ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
THURSDAY – MARCH 2, 2006
356 MAIN STREET - FARMINGTON, NH
Members Present: Elmer W. "Butch" Barron III, John David Aylard, Barry Elliott-Alternate, Joanne Shompe-Alternate, Gerald McCarthy, Randy Orvis
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: Donald Sullivan, Lisa Beede
Chairman Barron called the meeting to order at 6:11 p.m.
Review and approve Meeting Minutes of 02-02-2006; Barry Elliot motions to approve, 2nd Joanne Shompe, no discussion, Randy Orvis and Gerry McCarthy abstain, motion passes.
Chairman Barron turns the floor over to Paul Esswein who addresses the members of the board regarding the upcoming April 1st OSP Seminar.
Application for a Use Variance from Article 2.03 of the Farmington Zoning Ordinance By: Donald Sullivan and Lisa Beede (Tax Map R48, Lot 10); Property known as 268 Charles Street; Located in the (SR-1) Suburban Residential 1 Zoning District. Variance to allow the operation of a sign service and installation business on the same parcel as a residential use.
Chairman Barron asks the applicant to step forward and state his/her name and address.
Donald Sullivan, 268 Charles Street, I am requesting a variance to operate/run my sign company out of our home.
Chairman Barron comments that they have been there a while, Donald Sullivan replies over 2 years. Their business is fabrication and sign service and installation.
Chairman Barron begins with the Use Variance Criteria Work Sheet;
#1 – There (would – would not) be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of the
granting of this variance because:
Randy Orvis asks if there are any employees? Donald Sullivan replies 1 in the summertime and that person’s car takes the place of one work truck.
Barry Elliott asks if they store signs on site until installation time and further comments that he has been by this site and asks if they are installers. Donald Sullivan replies they collect scrap aluminum and signs they have removed until they accumulate enough scrap to dispose of. Barry Elliot asks how many working vehicles, Donald Sullivan comments there are 2 trucks on the road all the time, 1 is a bucket truck used for the summertime.
Barry Elliott brings up the subject of diminishing of property (photos being passed between board members as submitted from an abutter); Chairman Barron and Barry Elliott agree that this should be discussed at the end.
#2 - The granting of this variance (would – would not) be contrary to the public interest because:
No discussion from the board members
#3 - Since
(a) the zoning restriction as applied to the property (interferes – does not interfere) with the reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment such that;
Joanne Shompe asks the applicant if they put a 2-bay garage in would they store cars; Donald Sullivan replies it would be for he trucks.
John David Aylard asks if/when the garage will be built, Donald Sullivan replies that they are researching and receiving quotes on the cost; still do not have a deadline for the build.
(b) there (is – is not) a fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because;
Applicant is asked to clarify the sign business; Donald Sullivan replies only installation.
Chairman Barron comments that this is located in the SR Zoning District Residential; Paul Esswein comments that possibly could be considered a home occupation, Chairman Barron asks for clarification of a home occupation.
Donald Sullivan interjects that they are sub-contractors not employees.
(c) that the variance (would – would not) injure the public or private rights of others since;
Barry Elliott comments that you demo signs and taking them down and feels it is pretty hard determining some of the old stuff; Barry Elliot continues with discussion on his opinion of the active operation; Gerry McCarthy confirms that they are only a stones throw away from the garage that is an active commercial business; and asks the applicant how much they store on site; Donald Sullivan replies they only stock pile aluminum until they collect enough for a load.
#4 By granting this variance substantial justice (would – would not) be done because;
Chairman Barron states that he is not sure maintaining their house is valid to substantial justice
#5 The use contemplated by petitioner as a result of obtaining this variance (would – would not) be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because;
Barry Elliott comments that the spirit of the ordinance is to maintain a rural atmosphere, are other businesses in area maintaining; if you look at the operations, pretty small area to retain all that equipment. Donald Sullivan replies that is my side of the yard, the wife has the other side of the yard, Barry Elliot comments that your side of the yard if quite busy.
Chairman Barron reads into the record a letter from the Longchamps an abutter to the Sullivan / Beede property and all board members review the photos that were submitted with the letter.
Joanne Shompe doesn’t see where granting the variance would have them clean up the yard.
Randy Orvis interjects that you could grant the variance with conditions and feels it would be helpful.
Joanne Shompe states only part of the problem is the trucks and asks the applicant how is there property referred to as a landmark; Donald Sullivan states that people use his trucks as a point for Waldron Road.
Barry Elliott asks the applicant if denied variance what would you do, Donald Sullivan replies that he would have to retain counsel.
Gerry McCarthy asks the applicant about the process of his business.
Barry Elliott asks about the temporary garages; Donald Sullivan replies 1 for tools; other is for stock for the trucks; there is a compressor in one and lawn equipment, storage, and a heating system to be installed also there are 2 unregistered cars, which we were told we could have 2 unregistered vehicles on the property.
Chairman Barron states that looking at the pictures it appears that a site review will be required; one issue is the trucks are pulled in front 1st which means you must back out of the driveway area onto 153 and I can see issues with that happening. Donald Sullivan states that we back out just enough to enable the vehicles to pull forward in front of the house.
Barry Elliot brings the subject of the 2-bay garage for trucks; and further states he believes that there are wetlands and woodsy areas down behind the house and that he is not sure they could go to site review and be approved. He believes there will be screening issues at site review time and assumes those will come into play and not sure if it could work.
Randy Orvis asks where the septic system is; he believes it could be on the right side looking at the house.
Chairman Barron states that if we granted the variance we should with conditions and have them go immediately to site review.
Randy Orvis explains the State Highway approval required.
Chairman Barron states that the unregistered cars should be removed and clean up the area; add a stockade fence so that the items are not visible from driving by.
Lisa Beede questions the board asking what is the difference in backing out whether it is a truck or a car?
Chairman Barron advises that he is not sure it is legal to back anything out onto a street that is a State Highway.
Lisa Beede states that we don’t carry any signs when we leave for work that the truck is empty.
Gerry McCarthy asks if we grant the variance, then they will go to the Planning Board for site review.
Randy Orvis poses a question to Paul Esswein asking under what category would we classify this application as I review the Table of Permitted Uses it seems that this could fall under a Special Exception for contractors; Paul Esswein reviews the Table of Permitted Uses and states that you might be right Randy to look at this as a Special Exception and that we should re-consider this application under those criteria and continue this to the next Zoning Board Of Adjustment Meeting for April 6, 2006; Paul Esswein further states that it would be legitimate to consider this as a Special Exception. The Planning Department will put this on their April agenda and re-notice as the departments expense both newspaper and abutters.
Barry Elliott states that although they will apply under a Special Exception, they will still be required to go to the Planning Board for Site Review.
Chairman Barron motions to continue this hearing to the April 6, 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting and to re-notice at no charge to all abutters and the newspaper, 2nd Randy Orvis, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
7:07 p.m.
Randy Orvis motions to adjourn, 2nd Gerry McCarthy, no further discussion, all those in favor, motion passes.
APPROVED AS AMENDED 04-06-2006; Page 3 of 4; 2nd paragraph from bottom, last word in sentence; change the word card to car
_____________________________________________ ___________________________
Elmer W. “Butch” Barron, III; Chairman Date
Farmington Zoning Board Of Adjustment
| 
