ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 22, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.
Roll Call: Larry Ordway, Chairman; Peter Bealo, Vice Chairman; Julie Matthews; Clifford Clark; and Roderic Cole, Alternate were present. Robert Loeffler was excused.
L. Ordway appointed R. Cole as a voting member for this meeting.
Minutes
J. Matthews moved, second by C. Clark, to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2007, meeting. The vote was 4-0-1 (Cole abstaining).
#07-03: A request from Keith Moulton for a special exception under Article III, §220-8.C, to permit construction of a building on a non-conforming commercial lot. The property is located at 202 Main Street, Tax Map 30 Lot 75 and the CI district. The applicant is the property owner of record.
#07-04: A request from Keith Moulton for a variance from Article V, §220-32I, to permit construction of a building within the sideline structure set back. The property is located at 202 Main Street, Tax Map 30 Lot 75 and the CI district. The applicant is the property owner of record.
#07-05: A request from Keith Moulton for a variance from Article V, §220-32I, to permit construction of a building within the rear structure set back. The property is located at 202 Main Street, Tax Map 30 Lot 75 and the CI district. The applicant is the property owner of record.
Keith Moulton, property owner 202 Main Street, was present for the hearings. He explained that he would like to replace an existing storage structure, which was a piece-meal kind of building, with a new slightly larger steel building. He noted that the new building would be more squared off and would continue to be used for storage.
L. Ordway noted the size of the proposed building to be 40’ X 60’ (2400 sq. ft.). He asked what the size of the existing building was.
K. Moulton replied that it was approximately 2000 sq. ft.
There was a discussion regarding the setbacks for the structure. It was noted that the existing building was already in the setbacks and the new construction would not bring the building any closer to the property line.
There was discussion of the existing conditions on the property. It was noted that there were two other buildings, one commercial, one residential (which is the non-conformity that requires the special exception)
P. Bealo asked tall the proposed building was.
K. Moulton replied that it was 10’ (ten) feet, single story.
L. Ordway questioned if there would be any possibility for the new building to be rented or if there would be signage on the building.
K. Moulton answered that it would not be anything more than storage, like it is now.
It was noted for the record that any change in use of the building would require Planning Board review.
L. Ordway asked what was stored in the building.
K. Moulton replied that it was cars and building materials.
L. Ordway questioned if there would be any incendiary materials.
K. Moulton said that there would not be any. He offered pictures of what the proposed building would look like.
There was discussion of the access to the building, noted to be a dirt driveway.
L. Ordway asked what the lot coverage was.
K. Moulton answered that it was 40%.
L. Ordway questioned who lived in the residential dwelling.
K. Moulton said that the property was rented.
L. Ordway asked if there were anymore questions from the Board. There were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition to the application. There was no one and the hearing was closed.
DELIBERATIONS
#07-03: A request from Keith Moulton for a special exception under Article III, §220-8.C, to permit construction of a building on a non-conforming commercial lot. The property is located at 202 Main Street, Tax Map 30 Lot 75 and the CI district. The applicant is the property owner of record.
P. Bealo moved, second by J. Matthews, to grant the special exception for the expansion of a non-conforming lot.
L. Ordway noted there were three (3) structures on the lot, two commercial and one residential, which makes it non-conforming and therefore requiring a special exception. He added that the use of the proposed building would not be changed from what it currently is.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A and the special exception was granted.
#07-04: A request from Keith Moulton for a variance from Article V, §220-32I, to permit construction of a building within the sideline structure set back. The property is located at 202 Main Street, Tax Map 30 Lot 75 and the CI district. The applicant is the property owner of record.
#07-05: A request from Keith Moulton for a variance from Article V, §220-32I, to permit construction of a building within the rear structure set back. The property is located at 202 Main Street, Tax Map 30 Lot 75 and the CI district. The applicant is the property owner of record.
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Cole, to grant both requests for setback variances.
L. Ordway noted that the existing building was only six (6) feet from the property line, adding that squaring off the building wouldn’t bring it any closer to the property line and the use of the structure was not going to change. He added that the same was true for the thirteen (13) foot setback for the rear of the building. L. Ordway offered there were not a lot of real concerns with the addition of 400 sq. ft when the appearance of the building would be so much nicer.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance with the following findings:
- There would be no diminishment of the surrounding property values. The dilapidated older pieced-together building would be replaced with a new squared-off structure, which could increase that property value.
- Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. There was no one at this meeting to express any opposition to the proposal and the replacement of the building would be a betterment to the public interest.
- There is a hardship in that the existing building is not much use in its current condition. Not granting the variance would force the property owner to continue to use a dilapidated building.
- There is nothing in the replacement of the building that is a public injustice.
- The spirit and intent of the ordinance is so that abutters, particularly residential, do not have to put up with unnecessary nuisances. There have been no complaints regarding the use of this building and granting this application should not change that.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A and both setback variance requests were granted.
Other Business
The Board was asked by the Town Manage (via the Administrative Assistant) to review a form that would be used if any member made a site visit. After lengthy discussion regarding the need and potential implications of using the form as well as the need for voluntary disclosure when a site is visited the following was decided.
L. Ordway moved, second by J. Matthews, that the form suggested by Town Manager to record site visits not be used. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
The chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
