 |
ANTRIM ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
September 5, 2006 meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Bradley Houseworth John Kendall Len Pagano Paul Vasques Don Winchester Paul Young
Member Absent
Carol Court Doug Crafts Frank Scales
Public Attendees:
John Giffin Nancy Johnson Steve Johnson Joe Koziell Kathy Koziell Donna Pratte Roderick Pratte Andrew Robblee
Chairman Winchester convened the meeting at 7:20 PM. Mr. Winchester welcomed everyone, introduced the Board, and explained that the Board is here tonight to hear three cases: two (2) variances and one (1) special exception. Mr. Winchester announced the order of the cases for the night (Johnson, Koziell, and Pratte), explained to the public attendees the process of the public hearings and how the meetings will be conducted.
Johnson, Stephen and Nancy File # 2006-10ZBA: At 7:25 PM, Mr. Winchester opened the public hearing on the request of Stephen and Nancy Johnson for a variance to Article VIII, Section C.3 of the Zoning Ordinances to construct an addition within the 100 foot minimum setback line for property located on 37 Upper Road, Antrim, NH 03440 Tax Map 7B, Lot 53 in the Lakefront Residential District. Mr. Johnson began his proposal by explaining that they are applying for a variance for a property located on Franklin Pierce Lake. He explained that the house was built twenty-five (25) years ago, is approximately 18 x 25 feet, and sits seventy-five (75) feet back from the water. He is requesting permission to add an addition and add a sun porch on the opposite end no closer to the water than the existing building is. He mentioned that he has read through the Town Ordinances, has listed the size of the property on the application, and he stated he is beginning to try and refurbish the house.
He explained that he just had the septic system redone, there are a number of other repairs he needs to do, and wants to know if he can add on to the building and make it more useful for them. He stated that they wish to expand the use of the property for the season, to make it more livable, because right now it is just a cottage/camp.
Chairman Winchester said the Board would ask some questions but asked Mr. Johnson if he had any other additional visual information or maps for the Board? He said no, but explained that basically where he wants to build is really the only place to expand on the property. He explained that the house is cradled in between several confinements: the road itself, the slope behind it, and the shore land on the front. Mr. Pagano asked what the side yard setback requirement is, Mr. Winchester replied twenty (20) feet.
Mr. Young asked Mr. Johnson if he already has an existing deck on the front of the house and whether any of the deck will be removed for the proposed expansion. Mr. Johnson said there is an existing deck but that the deck would stay, and that he only put the footprint of the foundation of the building itself on the drawings he provided to the Board. Mr. Young clarified by asking if there is already a deck further out than the 18’ x 25’ cottage footprint, Mr. Johnson replied yes. Mr. Young stated that the existing deck looks considerable by the picture, at least fifteen (15) feet or so from the cottage. Mr. Johnson explained that there is a portion of the deck that is six (6) feet wide, a wider area around fifteen (15) feet, and a set of stairs that go down from the deck. Mr. Young asked if Mr.
Johnson wants to build out on both sides, he replied yes. Mr. Pagano asked Mr. Johnson if part of the existing deck would be covered by the two-story living space addition, he replied yes. Mr. Kendall asked how old the deck is and whether it was original with the house, Mr. Johnson said it was built over a number of years; about 25 years ago he started building it over a five (5) year period. Mr. Young asked Mr. Johnson if he is taking down a portion of the deck, he replied yes and that it would be where the two-story addition comes out. Mr. Young asked about the sun porch, Mr. Johnson explained that it is a screen porch, a deck with screening and a lean-to roof. Mr. Young stated so there is already an existing deck that is ten (10) to twelve (12) feet closer to the lake than the cottage, Mr. Johnson replied yes. Mr. Kendall asked Mr. Johnson if he has plans to extend the deck to the screen porch, he replied laterally yes and that there will be
an entry way from the screen porch onto the deck. Mr. Pagano clarified by asking Mr. Johnson if the deck would be enlarged as well under the proposed plan, Mr. Johnson said yes to attach the new screen porch to the deck. Mr. Pagano further clarified by stating that the drawing of the proposed work does not show either the existing deck or the proposed enlargement to the existing deck, Mr. Johnson replied yes. Mr. Pagano stated that the deck is a consideration of the zoning board as well.
