ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 27, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Julie Matthews, Vice-Chairman; Robert Loeffler, Paul Boniface, Alternate. Roderic Cole, Peter Bealo, and Daniel Lloyd, Alternate were excused.
P. Boniface was appointed as voting member for this meeting.
Minutes of July 30, 2009
J. Matthews moved, second by R. Loeffler, to approve the minutes of the July 30, 2009, meeting. There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-1 (P. Boniface abstaining).
L. Ordway gave an explanation of the significance of a four-member board and asked if the applicant would like to continue to next month or be heard at this meeting. The applicant decided to proceed.
#09-22: A request from Paul Fleming for a variance from Article III, §220-9.1, to extend an existing driveway which is currently located within the twenty-five foot sideline setback. The property is located at 2 Harmony Way, Tax Map 50, Lot 85, in the LDR District. The property owners of record are Paul Fleming and Kelley Shepard.
Paul Fleming was present for the application. He explained that he was looking to build a garage and extend his existing driveway to it. Mr. Fleming noted that the new garage would be compliant with all setback requirements but the existing driveway was already in the setback and any extension would be in the setback as well. He continued that he was trying to fit the garage in without cutting down any trees.
L. Ordway inquired if there was already a garage on the property.
P. Fleming replied there was an existing garage under.
L. Ordway asked if the garage would be used for commercial use.
P. Fleming said “absolutely not.”
L. Ordway questioned what kinds of things would be in this garage.
P. Fleming said it would be mostly his “stuff” not the kinds of things he needed access to every day.
There was a brief discussion of the location of the property and the surrounding character of the neighborhood.
L. Ordway asked why the garage doors could not be put on the front of the garage instead of the side where a variance was needed.
P. Fleming replied that he would have to cut down at least one (1) significant twenty-foot tall tree, perhaps as many as three (3) trees. He noted that removing any trees would not make his wife very happy.
R. Loeffler questioned how large the trees that would have to be removed were.
P. Fleming noted that the three (3) trees were approximately 22”, 14” and 24” in diameter.
L. Ordway inquired as to how big the proposed garage was.
P. Fleming answered that it was 20’ by 24’. He added that he had originally wanted the garage closer to the property line but had moved it to meet the setback requirements.
R. Loeffler asked if the existing driveway was in the setback.
P. Fleming replied that it was.
L. Ordway offered that he could see on the plan where relocating the garage doors to the front of the house would mean taking one (1) tree down, but he didn’t see why three (3) would have to be removed.
L. Ordway asked if there were any further questions from the Board; there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of the application.
A letter of support from Todd and Doris Buckley, 1 Harriman Way, was read into the record.
DELIBERATION:
J. Matthews moved, second by R. Loeffler, to grant the request for a variance to extend a driveway that is already in the setback, for the property located at 2 Harmony Way.
L. Ordway offered that the garage could be built by taking down one (1) maple tree and putting the garage doors on the front of the building. He added that he didn’t see that this one (1) tree was of significant benefit to the property.
R. Loeffler added that Harmony Way is well treed and losing one (1) tree would not have a big impact.
There was a brief discussion of the location of the existing driveway and where it would be extended if the variance was granted.
J. Matthews offered that she didn’t see the harm in granting the variance to extend the driveway since it was already in the setback.
R. Loeffler suggested that it would be setting a bad precedent.
The Board reviewed the proposed construction plan submitted but the applicant.
L. Ordway offered that he thought the proposed turn into the garage, should the variance be granted, was nearly impossible to make as shown.
J. