ZBA Hearing Minutes
Date: 7/24/06
Hearing: Haver
Hearing began at: 4:08pm
Members Present: Peter Murkett Chair, Fred Chapman, Dean Amidon, Cynthia Weber, and Robert Gauthier (Clerk)
Also present: Barbara & Thomas Haver, Peter Vallianos, Thomas Sullivan, builder
The hearing began with Peter Murkett, Chair, explaining the hearing process and then Robert Gauthier, Clerk, read the legal notice and letters from the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and Board of Health.
Mr. Vallianos did apologize that he neglected to write on the plans that this is for parcel “A” referenced on the plans. Mr. Sullivan stated that the building inspector does have copies of the proposed structure. Existing steps are going to be removed. The board noted that the construction plan does not conform to the survey. The hearing should not have been opened without all the necessary information, including but not limited to the setback distances. More definitive plans will need to be submitted.
Dean Amidon pointed out that because this is a new lot since 2000 it has to meet the 25-foot setbacks, which increases the non-conformity. He asked why the Building Inspector turned it down. Thomas Sullivan replied that he was told it was because of section IV.E.2.b. The letter of denial from the building inspector was also not included.
Peter Murkett decided that this will be continued once all of the missing documents can be provided. An abutter, spoke up to state that she has no problems at all with this project. The documents that still need to be provided are:
1. Distance and bearing along bounds written on the site plan
2. Size of existing and proposed buildings (floor area in SF)
3. Location of existing and proposed buildings, including setback in feet from all lot lines and all angles of the structure(s) on site plan
4. Location, and distance in feet from on-site sewage disposal system to lot lines, to existing and proposed buildings, and to water supply on site plan.
5. All distances from existing and proposed structures to setbacks on the site plan
6. Building plans with all information listed on the ZBA application checklist.
7. The letter from the Building Inspector stating why the original building permit was denied.
8. The net gain because the landing is being removed and replaced by part of the new room, additional square footage will change.
The hearing concluded at 4:45pm and was continued until Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 4:00pm.
Submitted by
Melissa Noe, ZBA Secretary
ZBA Hearing Minutes
Date: 7/26/06
Hearing: Haver
Hearing began at: 4:00pm
Members Present: Peter Murkett Chair, Fred Chapman, Dean Amidon, Cynthia Weber, and Robert Gauthier (Clerk)
Also present: Barbara & Thomas Haver, Peter Vallianos, Thomas Sullivan, builder
The hearing was called to order by the Chair, Peter Murkett. The Clerk read into record a letter that was submitted at the conclusion of Monday’s hearing by abutter, Kyle Pierce. The applicant’s representative, Peter Vallianos was asked to present the missing information and plans for the addition. Digital photos were submitted to represent the elevations and Mr. Sullivan, the builder went over what the proposed project will entail.
The dimension from the lakefront is 48ft to the closest point of the deck. From the corner of the deck to the north boundary is 15ft and the house itself is 5ft from the corner. The new construction will extend to 30ft from the property line. All of the new construction dimensions and coverages were reviewed. A letter from the Building Inspector for the denial of the building permit was not received.
The latter part of the Planning Board letter was read again into record. The board wanted to review if the information that the Planning Board was missing had been met with the new information provided. The issue of this lot being created after zoning was discussed. Peter Vallianos pointed out that the original plan submitted to the Planning Board in 1974 was never signed for an unknown reason. The original survey sat in a draw until the issue of dividing the property came up. It was brought back to the Planning Board 2-3 years ago with the 1974 plan and they recognized that it was divisible. Peter Murkett asked what part of the subdivision control stated that this was divisible and Peter Vallianos stated that it is the definition of “lot” and he believes it’s in
Chapter 40 section 81L. The Havers noted that they have been paying separate tax bills for several years now.
At this time the evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed and the deliberation portion of the hearing was opened to the board. The board was unanimously satisfied that the division of the lot was legal. The board concurred that the division of land eliminated a non-conformity and aggravated another non-conformity. The non-conformities will be listed as of the division in 2000 in the findings. The proposed application does not create a new non-conformity and therefore does not increase the non-conforming nature. The board debated “non-conforming nature” and “non-conformity” relative to this project.
The findings the board agreed to were discussed:
1. When the lot was created in 2000, the following minimums were in effect in the Lakeshore District: 2 acres with 200’ frontage for lots with less than 12% slope; side and rear setbacks of 25’; lakeside setback of 40’ from the mean high water line.
2. The proposed addition introduces no new non-conformity to those criteria
Dean made a motion to take a vote and Bob seconded the motion. The board unanimously voted to grant the special permit application presented to the board.
The conditions for the approval were discussed. The board will work on the specific language over the next few days and then the paperwork will be written. A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 5:00 and was seconded.
Submitted by
Melissa Noe, ZBA Secretary
| 
