ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
THURSDAY, JULY 1, 2004
356 Main Street
Members Present: Margaret Russell, Russell Stoakes, Randy Orvis, Tom Brennan, Gordon Grant
Staff Present: Fran Osborne
Public Present: Jane Wingate, Raymond Riley, Phil Sirowik (WCV, Inc.) Attorney Craig Salomon
· Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Roll call was done. Members present listed above. Chairman Russell informed the board Charlie King has sent a letter received at this meeting that he is resigning as the Planning Board/Zoning Board of Adjustment Liaison, effective immediately. Chairman Russell asked for review and approval of the minutes of June 3, 2004. Russell Stoakes made a motion to amend the minutes as follows, Tom Brennan 2nd, Gordon Grant abstained:
Page 1, 3rd paragraph as follows: Chairman Margaret Russell stated Tom Brennan, not Russell Stoakes.
Page 1, add Russell Stoakes to those members present
Randy Orvis is recused and Chairman Russell has seated Gordon Grant for Randy Orvis.
· The amended Zoning Board of Adjustment By-Laws were signed by board members to be given to the Town Clerk for the files. Gordon Grant made a motion to recess to 7:30 p. m., Tom Brennan 2nd, motion carried. Meeting reconvened at 7:30 p. m.
Public Hearing 7:30 p.m.
· WCV, Inc. – Appeal from an Administrative Decision by the Building Inspector on April 29, 2004 in relationship to Section 3.01 of the Zoning Ordinance (Tax Map R53, Lot 13). Randy Orvis is representing WCV, Inc. and stated he was here because of a denial of a 2nd building permit on lot 13 which is allowed according to the Zoning Ordinance. Randy referred to Section 3.00 General Standards. Definition of “Lot” – a lot is a parcel of land delineated by boundary lines. Section 3.01 states up to two principal single-family dwellings shall be allowed without site plan review and approval by the
Planning Board. In this case all dimensional requirements shall be met with sufficient distance between principal structures to permit future subdivision. This is an existing lot of record (8.2 acres). Discussion on Section 2.01 Agricultural Residential (AR) and Space & Bulk Standards, 1 dwelling unit per 3 acres is allowed, include 15’ side and 50’ front setback. Section 1.04 (C) (1) Existing lots of record are exempt from dimensional requirements. Setback requirements must be met and the lot must have a minimum of 50’ frontage on a street giving access. Setback requirements must be met and the lo must have a minimum of 50’ frontage on a street giving access. WCV, Inc. asked for a 2nd dwelling on this lot, it meets the 3-acre requirement per dwelling. Up to 2 single-family dwellings are allowed without Site Review. Three homes would require Site Review.
Discussion of the Table of Permitted Uses A. Principal Uses – Single-family detached dwellings are permitted in the AR Zone. There is sufficient distance between the buildings (15’ per lot), or 30’ for the two. Randy Orvis provided a sketch to show how the lot could be subdivided if necessary in the future. There is sufficient area that it could be subdivided and frontage created. Discussion in the AR zone of one dwelling per three acres, two dwellings are allowed on the lot, and under lot definition are allowed. Discussion on Section 1.04 (C) (1) – non-conforming existing lots of record are allowed. Attorney Craig Salomon is here. Definition of frontage – that portion of the property boundary shared with a street as defined in this ordinance. The lot shares 50’ off Hornetown Road on Shepherd Road. Attorney Salomon – my understanding is there is some history. Before the
current Zoning Ordinance, it was allowed in Farmington to do two lots and be exempt from the frontage requirement. The language of the Zoning Ordinance says a building has to be on a lot – along with dimensional requirements, look at this along
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting July 1, 2004 (continued) Page 2
with the sketch by Randy Orvis. “All dimensional requirements must be met,” – the rest of the sentence does not make sense. The intent was for future subdivision if dimensional requirements are met.
Randy Orvis – discussion on the Zoning Ordinance, Section 3.01, relationship of building to lots and this being a lot of record.
Attorney Salomon – discussion on “administrative gloss” - historically the way the town has administered a decision. This Zoning Ordinance was in effect just the way it is now.
Phil Sirowik – I have received DES septic approval. I just finished a similar project on the lot next door.
Randy Riley (abutter) – asked what Phil Sirowik said. Phil said he was denied a building permit when he applied for it.
Russell Stoakes – asked if Phil Sirowik was going to subdivide this lot. Phil Sirowik – no. He will be doing condo documents as he did on the lot next door. There will be one lot on one side of Shepherd Road and one on the other side.
Tom Brennan – where does the line fall on the 1st lot? Randy Orvis explained the houses are approximately where we are showing them on the sketch.
Tom Brennan – discussion on line – comes behind the 1st house.
Attorney Salomon – we can design with 3 acres for each house.
Phil Sirowik – we will make a driveway to the house off Shepherd Road.
Tom Brennan – lot 13 driveway discussion on the 1st house. At the end of the 1st lot of 3 acres, a driveway would have to be created. The lot would be “L” shaped.
Margaret Russell – is this a town approved road? Randy Orvis – it is an easement.
Margaret Russell – discussion on Section 3.01. You need 250’ frontage on a town approved road. A subdivision has to be on a town approved road. Setbacks would be met. Here you have a street without the frontage requirement. Discussion on dimensional requirements being met with sufficient distance between the 2 homes. Discussion on lot and street definitions. Section 3.02 – access of Lots to Streets – no building shall be erected on a lot unless the lot has street frontage as defined in Section 1.12.
Attorney Salomon – legal frontage is on Hornetown Road, discussion on subdivision and 200’ of frontage of lot. Section 3.01 was discussed and how a future subdivision could be done with two houses on this lot.
Margaret Russell – Section 3.10 Private Road Standards – the Planning Board may approve the use of private roads controlled by a legally established entity responsible for the maintenance of the private road. Private roads must be built in accordance with the standards set forth in the Farmington Site Review Regulations. Attorney Salomon – this road is now an easement, not a road.
Margaret Russell – discussion on setbacks between the two buildings. You have to have sufficient dimensional requirements to be able to subdivide at a future date. This paper road does not meet subdivision regulations for road requirements. Discussion on Section 1.04 (C) (1).
Randy Riley – has everything changed since they were subdivided.
Margaret Russell – things have changed.
Tom Brennan – discussion on 3-acre requirement per dwelling and this being an 8.2 acre lot with a house already there.
Margaret Russell – we need to decide if the CEO made a correct decision.
Tom Brennan – this is an existing non-conforming lot.
Legal counsel letter reviewed by the board. Discussion on Shepherd Road location and wetlands area location and the question of sufficient driveway to be done for the 2nd house.
Russell Stoakes – discussion on frontage requirement of 250’ per lot for each home. Section 3.01 - frontage on Hornetown Road and being separated for two homes.
Attorney Salomon – read paragraph #3 from Attorney Laura Spector’s letter – Section 3.01 of the Farmington Zoning Ordinance which permits two principal structures on one lot. In providing this privilege, however, section 3.01 does require that “all dimensional requirements shall be met with sufficient distance between principal structures to permit future subdivision.” The drafters of the ordinance obviously intended to allow two single-family homes on one lot without subdivision approval
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting July 1, 2004 (continued) Page 3
only where that one lot could, in fact, legally be subdivided into two lots. In order to obtain a building permit for two single-family homes on one lot, then, all requirements, including frontage, must be met regardless of whether the lot at issue predates the current zoning requirements. Should WWC, Inc. wish to pursue the construction of two homes on this one lot, it will need to obtain a variance from the Farmington Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Margaret Russell – this road is more than 900’. We don’t know the building inspector or Planning Board would approve this road. Attorney Salomon – Mr. Sirowik did this on Lot 12. Read the note on Building Permit for Lot 13. No variance was requested on the first building permit for Lot 12.
Tom Brennan – mistakes made cannot be taken into account. We should look at the request.
Randy Orvis – this is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for two dwelling units.
Margaret Russell – I can understand why the building inspector denied this. Take the road out and look at the tax map on what it is.
Randy Orvis – the building inspector was wrong.
Attorney Salomon – are you saying you need 500’ for two homes?
Margaret Russell – it has to include the whole dimensional requirements on an established street.
Attorney Salomon – Section 3.01 definition discussion.
Margaret Russell – Section 3.01 does not say this in order to subdivide. Randy Orvis - discussion on the AR zone requirements. How could you subdivide using Hornetown Road as frontage.
Margaret Russell – you need a road. Attorney Salomon – referred to the last line of Section 3.01. This is a nonconforming lot. This happens all the time. We showed a sketch that it could be done. Further discussion.
Randy Orvis – you don’t look at Subdivision Regulations – they don’t apply.
Russell Stoakes – I don’t think Subdivision Regulations language fits into our realm.
Randy Orvis – when these lots were subdivided they required no frontage requirement.
Margaret Russell – maybe we should continue this and get the opinion of the CEO on his interpretation. Discussion on Section 3.04 Development of Rear Lots. A rear lot is a lot which is located to the rear of another lot or lots with street frontage as defined in Section 1.12. A rear lot existing at of the date of adoption of this section may be developed for residential uses, provided that: (A) there is an unobstructed access to the rear lot from the street over land that is not needed to meet the minimum requirements of the zone for the front lot. (B) The proposed driveway must be approved by the CEO, the SVM & H, and a representative from the Fire Dept. A rear lot existing as of the date of adoption of this section may be developed for non-residential uses, but
non-residential developments are subject to site plan review and all other such reviews as may be required.
Randy Orvis – this lot stands on its own value. Discussion of sketch provided.
Margaret Russell – it’s up to us to decide whether the CEO made a correct decision.
Tom Brennan – discussion on each lot having 3 acres on its own and driveway access to the rear lot. The lot is not being subdivided, just a 2nd home is being put there with “Limited Condo Documents and at least 3 acres for each home minimum.
Attorney Salomon – we’ll do that.
Russell Stoakes – we could make a decision without further clarification. Russell Stoakes made a motion that the building inspector made a wrong decision in denying WCV, Inc. a 2nd building permit on Lot 13, that he should have given the building permit for a 2nd home on lot 13 and he would like to reverse the building inspector’s decision to allow the 2nd home on lot 13 based on the nonconforming lot definition, Tom Brennan 2nd, discussion - Margaret Russell doesn’t think it meets the Section 3.01 definition and being able to subdivide at a future date requirement.
Randy Orvis – zoning requirement is 40,000 s. f. of contiguous uplands.
Vote is 3 in favor (Russell Stoakes, Tom Brennan, Gordon Grant), Margaret Russell not in favor of granting the appeal and voted against granting the appeal, motion carried.
Attorney Salomon – we are withdrawing without prejudice our Variance request.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting July 1, 2004 (continued) Page 4
Jane Wingate – discussion on Northern Land Traders developing these lots and asked how many more houses would be built this way. Attorney Salomon – this will be it. No more houses.
· With no further business to discuss, Gordon Grant made a motion to adjourn at 8:45 p. m., Tom Brennan 2nd, motion carried.
APPROVED
________________________________ ________________________
Margaret Russell, Chairman Date
| 
