Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: June 28, 2004
Board Members: Present -Alan Greatorex, Vice Chair, Walter Swift, Jim Poage
Absent – George Hartmann, Chair, Ross McIntyre
Board Alternates: Present - Margot Maddock Absent – Jackie Glass, Marcia Armstrong
Staff: Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Tom Turkington, Daniel Lynch
At 7:30 pm, Vice Chairman Alan Greatorex called the meeting to order. Minutes of the June 17 meeting were amended and approved on a motion by Jim seconded by Margot.
Tom Turkington, Applicant for Daniel and Barbara Lynch, Permit Application 04-052, M407/L66
Proposal: replace a 12' x 12' shed with a 24' x 24' barn at 63 Whipple Hill Road.
Alan reopened the Turkington hearing, noting that Tom and owner Daniel Lynch were the only members of the public present. Jim asked if the applicant would like him to sit on the case to provide a 4-member board. He explained that he had recused himself only to allow a junior member of the board to gain experience, and had participated in the site visit. Tom asked him to participate.
Deliberations: Walter said that there was no other reasonable place to locate the barn outside the agricultural soils, so that the test for a special exception is met. Jim inquired about the 200' building zone in which the restriction did not apply. It was determined that this exemption is only for existing non-conforming buildings and does not apply. Alan observed that the property must be considered all one lot, because the same owner is listed. Dan noted that he receives two tax bills for two lots, and verified that they are lots 65 and 66. Walter checked the ordinance definition and confirmed that they should be considered one lot. He noted that Vickie had done the calculations based on lot 66 alone, and that this affects the size of the easement that would be required: 75% of the total ag soils on the combined
property. Discussion ensued about the need to set up an easement before the permit could be granted. Walter advised that the owner should consult a lawyer if he is considering selling one of the lots in the future to be certain that current use assessments are not adversely affected.
Walter said that Section 8.24 applies because the construction is on ag soils, and asserted that conditions A-E are met. The board then spent considerable time discussing this in order to be consistent with previous decisions regarding the extent of allowable future expansion. Jim pointed out that section 8.24 allows up to 1000 sf of additional construction on ag soils, and that the easement requirement does not apply. Walter explained the alternatives to the applicant, and that in the future, if he wants to build more than the remainder after 1000sf on ag soils, he must return to the board and demonstrate that the further construction is an agricultural use, and an easement on 75% of the property would be required . Dan indicated that he understood. Jim pointed out that by
using section 8.24 and avoiding the easement requirement, Dan’s option for subdivision remains open. Dan acknowledged that this has value, but that he had no intention of developing the property further.
Findings of fact: The property contains a single residence with an accessory building, in the rural district, where setbacks are 75' for both principal and accessory structures. The project will replace a 144sf shed with a barn of 576 sf. With the credit of the shed’s area, the expansion is only 432 sf, leaving 568 sf for future expansion. The existence of the shed, which was built without a permit, qualifies for an equitable waiver because it has been there over five years. The project will not require an easement under section 4.64b. Conditions are that the barn will be built according to best management practices and that the footprint will remain the same as in the plans. Walter moved to grant a special exception for building on agricultural soils based on the findings of fact. Jim seconded the motion and
it passed unanimously.
Walter raised the points described in the town attorney’s letter of June 16, noting that hardship tests for non-use variances had changed. He said that while he felt the conditions of section 10.60 were primarily met, he had some difficulties with the hardship aspect, although he did not have a problem with putting a barn next to the road because so many Lyme barns are set this way. Tom added that he has more closely observed drainage on the property and believes that runoff is not as much of a problem as originally thought. He said that the hardship is minor as is the incursion into the setback. Alan recommended abandoning the original plan which would have required a variance. He agreed that the soil would allow infiltration and that the wall will allow drainage. Jim
suggested adding a slight swale. Tom withdrew his application for a variance. Walter moved to amend the special exception approval for a barn on ag soils with the additional finding of fact that the structure will be 75' from the property line, outside the front setback. Jim seconded this motion and it passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned 9:03 pm.
Respectfully submitted, Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| 
