Town of Plaistow Archive - ZBA Minutes 09-25-08

ZBA Minutes 09-25-08

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

September 25, 2008

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Julie Matthews, Vice Chairman; Robert Loeffler; Cliff Clark; and Dan Lloyd, Alternate (arrived 7:17 p.m.). Peter Bealo and Roderic Cole, Alternate, were excused.

Minutes of August 28, 2008

L. Ordway moved, second by C. Clark, to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2008, meeting. There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.

Other Business – Budget

The Board had previously received the proposed 2009 budget information.

L. Ordway moved, second by J. Matthews, to submit the proposed 2009 budget as prepared to the Board of Selectmen and the Budget Committee for their review. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.

Request for Continuance

#08-29: A request from Town Fair Tire Centers, Inc., for a special exception under Article III, §220-8C, to permit the expansion of a building on a non-conforming lot. The property is located at 42 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 25, Lot 6 in the CI district. The property owner of record is MCM Realty, LLC.

D. Voss read a letter from Appledore Engineering, the firm representing Town Fair Tire, requesting a continuance. The reason for the request was noted to be discovery of need for additional relief from the Board and the desire for all requests to be heard at the same time.

L. Ordway moved, second by R. Loeffler, to grant the request for a continuance in case number #08-29. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.

L. Ordway noted that there was a four-member board for this meeting and there was hope that a fifth member would soon arrive. He explained the significance of a split vote should that fifth member not make the meeting and offered that any applicant had the right to request an automatic postponement once their case was called.

#08-26: A request from Sandra LaVersa, for a special exception under Article X, all sections, to permit a home occupation, namely a tanning and V.I.B.E. machine business. The property is located at 19 Main Street, Tax Map 37, Lot 59 in the CII district.

Sandra LaVersa, property owner 19 Main Street, was present for the application. She noted that she lived in Maine, where she currently operated her business, and that she had purchased the property at 19 Main Street with the intention of living and relocating her business there. She added she was currently painting and doing other renovations to the building before moving in. She noted that in addition to the proposed business she also owned four (4) Curves locations. Ms. LaVersa explained the nature of her business noting that “moon tans” was an airbrush tanning process using all organic, aloe-based ingredients and the V.I.B.E. machine was something invented fifteen (15) years ago, FDA (Federal Drug Administration) approved energy device. Ms. LaVersa noted that both processes were intended to occupy no more than 25% of the living space as indicated on the plan she submitted.

There was a discussion on the location of the property on Main Street. It was noted to be a small cape-style home, set back from the road with a gravel driveway that took up most of the front yard.

R. Loeffler asked if there was a garage on the property.

S. LaVersa replied there was not.

R. Loeffler questioned if it was intended to have customers park on the street.

S. LaVersa said that there was ample parking in the driveway and that if it became a problem she was looking into the possibility of renting parking spaces from the daycare across the street, which had a parking lot next to the subject property.

The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a special exception noting the following:

The business use would be secondary to the residential use of the property
The business is permitted under §220-66A
There are no noxious uses by way of noise, odor, dust, fumes or electrical fluctuations

D. Lloyd arrived at 7:17 p.m.

The use of the building has always been residential, there was no one currently living there while it was being painted, but it would continue to be residential
The business will be conducted within the residential dwelling using +/- 24% of the living space
There was indoor storage noted on the floor plan
The business will not change the residential character of the dwelling
There is a three (3) sq. ft. sign proposed
Ms. LaVersa will be the only employee
There will be no exterior merchandize displays
There is sufficient off-street parking, and customers will be by appointment only
There would be no storage of flammable materials in the home
Hours of operation were proposed to be 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday
There are no covenants in the deed that would prevent there from being a home occupation

L. Ordway explained that the home occupation ceased to exist at the sale of the property; was not transferable to other addresses or for other businesses; needed to be renewed every three years; and was subject to random and periodic inspections by the Code Enforcement Officer.

L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of the application, there was no one. L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in opposition.

Cynthia Noyes, 27 Main Street, noted that she was four (4) hours down the street from this property and her objections were as follows:

The location was not suitable for a business
People will be backing out of the property onto Main Street
Allowing the use will start a non-conforming trend
Inadequate parking
Potential chemical contamination

C. Noyes added that she didn’t think this was a permitted use in this district under the current ordinance and that this property was intended to be used residentially.

Christine Thornberg, 29 Main Street, noted her objections to be:

Increase in traffic on Main Street
Parking and lack of room to maneuver in order to drive out, and not back out, onto Main Street
The daycare across the street is busy enough and they would be contrary activities

C. Thornberg noted that increase in traffic was her greatest concern.

S. LaVersa explained that cars would be slowing to pull into the property and that she had never had a time when she wasn’t able to turn around in the driveway in order to pull nose-out onto Main Street. She acknowledged the daycare across the street and noted that traffic was sufficiently slow as to allow parents to cross the street with their children. She added that she used no dangerous chemicals and everything was organic and all-natural.

R. Loeffler asked how long each session usually lasted.

S. LaVersa replied approximately fifteen (15) minutes.

R. Loeffler inquired how appointments were scheduled.

S. LaVersa responded that she booked them with enough spacing that there was no back-up. She added that she had been successfully operating her business in Maine for two (2) years.

C. Noyes suggested that the Board postpone making a decision and go out to take a look at the property.

A number of the members noted that they were either familiar with the location of the property or had gone out to take a look at the property in anticipation of this hearing.

There was no additional input and the matter was closed.

#08-27: A request from Patrick Connolly, for a variance from Article V, §220-32J, to permit a structure (addition to existing residential building) within 4.9 feet of the property line where 15 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 8 East Pine Street, Tax Map 38, Lot 122 in the MDR district.

