MONSON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT: David Beaudoin, Frank Carey, Tere Hrynkiw and Ron Fussell.
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Martin, David Jarvis and Scott O’Neill
7:30 David Beaudoin moved to accept the minutes of December 15, 2011 as presented.
Frank Carey seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
The Board received a written request for an extension of a Special Permit for Earth Removal at property located on Reynolds Avenue and Main Street, Assessors Map 116, Parcels 7C, 7E-7L Case # F – 2009 from Gary Pfisterer.
A requirement of the Special Permit involves widening a portion of Reynolds Avenue and the installation of a catch basin at the low point to address drainage issues. Included in the request for an extension to July 1, 2012 was a letter from John Morrell, Monson Highway Survey supporting the request because current weather conditions do not allow for the completion of the project.
David Beaudoin moved to grant an extension of the Special Permit for Earth Removal as requested to July 1, 2012 with the understanding that all other stipulations, conditions and limitations imposed by the Board in its decision dated February 8, 2010 remain in effect.
Frank Carey seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
7:50 Continuation of Public Hearing for Thomas & Donna Gilman for a variance as provided under Section 3.3.4 to reconstruct an existing non-conforming accessory building and extend the accessory building by 2 feet. The extension of the accessory structure will be no less than seven foot five inches (7’ 5”) from the abutting property line.
Present were: Thomas Gilman, Donna Gilman, Neil Brothers, Mills Construction and Deborah Avery.
Chairman David Beaudoin stated there were only four members of the Zoning Board of Appeals present and a vote to approve the variance would require all four members to vote to approve, should one member be opposed the variance request would fail. He questioned if Mr. & Mrs. Gilman wanted to move forward with the continuation of the hearing or if they wanted to continue the hearing to February when the Board would hope to have five members present?
Mr. & Mrs. Gilman chose to go forward with the four members present.
Mr. & Mrs. Gilman submitted a revised plan showing the actual measurement of the existing garage foundation and location and measurement from the abutting lot line of the shed that was attached to the garage. In addition to the plan photographs were submitted illustrating the proximity of the garage foundation to a stone wall and the garage foundation in relation to the shed location.
David Beaudoin questioned if the shed had run the length of the garage?
Neil Brothers stated yes.
Donna Gilman showed the Board an aerial view of her property prior to the tornado that showed a continuous roof across the garage and shed giving the appearance of one structure. The aerial view also gave the Board a clearer understanding of the accessory structures on Mr. & Mrs. Gilman’s property and the abutting property with regard to proximity to lot lines.
Tere Hrynkiw questioned how high the proposed building would be?
Neil Brothers stated approximately 20 feet at the peak.
Frank Carey stated based on the footprint of the garage the applicants propose to build a structure that is higher, wider and longer than what was there before.
Neil Brothers stated the shed ran the length of the garage and was part of the structure even though the foundation for the shed may not be there. He agreed that the proposed structure would be higher by approximately four feet.
Mr. Gilman stated that he was asking for a variance of two feet, to build a structure that was two feet longer and approximately four feet higher than what was there before the tornado of June 1, 2011.
Mr. Brothers stated Mr. & Mrs. Gilman can rebuild the garage by right without the necessity of a variance if they rebuild exactly what was there before the tornado.
Ronald Fussell stated the aerial view gave him a better understanding of what pre-existed in the neighborhood and although initially he was concerned with the height increase after seeing the photograph he realized how close the abutter’s accessory structure was to the line and how high it was he was comfortable with the request. He stated his concern was that the increase in height would adversely affect the abutting property, but the accessory structure on the abutting property was clearly larger and higher than what the applicants proposed to build.
Mrs. Gilman stated she spoke with the abutter and he has every intention of rebuilding that accessory structure.
Frank Carey stated Section 3.3.8 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws requires that reconstruction of a non-conforming structure after a catastrophe commence within two years and that the structure be located on the footprint and within the cube of the original non-conforming structure.
Mr. Brothers stated the applicants are not asking to rebuild the structure that was there prior to the tornado. They have filed under Section 3.3.4 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws for a variance to rebuild an existing non-conforming structure that increases the non-conformity.
There followed lengthy discussion between the Board members and applicants focusing on the height of the proposed structure and the proximity to the property line. The Board questioned if it was possible to move the garage forward?
Mr. Brothers stated the applicants had invested a great deal of money in their property and had a stone wall that would have to be removed if the garage were to be moved forward.
David Beaudoin stated he would entertain a motion to close the hearing.
8:35 Ronald Fussell moved to close the public hearing and take the matter under advisement.
Tere Hrynkiw seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Ronald Fussell reiterated that his main concern had been the increase in the height, and because it is such a congested neighborhood he had difficulty voting to approve. However after looking at the aerial photograph and realizing how close to the property line the abuttor’s accessory structure was and how high it was he would have no problem voting in favor of the variance.
David Beaudoin concurred with Mr. Fussell.
Tere Hrynkiw stated the applicant has submitted a revised plan showing the foundation that actually exists on the property and the photographs show a continuous roof line over the garage and shed. She stated she agreed with Mr. Fussell and Mr. Beaudoin that the aerial photograph gave a better understanding of what existed prior to the tornado on both the applicants’ property and the abutting property.
Frank Carey moved to approve the variance for the reconstruction of a pre-existing non-conforming structure that strictly conformed to the footprint as shown on a plan prepared by Michael Smith, PLS, Smith Associates Surveyors, Inc. dated October 10, 2011.
David Beaudoin seconded the motion.
Other conditions would include the requirement to conform to all other state and local codes and to submit an “As Built” surveyed plan of the completed foundation.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Tere Hrynkiw moved to adjourn at 8:50 P.M.
Frank Carey seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
