation.
Eileen Khouw states she feels this proposed property would detract from other property in area, she agrees with the required setback, and states here 200 year old house is too close to the road. She’s also concerned with safety of any children that might live in the house, cars speed on the road.
Dale Sanford asks Eileen Khouw how far is the house from the street? 51 feet.
Roger motion to close public session, seconded and passed
Board goes through checklist, and discusses case.
Roger motions to deny, seconded. Board votes and denies waiver.
Re-hearing of case 03-4 re-opens at 9:35 pm.
Attorney Michaels goes over the reason for the re-hearing.
With 3.75 acres, floodplain and wetland, setback can’t be met. Discussion of Simplex case. States they have hardship, diminished value. The town has shown the setback to be flexible, and this would be consistent with neighborhood setbacks.
Attorney Michaels states granting the variance would grant public interest. As they’d be out of the floodplain and wetlands, that denial would create hardship; Mr. Cooper wouldn’t be able to use his property reasonably, that the building window is limited, but the lot is usable. He further states that granting doesn’t conflict with the spirit of the ordinance because the setback would be at least fifty feet. That their private rights violated. The lot’s build able and it would be unfair to deny him use of the property. Again, if the lot was two acres, we would be OK.
Attorney Michaels closes by stating that clearly they meet the conditions for a Variance.
Tom Carr states that Planning Board Subdivision requirements steer them away from Floodplain, quotes section 5a.
Kevin replies that that’s in the case of subdivision development, not in the case of lot of record. Shows Mr. Carr Floodplain development ordinance.
John asks if anyone else to speak in favor of the Variance, any opposed?
Letter from Dr. Khouw read into record.
Mr. Michaels replies to letter, property is in town, house is in town.
Daniel Dineen asks was plot plan available?
Mr. Cooper: Don’t know, haven’t seen one.
Dan: wasn’t one submitted with permit?
Cooper: don’t remember.
John Gryval: why can’t house go in yellow section?
Tom Carr: if the house is in yellow it’s still out of the floodplain, but wouldn’t make setback. I’m a wetlands engineer, I don’t like to see development in wetlands, and I’m a naturalist.
Discussion between John and Tom Carr on the walkout feature of basement, floodplain, house placement, foundation dimensions, elevations, and placing house in floodplain.
Roger questions what constitutes a build able lot.
John states there are numerous cases on this.
Attorney Michaels states clearly this is a building lot, and not an unreasonable use.
George Rainier questions this being a build able lot. Public session closes at
10:30 pm.
Variance questions forwarded,
The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values. Board passes, no diminished value.
Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest. No, we were told it could go back.
Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner.
No
Granting the variance would do substantial justice.
No
The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
No
Roger motion to deny Variance, Dan seconded.
John; any further discussion?
Vote taken, Variance denied at 11:00 pm.
| 
