Greenfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
June 26, 2007
Board re-convenes at 7:30pm with Chairman Gryval, members Phelps, O’Connell, Pettigrew and alternate Sanford,
At 8:12 pm Roger motions to re-open hearing 07-4 for Charles Roberson of Greenfield requesting a variance from Section III.C.3 of the Greenfield Zoning Ordinance.
John explains the why we adjourned, and that Mr. Roberson now has a plat of the lot, and the board views the plat.
Roger asks where the septic is.
Mr. Roberson states he didn’t put it in because it drops down out back, and that’s where the septic is. He also states he moved the garage back to 35 feet to comply with the front setback, but still needs one from the side.
Roger asks of the tennis court. Mr. Roberson states it’s gone to seed, but Mr. Vincent would like to upgrade it to use it.
Craig questions why the garage can’t go on the right side of the house.
Mr. Roberson says the tennis court’s there, and it drops down out back.
Dale states,” If you moved it ten feet, it wouldn’t be an issue.”
Mr. Roberson;” Then it would be in the middle of the lawn.”
Dale; ”No, just off the driveway a little.”
Kevin questions if could be put on the right side.
John asks what if you put in on the right side.
Craig, speaking of the proposed location states,” We have to justify why it has to be there.”
The board talks of the present driveway cut location.
Kevin states he’s in favor of keeping there, away from the Gould Hill intersection.
Dale states the old driveway was closer.
Roger motions to close the public hearing.
Seconded by Kevin, voted unanimously.
Roger states it appears it’s the only practical location.
John goes through the questions to determine a variance.
1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values.
Dale: ”No it wouldn’t.”
Roger: “The garage would increase it.”
2. Granting the variance must not be contrary to the public interest.
Roger;” No, it isn’t.”
Dale; “No”
John: “No.”
Craig, “No.”
Kevin; Yes, he feels that the ordinance should stand, that it already allows a reduction, and states under no circumstance should the reduced setback be violated.”
3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner.
Dale;” It’s the most logical use.”
John: “…”that the zoning restriction as applied to the property interferes with the reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment.” It could be put somewhere else.”
Craig;” It could go somewhere else.”
John; “Would it be unnecessary hardship?”
Roger;” I’d go back to what Kevin said of the location of the driveway and the intersection.”
John;” Couldn’t the driveway opening stay where it is and go to another location, he’s seen long winding driveways elsewhere.”
John calls for a vote on whether it’s a hardship.
Yes: Roger, and Dale.
No: Kevin, Craig, and John.
4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice.
The board discusses it and John asks for a vote.
Roger; Yes
Dale: Yes
John; would be a convience but Yes.
Craig: Yes
Kevin: No
5. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
Craig: “It’s contrary, yes.”
Roger states he doesn’t feel it is, No
Dale; No
Kevin; Yes
John; No
Roger makes a motion to approve the granting of the variance,
Seconded by Dale, motion carried.
Board votes with Roger and Dale voting yes, and Kevin, Craig, and John voting No. Motion fails
Kevin reads the minutes from last meeting, and Roger motion to accept the minutes as read, seconded and voted in the affirmative.
Board discusses moving meeting night, but decides to leave it as Tuesday for now.
Motion to adjourn by Roger at 9:50, seconded and carried.
| 