Mr. Kendall asked the planning staff if any letter from abutters had been received regarding this proposal, Mr. Vasques replied no. Mr. Kendall asked Mr. Johnson if he is doing anything to the deck on the opposite side of the house where the stairs of the deck are. He replied that pretty much the footprint of the deck would stay the same on that side, just extending the deck on the other side to the screen porch. He continued that they will be replacing the decking on the deck but the footprint of the deck would stay the same, other than the two-story edition, if allowed, that would take out a portion of the deck on the side. Mr. Young asked if Mr. Johnson was going to extend the decking any closer to the lake, he replied no. Mr. Young asked Mr. Johnson if he is going to make this a year round residence, he
replied no, strictly seasonal.
Chairman Winchester asked if any abutters were present concerning this proposal, no one answered. He asked if anyone would like to speak to this issue in the audience, abutter or not, no one replied. He asked Mr. Vasques if any letters or responses from abutters were received, Mr. Vasques stated no. Mr. Vasques stated that the only response the planning staff has had is an abutter that came into Town Hall with a concern regarding the side of the house where the proposed sun porch would be and where the leach field is. Mr. Vasques stated that she had mentioned that in the process of installing the leach field a lot of vegetation was taken down near the roadway and that her bedroom and bathroom now face the side of the house where the sun porch will go and she is concerned about privacy and was wondering if something
could be done to create a buffer zone. Mr. Vasques continued stating that it is strictly a matter between the applicant and the abutter to work out if they want to plant some trees or create some kind of buffer. Chairman Winchester stated that the real concern for the variance is the setback from the water and not the expansion on the sides, the expansion of what they already have because of the 100 foot setback from the high water mark.
Chairman Winchester asked the Board if they had more questions for the applicant. Mr. Kendall asked Mr. Johnson if he is going to extend the six (6) foot area of the deck out anymore than what is presently there, stating that this is the only thing he is having a problem. Mr. Johnson replied no. The Board then deliberated amongst themselves, trying to decide how to approve the variance and include conditions that limit the expansion to certain dimensions. Mr. Johnson asked if the Boards’ concern is the extension of the deck closer to the water than what already exists. Chairman Winchester stated no, the Boards’ concern is that the deck has not been clearly stated in the application or the request for the variance so if the Board approves the variance request it won’t specifically state that the
deck shall not be extended any closer to the water, but is something that can be added to the variance as a condition. Mr. Kendall clarified by stating that the variance should include language describing what the distance is from that point of the deck to the water because if the Board did it from the existing building, and the applicant extended the deck, then theoretically the Board hasn’t given the applicant a variance to build on that six (6) feet, so it needs to be passed as one completion. Mr. Kendall continued stating that his point is to be sure that the variance would include language stating that the extension of the deck to the sun porch would be the extent of the alterations to the deck. He also stated that as far as the concern of where the closest portion of the deck is to the water, it is a consideration that the Board takes into account when deciding to grant the variance. Mr. Johnson asked if the deck is considered to be the same as
the foundation of the building and so forth. Mr. Vasques stated that the deck is considered to be a structure, its permanent. Mr. Young stated that a condition could be added to the variance if granted that would include specific language describing specifically what is allowed to be expanded.
Mr. Pagano asked Mr. Johnson if the gravel right of way, shown on the drawings provided by the applicant, is the same as upper road on the town’s drawing, he replied yes. Mr. Pagano asked if Mr. Johnson if the gravel right of way is the road that he uses to come in and out of the property, he replied yes and that his deed specifically grants access to others across the right of way to their properties. Mr. Pagano asked Mr. Johnson if the right of way is twelve (12) feet from his house now, he replied yes. Mr. Young ask if the Board grants the variance request do they need to grant a variance for the distance of the house to the right of way. Mr. Vasques stated no, that a right of way is not synonymous with a road and in essence the other part of his property is on the other side of the right of way and continues
up a hill so there is no need for another specific variance for the distance of the house to the right of way.
