 |
Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: March 18, 2004
Board Members: Present -Walter Swift, Chair, Jim Poage, Vice Chair, George Hartmann
Absent – Ross McIntyre, Tim Estes
Board Alternates: Present -Jackie Glass, Alan Greatorex
Absent – Tim Callaghan
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Trent and Mary-Ellen Toensing, Lee and Kathy Larson, David Rayment, Arthur Stout, Seth Clifford, Michael Hinsley, Stuart Karon, Rod Finley, Margot Maddock, Marcia Armstrong
At 7:30 pm, Chairman Walter Swift called the meeting to order. Walter asked Jackie to sit as a regular member. Voted to approved minutes of February 19 on a motion by George, seconded by Jim.
Trent and Mary-Ellen Toensing, Applicants, Permit Application 04-003, M415/L20.3
Proposal: add on to home at 84 Pout Pond Lane.
The Toensings propose to add on to their home in the Rural District. This requires a special exception to encroach into the road setback under Section 8.22. In 1999, a permit was given to add a deck and sunroom. At this time, the applicants were not made aware that they required a special exception to encroach into the road setback, and subsequent construction exceeded the area permitted. Walter asked if any conservation districts are involved. Vickie said there were not, just the road setback. Walter asked the applicant if the calculations were correct. Mr. Toensing said yes. He referred to his January 27 letter and explained that when he and his wife had bought the property, it was a camp, and that they wanted to keep the camp as their home in retirement. Therefore they wanted to have a reasonably sized downstairs
bedroom, add a bath, and add on slightly to their kitchen. The house is at the end of Pout Pond Lane. The next driveway is 180' away.
Jim asked about septic service. Trent said he was replacing a bedroom, not adding one, and that the septic system is new. Lee Larson indicated that he is the second nearest neighbor and supports the application. Because the lane ends at this property, the only ones traveling on it are members of the Toensing family. Trent added that the lane then becomes a private lane leading to his barn. Jackie asked if the addition could be put further away from the road. Trent explained that this is where the bedroom now exists and that there is not a full basement on the other side of the house.
Deliberations: George asked if the road could be extended at some future time. Jim asked about the location of the property line and whether the town would have to condemn property to extend the road. Trent said that he has 10 acres and that the road extends some 1000' into his lot. Lee added that the entire area is under conservation easement with no further subdivision allowed, so there would be no reason to extend the road. George moved to grant a special exception to build an addition into the road setback, not to exceed the dimensions shown on the drawing, and to grant a special exception for that portion of the deck which was not covered by the 1999 permit, and the portion which lies within the setback. Members determined that the encroachment was under 1000 sf, and asked Vickie to confirm the calculations.
These are included herewith:
Findings of fact: A special exception is granted under Section 8.22 for 274 sf already built and requiring a special exception and 254 sf requiring a special exception under the current approval. This leaves 472 sf for future encroachment into the road setback. The new addition is within the setback of the road but at the road’s end, and the road will not be extended in the future because there are conservation easements on the surrounding land. The 1999 unpermitted deck addition is not objectionable to abutters. Testimony was received from one abutter in support of the application. The 12' x 16' addition is a bedroom replacement, not an additional bedroom. There will be a bath added to the first floor, and no change in footprint. The addition cannot be reasonably located outside of the road
setback, since any portion of the house is within this setback.. Alan seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Pathways Consulting, Applicant for Arthur Stout, Permit Application 03-108, M409/L45
Proposal: build a new 4,100 foot driveway at 216 Dorchester Road.
Walter noted that a letter from abutter David Roby, dated March 12 and received March 16, requested that the hearing be postponed because he would not be able to attend. Walter said he thought that David’s counsel would be attending instead, but that this counsel had notified Vickie that he would not attend, stating that David could better represent himself. Vickie Davis asked if David had received a copy of new materials. Rod Finley said he had brought him a full set of plans, but not the photos or forestry plan. Vickie said she had supplied these.
Walter asked each member of the board for an opinion on whether the hearing should be postponed. Jim said he believed that David or any other abutter should be permitted to hear new evidence and discuss it. He was in favor of postponing, and suggested that any decision would be subject to challenge. He noted that both David and his attorney had appeared at the last meeting, at which the applicant had decided to postpone the hearing because so few board members were expected. Alan recused himself as one who is nearly an abutter. Jackie said that she thought David’s attorney should have a chance to participate, but when reminded that David had elected not to have legal representation, said she favored going ahead with the hearing. George said that the hearing was
postponed in December because Mr. Stout was not present, and thought that the same courtesy should be extended to Mr. Roby. David’s letter indicated that he could attend the next regular meeting in April. Walter said that he was slightly opposed to postponing because an abutter was not present, and asked the applicant about the level of hardship involved in postponing the hearing. He noted that only a four member board was present, and that there was a risk of legal action later.
David Rayment, attorney for Mr. Stout, said he had never seen an abutter get a continuance of a hearing, and that the abutter could send a letter or send a representative. He added that Mr. Stout had a number of paid consultants present, and had thought Attorney Waugh would be present to represent Mr. Roby. He said Mr. Roby had a chance to review new information. He preferred to go ahead, but not if some members of the board would be uncomfortable doing so. He said that Rod Finley had determined that Alan would not see any development on the Stout property from his house, and asked him to reconsider his recusal. Alan said that he was recusing himself because his consideration in the matter may be prejudicial. Rod asked if Vickie had spoken with town counsel. Vickie said she
had, and that counsel had advised that the board could hold the hearing if members were comfortable doing so. David Rayment said he did not want to proceed if the board felt uncomfortable, and that there would be no hardship involved in postponement.
Walter apologized for the imposition on the applicant, and continued the hearing to 7:30pm on April 15, the board’s next regular meeting.
Meeting adjourned 8:39 pm.
Respectfully submitted, Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| |