#08-28: A request from Patrick Connolly, for a variance from Article V, §220-32J, to permit a structure (garage) within 10.2 feet of the property line where 15 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 8 East Pine Street, Tax Map 38, Lot 122 in the MDR district.

Patrick Connolly, 8 East Pine Street, was present for the application. Mr. Connolly explained that he would like to relocate his garage in back of his house, add a connecting room from the house to the garage and additional living space above the garage.

L. Ordway asked if the property had been surveyed.

P. Connolly indicated that it had been.

L. Ordway asked how far this structure would be to the dwelling on the property next door.

P. Connolly noted they were approximately twenty (20) feet from the property line so the distance between structures would be approximately twenty-four (24) feet.

L. Ordway asked why the addition could not be located in order to comply.

P. Connolly explained that due to the location of the doors and windows in the kitchen he would have to do major renovations. He noted that the room connecting the house to the garage would be finished to include a closet, small bath and stairs to a finished room over the garage.

R. Loeffler asked how wide the garage was.

P. Connolly replied that it was three and a half cars wide.

There was discussion regarding the design of the proposed addition. The garage was noted to be twenty-six (26) feet deep. The deck proposed to the back of the new garage was noted to be elevated to be level to the second floor and compliant with the setback requirement.

L. Ordway noted that if the garage were shortened to twenty-four (24) feet a two (2) foot less variance would be needed.

P. Connolly offered that it didn’t give him much room to get around the vehicles in a twenty-four (24) foot garage.

R. Loeffler asked if the intention was to immediately raze the existing garage.

P. Connolly said that, since he had a lot of stuff in the existing garage, he didn’t intend to demolish it until the new one was built.

R. Loeffler suggested that demolition of the existing garage be included in the decision.

L. Ordway asked how soon Mr. Connolly intended to start construction.

P. Connolly answered as soon as this process would allow him to. He noted he would like to start the foundation as soon as possible.

L. Ordway asked if there were any additional questions from the Board. There were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or in opposition to the application. There was no one and the matter was closed.

The chairman called for a break at 7:39 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:45 p.m.

DELIBERATIONS

C. Clark moved, second by J. Matthews, to approve the request for special exception to permit a home occupation at 19 Main Street.

L. Ordway summarized the application noting the following:

The business would be for moon tanning and V.I.B.E. which would be included as a personal services business
V.I.B.E. is a small machine and all organic materials are used in the moon tanning process
There would be no storage of materials other than those being immediately used in the process
+/- 24% of the living space is proposed to be used
Some of the neighbors expressed concerns for traffic increased and questioned whether or not the business was a permitted use
The business use, while somewhat different from other home occupations, was a allowed one

R. Loeffler noted that the application indicated days of operation to be Monday through Saturday, yet the applicant stated they would be Tuesday through Saturday. He added that he wasn’t aware of their being traffic issues reported with the daycare across the street.

L. Ordway added that he had seen the parking on the site and he noted that the property was not located on a curve in the road so he didn’t see sight distances as an issue.

R. Loeffler asked what would prevent someone from backing out of the property into Main Street.

J. Matthews noted there was nothing preventing any of the residents on Main Street from backing out into the street.

There was a discussion of potential traffic concerns. It was consensus that there would not be significant enough of an increase with this type of use to warrant a traffic study.

R. Loeffler noted that it was a good idea to talk to the property owners of the adjacent lot about parking, but it wasn’t part of this board’s purview.

There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Lloyd abstaining).

J. Matthews moved, second by R. Loeffler, to approve the request for variance to allow a structure to be placed within 4.9 feet of the property line where 15 feet is the minimum, for the property located at 8 East Pine Street.

L. Ordway summarized the application noting that to build an addition and have it comply with the setback would require extensive renovations to an existing kitchen.

The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:

There would be no decrease in the surrounding property values as improvements done to individual parcels tended to increase the value of other parcels in the neighborhood
There was nothing contrary to the public’s interest, which is adequate separation of structures. It was noted that houses in this neighborhood were generally built a long time ago and were closer together as a rule; therefore the twenty-five (25) between structures in this situation is adequate.
The hardship is that the property owner would not be able to build the structure without the variance being granted
There is no gain to the public therefore not granting the variance would be an injustice to the applicant
The application is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance as there will still be sufficient separation of structures. It was noted that there was the potential that the affected neighbor could have a problem if they decided to build on that side in the future, but that each application would be handled on a case-by-case basis in its own time.

There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

C. Clark moved, second by L. Ordway, to approve the request for variance to allow a structure (garage) to be placed within 10.2 feet of the property line where 15 feet is the minimum, for the property located at 8 East Pine Street.

It was noted that much of the same argument for the first application would hold true for this application as well. It was further noted that this was for a much bigger, two-floored structure that was set farther away from the property line.

The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:

There would be no decrease in the surrounding property values as improvements done to individual parcels tended to increase the value of other parcels in the neighborhood
There was nothing contrary to the public’s interest, which is adequate separation of structures. The separation of structures was now increased to thirty (30) feet.
The hardship is that the property owner’s rights would be taken away if he could not build as he wanted to. It was noted that the old garage was in a dilapidated condition and needed to come down.
There is no gain to the public therefore not granting the variance would be an injustice to the applicant
The application is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance as there will still be sufficient separation of structures.

There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Other Business – Update on 5 Center Circle

The Board was reminded that they had set a condition on the approval of a home occupation for 5 Center Circle. There was an issue with the clarity of the floor plan that was submitted with the application and the property owner was asked to submit a new drawing. It was reported to the Board that the drawing had been submitted and was now in the file.

The chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dee Voss

Administrative Assistant