After a thorough discussion among the Board and staff members about the language that could be used as conditions of the variance, Chairman Winchester asked the applicants if they had anymore questions. Mr. Johnson asked the Board if they are going to consider the application request plus some statement about a 6 foot lateral addition to connect the existing deck to the proposed sun porch. Mr. Winchester agreed, closed the public hearing, opened the public meeting, and the board began to deliberate amongst themselves. After a length discussion among the Board members, three conditions of approval were drafted by Mr. Vasques and read aloud:
1. The proposed sun porch shall be no closer than 12’ to the right of way, no closer than 21’ to the side of the property line, nor closer than 75’ to the high water mark.
2. The lateral extension of the deck shall not exceed 6’.
3. The two-story addition containing the study and dining room shall be no closer than 12’ to the right of way, nor closer than 35’ to the side property line nor closer than 75’ to the high water mark.
Mr. Kendall stated to the applicants that the Board doesn’t mean to make this process so hard but this is a tough situation, especially with the lakefront properties. He continued saying that the number one thing the Board always looks at is to prove hardship and a lot of properties are sold with the understanding that it is what it is, it’s on a small lot, and there’s not a lot you can do. He also stated that the applicants are obviously at a point where they can only expand to the left or right. He stated that his personal view is that if there was an opposing abutter present, he would deny the request for a variance. He also stated that there isn’t really a lot to stand on to pass this variance request, but it obviously pays to be friendly with your neighbors. Mr. Kendall stated that
he is right on the edge with this one, but is okay with it, and he understands that it is the only thing the applicants can do with their property. He finished by explaining to Mr. Johnson that the reason the Board is so specific with the measurements in the conditions is to assure that the granted variance request doesn’t grow into something they didn’t intend to pass; the Board only wants to pass what is presented to the Board. Mr. Winchester added that it may seem overly meticulous and drawn out but everything the Board does is precedent and the Board can be criticized later on by their procedures and practices; we have to be very diligent about how the Board goes about its business.
Mr. Winchester made a motion that a roll call vote be taken on the five criteria to be reviewed when granting a variance including the three conditions of approval as earlier stated by Mr. Vasques. Mr. Young seconded the motion which passed. Roll Call vote:
1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
2. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest. Role call vote: Mr. Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because of special circumstances of the property that distinguish it from other properties similarly zoned. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
4. Granting the variance would do a substantial justice. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
5. The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
Mr. Johnson was advised that the variance had been granted and he would receive an official notice of decision in the mail, signed by Chairman Winchester.
Koziell, Joseph and Katharine File # 2006-09ZBA: Mr. Winchester opened the public hearing on the request of Joseph and Katharine Koziell for a variance to Article XIV, Section X of the Zoning Ordinances to create a multifamily dwelling, which is not connected to the Town sewer system, for property located on 4 Contoocook Valley Ave., Antrim, NH 03440 Tax Map 1C, Lot 190 in the Village Business District. Mr. Koziell began his proposal by explaining the background of the building, stating that it is the old nuts and bolts building on Contoocook Valley Avenue, and provided front and back pictures of the building from 2002 and 2006. He stated that they bought the building in 2002 and was granted approval by the PB in January 2003 to construct a second apartment. He stated that as per the request of the
Board, they went ahead and received a septic system design from the state for a building consisting of 3 apartments (6 bedrooms) and one office. He stated that due to inattention on their part, the town past an ordinance in 2005 stating that all multifamily dwelling units must be on the town water and sewer system. He explained that this building, which they are turning into a multifamily dwelling, is on the town water system but is not on the town sewer system. He stated that if they had gone ahead and installed the new septic system as designed and approved by the state at that time, they probably wouldn’t be in front of the Board today. He continued saying that due to the inattention on their part caused them to be here requesting for a variance.
Mr. Koziell explained the 2006 pictures of the front and back of the building and the recent updates them have completed to the building. He stated that they have done a considerable amount of work to the building and certainly have enhanced its appearance. He explained that their intent with the construction is to build three high quality apartments: 2 apartments being 1500 sq. ft. and 1 apartment (which is currently built and occupied) is 900 sq. ft. He stated that the type of renters they are looking for are upscale and professional individuals that are willing to pay a little more money to be in a very nice apartment. He explained that this evidenced by the apartment on the 1st floor, the 900 sq. ft. apartment, which they are getting $800 per month for and is a little on the high side for an apartment
in Antrim. However, he stated the individual currently renting the 1st floor apartment is a professional and is willing to pay the money for a better place. Mr. Koziell finished his proposal by stating that this multifamily dwelling building adds something unique to Antrim, and the surrounding areas, because there is nothing really around which provides similar high end, upscale apartments.
Mr. Kendall asked Mr. Koziell what year he got the septic design, he replied that the design was from 2004 and the town has a copy of it on file. Mr. Kendall asked if it had expired yet, Mr. Koziell stated no. Mr. Koziell then provided a plot plan, the 2004 septic system design plan, and floor plans to the Board for review, which Chairman Winchester mentioned he was interested in seeing. Mr. Koziell reviewed the plot plans and floor plans with the Board, stating that there is plenty of parking for the proposed activities. Mr. Koziell also pointed out the first floor apartment and proposed office space along with the other two apartments on the second floor. Mr. Vasques pointed out to the Board that the present question in front of the Board is whether or not they are going to approve a multifamily dwelling that
is not on the town septic system. Mr. Vasques stated that furthermore, upon approval of this variance by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the applicant must go in front of the Planning Board for a site plan review for the establishment of a multifamily dwelling and the Board will then address the design of the apartments and so forth.
Mr. Kendall stated that the Board should just move forward with this variance and explained that the septic system design the applicant has from 2004 is probably going to be a lifetime system for the building for the amount of use it will get. Mr. Kendall explained that if anything, it is less taxing on the town sewer system with the installation of the new, private 2004 approved septic system. Chairman Winchester asked if any abutters are present with something to say concerning this proposal. No one answered. Chairman Winchester asked Mr. Vasques if any abutter letters were received by the Planning staff regarding this proposal, he replied no. Mr. Kendall stated that the only thing that concerns him regarding this particular septic system design is the presence of the high and low vents. He explained
that the high vent looks to be located pretty high up. Mr. Koziell explained that the way it was designed by Meridian is that the septic system will be located in the slope of the hill and the leach field will be feathered into the slope that descends gradually down to Contoocook Valley Avenue. Mr. Koziell explained that furthermore, the slope of the hill is wooded, the vents will be at the tree line, and you won’t be able to see the vents from the road.
Chairman Winchester made a motion to close the public hearing, Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Winchester opened the public meeting and asked the Board if they had any other questions for the applicant. Mr. Young asked Mr. Vasques if the Board has any precedent for the three apartments. Mr. Vasques replied no, stating that this is the first ruling since the new ordinance was established, and suggested that the Board add a condition stating that the septic system be constructed in accordance with the approval granted by the state for construction number CA2004068344 and Meridian Land Services, Inc. drawing dated October 20, 2004, project # 6128.00 so that the applicant is committed to the approved septic design and proposed construction of the three apartments and one office. Mr. Young asked if the Board is
basically approving four (4) different uses in this one building, Mr. Koziell stated no, it will be two different uses in four (4) units: three of which are residential and one that is commercial. Mr. Kendall asked Mr. Koziell what the current, existing septic system is, he said the system that was there with the building and is twenty seven or eight years old. Mr. Kendall said to Mr. Koziell so you are going to replace the septic system anyway, he said yes.
Chairman Winchester closed the public meeting and made a motion that a roll call vote be taken on the five criteria to be reviewed when granting a variance including the one condition of approval as stated by Mr. Vasques:
1. The septic system shall be installed in accordance with the State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services approval for construction number CA2004068344 and Meridian Land Services, Inc. drawing dated October 20, 2004, Project # 6128.00.
Mr. Young seconded the motion which passed. Roll Call vote:
1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
2. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest. Role call vote: Mr. Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because of special circumstances of the property that distinguish it from other properties similarly zoned. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
4. Granting the variance would do a substantial justice. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
5. The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
Mr. Koziell was advised that the variance had been granted, he would receive an official notice of decision in the mail, and now he has to come in front of the Planning Board for the establishment of a multifamily dwelling unit.
Pratte, Roderick and Donna File # 2006-11ZBA: Mr. Winchester opened the public hearing on the request of Roderick and Donna Pratte for a special exception to Article VII, Section C.j. of the Zoning Ordinances to construct a conversion apartment for property located off of West St., Antrim, NH 03440 Tax Map 1C, Lot 10 in the Rural Residential District. Mr. Pratte began his proposal by explaining that the Planning Staff advised him that his proposal falls under a conversion apartment and not a duplex because the proposed apartment is not a mirror image of nor as large as the rest of the house. Mr. Pratte stated that their intention is to have it as an in-law apartment for a relative later on, but want to be able to rent it out to someone else between now and then. Mr. Pratte then provided the Board with a
copy of updated plans/ floor plans of the house with the correct window sizes for the first and second floors. Mrs. Pratte stated that the conversion apartment is also just a one level apartment while their apartment is two levels. Mr. Pratte explained that the proposed conversion apartment is approximately 850 sq. ft., is one bedroom, and it won’t be a burden on the school system but will be an asset to the Town as it will be a taxable asset.
Mr. Pagano asked the applicants if it is going to be all a new building, Mr. Pratte replied yes, it will be all new construction. Mr. Pagano asked Mr. Pratte if the conversion apartment is on the left of the drawing, he replied yes and that he did make a submittal of the picture of the house itself in the application packet. Mr. Pratte explained that the picture of the house is actually a rendering of the house; it’s not the exact same thing but is very similar to it. He further explained that the dimensions of the apartment and house are basically 24’ by 36’ with their house having two stories and consisting of two bedrooms upstairs, and a living room, kitchen, and dining room downstairs. The conversion apartment is a one level, one bedroom apartment on the left side of the house pictured in the
provided rendered drawing. Mr. Kendall asked Mr. Vasques if the applicants need to go in front of the Planning Board, he said no, clarifying that this case is a special exception and not a variance and the criteria for make a decision on this special exception is different from the criteria to make a decision for granting a variance. Mr. Young asked the Board if the applicant is building a new house with a built-in mother or father in-law apartment for the future. Mr. Vasques said no, and Mr. Pagano added that this is basically a two family house. Mr. Vasques explained that there is a distinct difference between a mother in-law apartment and a conversion apartment. Mr. Pratte restated that they wish to rent it out so they want to make sure it is a conversion apartment. Mr. Vasques stated that it is a conversion apartment because it does not require interior access and has an access from the exterior. Mr. Pagano stated that essentially both
of these units can be rented, and it is basically a multifamily house. Mrs. Pratte explained that they weren’t sure about the wording but they knew it had to come before the Board because it was not within the regulations for building a single family home. Mr. Vasques explained that it doesn’t meet the criteria for a duplex either. Mr. Pagano asked Mr. Vasques if the applicants are in front of the Board because it is a non-conforming lot, he said no, they are here because a conversion apartment in the rural zoning district is a permitted use by special exception only. Mr. Kendall asked Mr. Vasques what classifies this differently from a duplex, Mr. Vasques explained that a duplex is a mirror image with a firewall and has other specific restrictions. Mr. Vasques explained that what is permitted in the district is a single family dwelling but there is no such thing as a single family home with a conversion apartment.
Mr. Kendall asked if there will be a firewall between the two apartments, Mr. Vasques explained that that is a concern for the building inspector and not the Board. Mr. Pratte added that there will be iciting (foam insulation) between the two apartments, which is a fire code requirement, essentially a fire wall that will also be for sound deafening. Mr. Kendall asked Mr. Pratte what he is going to do about parking; Mr. Pratte explained that they will use just one driveway. He stated that parking on the right will be for the conversion apartment and parking on the left will be for their apartment. He also mentioned that this is just going to be a one bedroom apartment so they only expect a maximum of two cars at the most for the conversion apartment. Mr. Pratte asked the Board if they wanted to see a plot plan
showing the location of the house and the septic, the Board stated no. Mr. Young asked Mr. Pratte if he has an approved permit for the septic system, he replied that the septic system had been designed and submitted and they are just waiting for it to come back. Mr. Young asked Mr. Pratte if they designed it for the correct number of bedrooms, he replied yes, designed for four bedrooms, its an oversized system for what they anticipate using it for.
Chairman Winchester asked if there were any abutters present that would like to speak in regards to this proposal, no one answered. Chairman Winchester asked Mr. Vasques if any abutter letters were received by the Planning Staff, Mr. Vasques replied no. Chairman Winchester closed the public hearing and opened the public meeting. Chairman Winchester asked the Board if they had any more questions for the applicants, no one answered. Chairman Winchester moved to close the public meeting and Mr. Young seconded.
Chairman Winchester made a motion that a roll call vote be taken on the six criteria to be reviewed when granting a special exception. Mr. Young seconded the motion which passed. Roll Call vote:
1. The proposed use may be similar to one or more of the uses already authorized in the district and is an appropriate location for such a use. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
2. Such approval would not adversely affect the neighborhood, nor otherwise be injurious, obnoxious or offensive. Role call vote: Mr. Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
3. The use will not create excessive traffic congestion, noise, or odors in the neighborhood where it is proposed. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
4. Such approval would be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance, after having given due consideration to recommendations received from the planning board. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
5. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
6. If the proposed special exception is listed in Article XIII, D, then it must meet all conditions of that article. Role call vote: Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
Mr. Pratte was advised that the special exception had been granted and he would receive an official notice of decision in the mail, signed by Chairman Winchester.
Spang, Katalin & John File # 2006-08ZBA (Consultation): Mr. Vasques advised the Board that in relation to the Board granting approval of a variance on the appeal of Katalin and John Spang for a variance to Article XVI, Section C.1 of the Zoning Ordinances to expand a non-conforming structure and their proposal to raise the roof of the garage by 2 feet in order to accommodate an artwork studio on 112 Gregg Lake Road, Antrim, NH 03440, Tax Map 2A, Lot 58 in the Lakefront Residential District, the applicant had been informed by her builder that the garage needs to be raised by four (4) feet instead of two (2) feet. The question posed by Mr. Vasques is whether the Board can just approve the raising of the roof by additional two (2) feet, for a total of four feet, or whether the applicant must come in front of the
Board again for a variance for the additional two (2) feet. Mr. Pagano stated no and that they must reapply. Mr. Pagano further explained that during the previous hearing he had specifically asked the applicants if they were sure two (2) feet were enough, and they said yes. Mr. Pagano stated that they should have asked for four (4) feet in the first place because right now the abutters have the right to object to four feet versus two feet. Mr. Vasques explained that he had spoken with Town Council on the situation and they stated the applicant must reapply for a variance because the initial variance that was granted by the Board was specifically to raise the roof by just two (2) feet and not four (4) feet. After some discussion, the Board decided that the applicant must reapply to the Board and pay for all of the fees
Mr. Vasques advised the Board that he will let Ms. Spang know of the Boards decision and schedule another date for her to come in front of the Board for a variance to raise the roof of the garage by four (4) feet.
Potential New Alternate ZBA Member: Mr. Vasques introduced Mr. John Giffin to the Board and stated that he has shown interest in being a potential alternate member of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Giffin introduced himself and explained his background and past professional experiences. Mr. Young made a motion to request that the Selectmen appoint Mr. Giffin as an alternate member to the Board. Mr. Kendall seconded the motion which passed. Mr. Vasques advised Mr. Giffin that the Board of Selectmen would appoint him at their next meeting and he would then have to see the Town Clerk to sign his oath of office.
Approve ZBA Meeting Minutes: Mr. Pagano made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 25, 2006 meeting as presented. Mr. Kendall seconded the motion which passed.
Mr. Winchester moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Young seconded the motion which passed. Mr. Winchester adjourned the meeting at 8:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley J. Houseworth, Planning Technician
Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment
| |
