ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2003
41 South Main Street
Members Present: Paul Parker, Charlie King, Gordon Grant, Randy Orvis, Margaret Russell & Bob
Moholland
Staff Present: Paul Charron and Fran Osborne
Public Present: Barry & Angela Elliott, Deme' Erickson, Lauri Fudge, Mr. & Mrs. Clausen, Chris
Jacobs (Crown Point Engineering), Jane & John Wingate, Attorney Francis Bruton,
Phil Sorowik, David Delpozzo, Bob Kelley, Brian Bogle, Pastor Jonathan Serndorf
(Farmington Pentecostal Church), Tom Demers, Attorney Solomon
· Chairman Parker called the meeting to order at 7:05 p. m. Minutes of April 3, 2003 were reviewed and Gordon Grant motioned approval, Margaret 2nd, Charlie King and Randy Orvis abstained (were not at this meeting), motion carried.
· Chairman Parker reviewed court case of ZBA vs. PB. The case was scheduled to be heard June 5, 2003, but has been continued but no date has been set. Paul said the ZBA does have standing.
· Chairman Parker introduced newly appointed board members Charlie King who is also the Liaison between the PB and ZBA, Randy Orvis and Bob Moholland.
· Election of Officers
Chairman - Margaret Russell motioned to nominate Paul Parker to continue as Chairman for the next year, Gordon Grant 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
Vice Chairman - Margaret motioned to nominate Randy Orvis as Vice Chairman, Gordon Grant 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
Secretary - Paul Parker motioned to nominate Margaret Russell, Gordon Grant 2nd, all in favor, motion carried.
· Recording secretary Fran Osborne let board members know she would be on vacation for the July 3, 2003 meeting and to talk with Town Administrator if someone was needed for recording minutes. Chairman Parker introduced board members to the applicants for public hearings.
Public Hearing 7:30 p. m.
· Application for Variance by WCV, Inc., Rte. 11/Ridge Rd. (Tax Map R50, Lot 47), to waive terms of the Zoning Ordinance, Table 2.09 to permit residential lots on Ridge Rd., in the IB District & allow use of the dimensional requirements for residential lots in the AR District. Randy Orvis is off the board for this hearing. Attorney Solomon is representing WCV, Inc. This is a straight forward request on a parcel on Rte.11/Ridge Rd. Property is in the IB District with 2 lots fronting on Ridge Rd. Proposal is for 2 residential lots (lot 1 will be 6.1 acres and lot 2 will be 3.01 acres). Both lots have 250'
frontage. The IB lot fronts on Rte.11 and is 6.8 acres with 959' frontage + 195' on Rte.11. There is a ridge line parallel to Rte.11. Randy showed on color coded map the areas concerned. The plan uses the lot as it is. Most structures now present in that area are residential. Attorney Solomon spoke on the 5 criteria: (narrative attached)
(1) No decrease in value of surrounding properties would be suffered. Attorney Solomon - this will increase the value of surrounding values.
(2) Granting the variance must not be contrary to the public interest. (narrative attached) The physical use is met by the topography.
(3) By granting the variance substantial justice would be done. (narrative attached)
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting June 5, 2003 (continued) Page 2
(4) The use must not be contrary to the Spirit & Intent of the Ordinance (narrative attached). The use is appropriate for the area of a business use on a state highway.
(5) Denial of Variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it. (narrative attached)
a. Zoning restriction as applied to applicant's property interferes with reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property and its environment.
b. No fair & substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance & the specific restrictions on the property.
c. The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others.
This is a reasonable proposal for the proposed development of this property. This ridge line naturally does what your ordinance requires. Under these circumstances we will use about 10 acres for residential. A residential use in the IB area is drawn by the ridge line which naturally does that separation from residential.
In summary, this is a large parcel, we will be creating 3 lots, 1 in the IB and 2 in the residential area. The ridge line creates a natural barrier for these purposes.
Bob Moholland - questioned the IB use - Phil of WCV, Inc. is not certain on a use yet. There will be no subdividing.
Randy Orvis - steep slope ordinance was read on page 50 of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 3.12 (E) Steep Slope Conservation (2) Any site disturbance of slopes exceeding fifteen percent (15%) shall be minimized. (3) No site disturbance shall be allowed on slopes exceeding twenty-five (25%), except under the following circumstances. (a) Logging shall be by specific approval of the Planning Board. A "submission plan" shall include: * an approved soil erosion and sedimentation plan;
* a listing of the amounts and species of timber to be harvested, which in
no case can be conducted on more than twenty-five percent (25%) of
the basal area of the timber located on these slopes; and
* a reclamation plan for restoring the site.
Chairman Parker asked for abutter comments - no abutters present.
Charlie King - how far does the IB zone go? Randy Orvis said it goes back to the old railroad bed. Charlie felt it wouldn't be creating issues with other abutters in the IB zone.
Chairman Parker closed the public portion of the hearing.
Margaret Russell - discussion of lots and changing the 2 lots on Ridge Rd. from IB to residential in the AR zone & allowing use of the dimensional requirements in the AR zone.
Chairman Parker read through the 5 variance criteria and explained the voting slip process to new board member Charlie King. Chairman Parker also read the purpose of the IB District from the Zoning Ordinance. He explained the separation of the lots by the uniqueness of the ridge. The questions were reviewed.
Margaret made a motion to accept the variance request as presented, amend to add lots 1 & 2 on the Ridge Rd. which now fall under the AR (Agricultural Residential) district and its restrictions/dimensional requirements, Gordon 2nd , 3 in favor 2 opposed, motion carried. Discussion.
· Application for Special Exception by David A. Delpozzo, Knotty Circle (Tax Map R44, Lots 29/30), as provided in Section 1.04 (C) (2) of the Zoning Ordinance. Randy Orvis is representing Mr. Delpozzo. Discussion on an error on the application. This should be changed to Section 1.04 (C) (3) of the Zoning Ordinance. These lots were approved back in the 1970's. Lots were developed before the present zoning. Previous lot size was 1 acre. Randy read the Zoning Ordinance Section 1.04 (C) (3): (a) Any boundary adjustment does not render a lot that is presently able to be built upon unbuildable,
including but not limited to considerations such as septic design, separation between subsurface disposal system components and water sources, etc. (b) A boundary line adjustment does not have an adverse impact on the public safety, health, or welfare. (all of 1.04 (C) (2) added 09-13-00).
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting June 5, 2003 (continued) Page 3
Randy said there are approved septic designs on Lot #29 & #30 (designs are after lot-line adjustment). He said the boundary line adjustment does not have an impact on the public safety, health or welfare. This allows the home on lot #29 to be built on a more level portion of the land. Randy showed the board and the public lines proposed & where houses will be located & septic systems. This adjustment makes it a more buildable lot as it was not a desirable lot to build on because of steep slopes.
Abutter Brian Bogle, 35 Knotty Knoll Circle - can a building permit be given without your permission. They did not offer a septic on original lots as presented. The lots have started to be built on. The courtesy about positioning of the house was not granted us and is closer to my house than I would like. What we would like has not been considered. We're stuck with what the builder puts there now because footings are in place. Chairman Parker stated he will ask CEO Paul Charron in due time about this. Mr. Bogle feels this whole process is being railroaded. I have a high water table. The septic systems that will be going in on these lots - where's the drainage going in relation to my lot?
Larry Johnson - I agree with Mr. Bogle. These lots have been presented in pairs. We were invited to come to the ZBA for input. He asked about Section 1.04 (C ) (2) being changed. He called the CEO Paul Charron and said we have a problem with excavation being started without a building permit. This was done on a Saturday when no one could be approached. The excavator was told by the owner of the property he had all permits necessary. Yonder Ridge was created as spacial lots with space between them. The positioning of the house on the lot is not centered and is not approved. We have a board that approves house positioning. Mr. Delpozzo sent a building permit to the CEO.
John Clausen (abutter) - my understanding is these pair lots were sold as one and were sold to Mr. Delpozzo from my understanding as a pair. One lot was said to be unbuildable. Our notices all say the issue is 1.04 (C ) (2) not 1.04 (C ) (3).
Chairman Parker asked CEO Paul Charron if a permit was in place. CEO - the applicant has lost a month because the ZBA was unable to meet for the May meeting. If the ZBA decides not to approve lot #30, lot #29 can be built on. This was advertised wrong because of a typo on the application. CEO Paul Charron - the septic was reviewed and approved for lots #29 & #30 per the lot line adjustment plan by the State. I check out drainage when I go to check the foundation.
Larry Johnson - questioned why CEO didn't look the site over beforehand. Chairman Parker explained we don't deal with covenants. This should be dealt with at the court level.
Mr. Delpozzo - in regard to lots 29 & 30, we are leaving vegetation intact. Setbacks are met. These lots were on the market and we proceeded on purchasing them. I made a determination I'm moving forward. I could have poured concrete today & have a house coming the 23rd . Lot #30 is also a buildable lot and he doesn't understand abutter issues.
Randy Orvis - in regard to typo - item (2) is not a Special Exception. Both lots after this adjustment do not render this lot unbuildable. Abutters were not given the chance to comment - if they came and attended the Zoning change meetings they could have spoken.
Mr. Delpozzo - these are 2 lots of record. I feel I have been stalled. I'm going forward. I have a customer under contract. If you look at this logistically, you have to approve it.
Brian Bogle - does applying for a building permit give you permission to go ahead?
John Clausen - if lot 30 is buildable I would just as soon not see the vegetation removed. I would just as soon see no home.
Laurie Fudge - if lot #30 is buildable, why is there no septic design?
Barry Elliott - does a building underway have an active permit by the CEO?
Mr. Delpozzo - I'm doing the lot line adjustment so the home is facing the road. Randy Orvis presented septic design for lot #30.
Charlie King - did lot #30 have an approved septic. Mr. Delpozzo - neither lot had a septic design approved before applying for the lot line revision. Charlie asked what evidence was presented they could meet setbacks.
Discussion on foundation drains and putting in foundation without a building permit. CEO - said he did an inspection. Footings meet the plan specs and are within regulations.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting June 5, 2003 (continued) Page 4
Mr. Delpozzo - I have footings on the proposed lot line changes for lots #29 & #30. Lot 30 wasn't that buildable without the lot line adjustment. The Zoning Ordinance says you can't make a buildable lot unbuildable. Public portion of meeting closed. Discussion on typo error on application. Chairman Parker - as a board we should motion to correct to Section 1.04 (C ) (3) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Charlie King - made a motion to change the application from Section 1.04 (C) (2) to Section 1.04 (C ) (3) of the Zoning Ordinance, Bob Moholland 2nd, motion carried. Discussion on whether abutter concerns would affect or have adverse impact on public safety, health or welfare. Bob Moholland is concerned about septic systems draining into wetlands. Chairman Parker said they have state approved septic systems. Discussion.
Gordon Grant made a motion to accept the application as presented, Charlie 2nd, 2 for, 3 against, motion fails.
Bob Moholland made a motion to deny the application for Special Exception Section 1.04 (C) (3) of the Zoning Ordinance, concerns of Class III wetlands, drainage of septic and concern of impact on public safety, Margaret 2nd, motion passes 3 to 2.
Mr. Delpozzo stated we would hear from his lawyer. He was informed by the Chairman he has a right to appeal within 30 days.
Charlie made motion to recess 5 minutes at 9:30 p.m., Margaret 2nd, meeting reconvened at 9:40 p. m.
Randy Orvis is seated back on the board.
· Application for Special Exception by Tom Demers, 516 Rte.11 (Tax Map R31, Lot 25), for exception to Zoning Ordinance Section 1.04 (B) (1) nonconforming structures. A plan was presented by Bob Talon for Mr. Demers. Attorney Francis Bruton is representing Tom Demers. The Special Exception limits us to 4 criteria. The introduction was read (attached) as well as the 4 criteria supporting this request (see attached).
(1) The expanded structure is no closer to the lot line than the existing structure:
(2) The expansion is not within the 100-year floodplain:
(3) Sanitary sewage disposal & water supply are provided if needed:
(4) The expansion does not adversely affect abutting properties, public health, safety or general welfare:
Mr. Demers would like to expand but keep the distance of 28' (requirement is 50'). We would like to bring that structure back to 34'. It would still remain 28' to satisfy Criteria #1. Applicant reviewed flood plain maps & expansion is not within 100-year floodplain. Public sewage & water will be supplied to the structure. The structure does not adversely affect surrounding properties - Two Greeks next door is closer to the lot line and more nonconforming than this structure. This use is consistent with similar uses in the area. We've covered the four aspects of criteria for this application. There is a slope in the back as well which is steep enough to keep the building where it is. We plan to build (approved use previously) a retail store for
sale of coffee & donuts with office/retail space for rent. No abutters were present. No remarks were received from the public. The increase to 34' would be expanded on the current foundation. The proposed building is roughly 40' x 68'. Tom Demers corrected to say it is now proposed for 36' x 60'. Discussion on this. Tom Demers provided a new plan which was drawn up for the PB.
Charlie - are you going into non-public session. Yes. Motion by Charlie King, 2nd Margaret Russell to go into public session at 9:50 p.m., meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m.
Tom Demers explained we're going for the Special Exception for the 28' existing footprint, but I would be happy with 34'.
Attorney Bruton - asked to make the 34' a condition of approval.
Tom Demers - discussion of Sona tubes and concrete slab. There are footings, slab & Sonatubes but I don't know the depth. I could find out. There is a concrete slab which ties into all this.
Attorney Bruton - the Zoning Ordinance defines "a structure as in or on the ground" which is a fairly broad definition.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting June 5, 2003 (continued) Page 5
Randy Orvis - the town has seen fit to enact a 50' setback there and I would like to believe this is for the public welfare and safety.
Attorney Bruton - it is currently nonconforming and the new building would meet the requirement and is not as close to the road as the adjacent Two Greeks property. Was the variance granted for the property or the use. Margaret - the use. This use is an approved use per the previous variance granted. Discussion.
Chairman Parker - we are here for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance Section 1.04 (B) nonconforming structure. Discussion on expansion.
Attorney Bruton - the footprint will remain and can be rebuilt on.
Bob Moholland - questioned safety - impact study. When will that intersection be redone?
Attorney Bruton - the state has already looked at the curb cuts. This is a PB issue.
Charlie King - do we have a copy of the proposed intersection changes?
Attorney Bruton - the state made the determination. He is not going closer. He is protected at the 28'. The footings will stay intact.
Tom Demers - said he has seen the plans on what the state has proposed on Rte.11/Meetinghouse Hill Rd. There will be 20' of grass and the state is going to pay Tom Demers $500 for talking with them. Public portion closed.
Randy Orvis - I believe that since the town voted for a 50' setback, then that adversely affects abutters. Discussion on Zoning Ordinance Section 1.04 (B) (a), (b), (c) & (d). This is an expansion of a building that doesn't exist. Chairman Parker - there is a footprint there. Discussion on use.
Chairman Parker - our ordinance allows expansion with Special Exception as long as he doesn't come any closer than 28'. Discussion on abutters expectations to meet the 50' setback. Discussion.
Charlie King - the extent of the expansion is a replacement building, not an expansion.
Chairman Parker - legally, this is a footprint. He's proposing expanding the same footprint.
Margaret - it doesn't meet (d).
Chairman Parker - the Two Greeks, B&D and others in the area will all benefit from this.
Charlie King - I agree with the plan, it’s a great location. Discussion on voting process.
Randy Orvis made a motion to deny the Special Exception due to not meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 1.04 (B) (C) (d) of the zoning ordinance. Abutting property owners are adversely affected due to the expectation that a new building should meet zoning requirements, Margaret 2nd, 3 yes, 1 opposed, 1 abstained. Attorney Bruton asked Charlie King his reason for abstaining - "he said he doesn't have legal expertise on expansion of structure."
· Application for Variance by Barry & Angela Elliott, Elm St. (Tax Map U6, Lot 68 & 68-1), proposed building closer to property line than existing building per section 2.04 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance. Chris Jacobs of Crown Point Survey & Engineering asked that the variance request be withdrawn and this was granted.
· Application for Special Exception by Barry & Angela Elliott, Elm St. (Tax Map U6, Lot 68 & 68-1), expansion of a nonconforming structure per 1.04 B (1) of the Zoning Ordinance. Chris Jacobs of Crown Point Survey & Engineering - this is an expansion of the existing car wash & Village Laundromat. Barry will be expanding 3 bays to 4 bays and add a mechanical room. This expansion would come to 4' of the property line, thus the need for a Special Exception. The 4 criteria: (see attached narrative)
(1) Building expansion is 15' away from lot line on westerly side. Rear setback is 15' and we're 100' from that.
(2) Not in the flood zone.
(3) Site is supplied by town water & sewer.
(4) Does not affect abutting property owners. We have a multitude of curb cuts. Some will be removed. We're attempting to remedy that by utilizing one entrance entering on the North side and exiting on the south side. This would go to the PB for final review.
Chairman opened this up to abutters.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting June 5, 2003 (continued) Page 6
Sylvia Howard - she does not have a problem with the plan.
John Serndorf of the Pentecostal Church is not opposed to the plan as presented and the church is the closest
abutter.
A catch basin per a recommendation from the state will be on the property.
Chairman Parker - front setback is from 25' to 23' for the addition. Chris explained his color-coded plan to
the board. Chris Jacobs read Section 1.12 regarding Uniform Setback Relationship & Section 2.04 Table
2.04 (B) The mechanical portion of the building will be the mechanical & office area.
It's a technology upgrade. The travel between the bays would be affected if we went closer, thus the 23'.
Drainage stays on the lot and a catch basin will accommodate the remainder of the drainage.
Margaret Russell - discussion on drive-thru process.
Pastor Serndorf - I've been very pleased the way Mr. Elliott has gone over the plans with me. I don't have
any problems with what he's doing. I can visualize the traffic being better. I think it's an improvement.
Chris Jacobs said a chain link fence will be replaced with post and rail fence which will be more attractive.
Margaret & Paul asked about how the driveway will go. The new travel way was explained to the board and
how traffic will work going around the building. Mr. DeJager has gone over the plan and has no problem.
Barry Elliott - I will put up signs to direct the traffic. Typically once someone has used the facility, they
understand how to go. CEO Paul Charron said he has no problems. The public portion of the hearing is
closed.
Discussion on 4 steps of Special Exception.
Randy Orvis made a motion to accept the Special Exception for expansion of a nonconforming
structure per Section 1.04 B (1) of the Zoning Ordinance (a, b, c, & d), Margaret 2nd, motion
unanimous.
· Motion to adjourn at 11:15 p. m. by Charlie King and 2nd by Randy Orvis, motion carried.
APPROVED
______________________________________ ________________________________
Paul Parker, Chairman Date
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town of Farmington
| 
