Members present: Chairman David Craig, Vice Chairman Harry Piper, Ed DiPietro, Phil Consolini, Alternate Robert Todd, Clerk LauraTodd
Minutes from the 02/16/10 meeting were approved by Robert Todd, 2nd by Ed DiPietro and passed.
Harry Piper made a motion to cast ballot to existing officers, 2nd by Robert Todd, passed.
2010-2 Application for a Variance by Eric and Michele Pothier, 84 Laurel Lane, Map/Lot 15/4, to build a two car garage with a breezeway encroaching into the front setback by 11 feet, is before the board.
Chairman Craig explained we had a new application form and the standards had changed a little.
Robert Todd made a point of information; there are no changes in our zoning ordinance that would effect this application.
Eric Pothier explained they wanted to build a 2 car garage with breezeway and because of the wetlands on their property as well as the contour of the hill they needed to position the addition into the front setback. It was further stated by both Eric and Michele Pothier that a large amount of fill would be needed on the wetland side of the proposed garage. They felt that filling in wetland was not a good option.
The exact location of the property was established as well as the fact there were no homes visible to this property.
Harry Piper said the decision to encroach on the front setback instead of the wetland setback appeared to be an easy decision.
Robert Todd presented a 1980 plan to create this lot and an enlargement showing the frontage (found on-line). He also indicated the wetland setback on the plan.
The applicant said the house was built in 2002. Robert Todd noted the wetland setback was not established until 2007.
Chairman Craig explained the evolution of the variance criteria with the Simplex case, then the later decision, up to the newest application.
It should be noted that no abutters for interested parties attended this meeting.
The required criteria was then covered. Chairman Craig asked the board the following questions.
1.Would granting this variance be contrary to public interest? Answer no.
2. Is this application contrary to the spirit of the ordinance? Answer no.
3.Would denying this application do substantial justice? Answer no.
4.Does this application diminish surrounding property values? Answer no.
5.(A) Denial would create hardship, because this lot was created in 1980 before the establishment of front setback requirements and
wetland setbacks. The build able area is narrow and would not even be approved as a lot now. It makes more sense to protect the
wetland by building into the front setback by 10 – 11 feet. Board agreed.
Harry Piper said that the setback from the road should be relative to the type of the road.
Chairman Craig stated they have a good case.
Harry Piper moved to approve the variance for an 11 foot encroachment into the front setback, as shown on the plan submitted. 2nd by Phil Consolini, passed unanimously.
Chairman Craig cautioned the applicants about building right away, stating there was a 30 day grace period for a rehearing request.
Motion to adjourn by Harry Piper at 7:50, 2nd by Phil Consolini.
Respectfully Submitted
Laura Todd
04/22/10
approved 09/21/10
| 
