NOTTINGHAM ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE BOARD JUNE 20, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Doug Leib, Chair
Mr. Kevin Jordan
Mr. Earle Rourke
Mr. John Morin
Mr. Jim Howard
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, ZBA Secretary
CASE 06-04-CLARK:
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Chris Boldt, Attorney, Mr. Herb Clark
Mr. Leib read the notice for Case 06-04. Mr. Boldt said that he was an attorney representing Mr. Clark. He said that Mr. Clark was also present. He explained the variances that the applicant was looking for. He explained that in 2004 the state had only allowed them 3 driveway cuts and and those were being used by the current 6 owners. He said that each 2 lots had a shared driveway. He said that the applicant was looking to have Parcel A be deemed as a buildable lot. He said that they had copies of the driveway agreement with the Martins. He said that the Martin's owned lot 16-4. He said that the subdivision lots had been created in July of 2004 and signed by the Planning Board. Mr. Leib asked if the Planning Board had created a non buildable lot. Mr. Boldt said yes. He said
that there was supposed to have been a lot line adjustment. Mr. Leib pointed out Note #1 and asked about the location of lot 17. Mr. Boldt said that it was near the right hand corner of the Clark property. Mr. Leib said that the Planning Board had approved the subdivision plan with a note that the non buildable lot would become part of lot 17. He asked if the applicant was asking the ZBA to override the Planning Board. Mr. Boldt said that the applicant wanted the ZBA to grant a variance. He said that the Planning Board could not fix this. He said that they could not force someone to buy land without a lawsuit. He said that the ZBA were the only ones who could fix this problem. He said that the easement on Lot 5 was for the benefit of parcel A. Mr. Rourke said that the request for a variance of 24ft of frontage didn't bother him but the request for the driveway cut onto the highway bothered him. Mr. Boldt said that
they were looking at the lot size and the safety. He said that they wanted good accesses to the lot. He said that they could only get 3 driveways for their lots. He said that the state regulated the road. He said that the applicant wanted to use the lot for the allowed permitted use, a single family property. He said that there was no alternative for the applicant that was reasonable or feasible other than the Zoning Board granting the variances. Mr. Howard asked about the road frontage on lot 17. Mr. Boldt said that it was 320 or 330ft. Mr. Howard said that the 24ft variance shouldn't be a problem. He said that if the future buyer was willing to buy the lot with a driveway going through it then it was up to them. He asked if the Planning Board had approved this subdivision application with the condition that the lot line adjustment would go through. He said if that was the case than since the condition hadn't been
met than the whole subdivision wouldn't be approved. Mr. Boldt said that he had looked back on this and there was nothing that the Planning Board would not have approved on the first 6 lots. Mr. Howard asked if the Planning Board had approved this application with 7 lots. Mr. Boldt said yes.
Mr. Boldt explained the application that had been submitted for Mr. Clark. He said that granting these variances and allowing building on this lot would not be contrary to the public interest. He also said that it would not be contrary to the size and safety of the lot because the lot was almost 10 acres. He said that the applicant did have a hardship. He said that these variances were necessary for the proposed use of the land and the applicant could not do anything else that was reasonably feasible. Mr. Leib noted that someone else could buy the lot. Mr. Rourke asked if the applicant had asked the state if they could make 3 driveways in a 2 driveway cut. He said that he did not want to approve putting 3 driveways when only 2 were approved. Mr. Leib said that this case had not been noticed
properly because the driveway question had not been mentioned on the notice. Mr. Rourke said that the applicant should ask the state for another curb cut. Mr. Leib said that the case would have to be recessed until June 27, 2006 so that it could be noticed properly. Mr. Rourke said that this application didn't conflict with the spirit of the ordinance but the driveway proposal did not meet the safety purposes of the Fire Department. He said that there would be 3 street numbers on 1 driveway. Mr. Boldt said that there would not be a problem with the Fire Department. He said that the Department of Transportation would either say no again or change their mind regarding another curb cut. Mr. Rourke said that the Department of Transportation would not change their mind but they could make an exception to their normal procedure. Mr. Howard asked if the ZBA could pull out the minutes from the Planning Board meeting when this was approved. Mr. Jordan asked which lots had already
been built on. Mr. Boldt said that all of the lots except for lot 16-2 had been built on. He said that if the Badgers had backed out before the subdivision had gone through he would have asked for the same variances. Mr. Rourke said that financial considerations could not be taken into account. Mr. Boldt said that they could. He said that they would have to see what the Planning Board minutes stated. Mr. Howard said that the subdivision should not have been built if the Planning Board made the lot line adjustment a condition. He said that the entire project should have been stopped at that point. Mr. Boldt said that no matter what other Boards he had to go to he would eventually end up in front of the Zoning Board regardless so he was not sure why he needed to go anywhere else. He said that he would be available to answer any further questions from the Zoning Board at their next meeting on this case.
Mr. Leib recessed Case 06-04 until June 27, 2006 at 7:00pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Rourke made a motion to approve the minutes of April 25, 2006. Mr. Howard seconded the motion. Mr. Rourke, Mr. Howard, Mr. Leib, and Mr. Morin voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Jordan abstained from the motion. The motion passed 4-0 with 1 abstention.
DISCUSSION WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR:
At 8:00pm the ZBA talked to the Economic Development Director, Mr. David Wright. Mr. Wright talked about his background and said that he had read all the old ZBA minutes. He said that he wanted to talk about some of the issues he saw in the ordinance regarding commercial property. He said that downtowns needed to be on a human scale and so people needed to be able to walk around them. Mr. Jordan said that some towns had separate zones. He said that Nottingham could do that. He said that there could be zones for the lake, the downtown, Route 4, and the rest of town. He said that he did support the idea of a human scale downtown. He said that they should look and see what other towns had done. Mr. Wright said that Nottingham was not competitive for businesses with other towns because their
setbacks were 2 and 3 times larger than those of other places. Mr. Jordan said that if the area on Route 4 was rezoned than people would not want to build houses there. Mr. Wright said that there needed to be more of a buffer between the residential and commercial areas. He said that they needed to give people an incentive to create larger buffers. He said that another problem he had was regarding home occupations. He said that the ordinance was written so that only family members could be employees in a home occupation. He said that meant that people who had more kids could have more employees. He said that he would propose a zone change on Route 4. He explained the Charrette program. He said that the program would help them answer the questions of how they tied all their assets together for the future. He said that the members of the Zoning Board could call him with input any time that they wanted. He said that he
thought Nottingham could create formal commercial zones.
Mr. Jordan made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30pm. Mr. Howard seconded the motion. The present members of the Zoning Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
ZBA Secretary
| 
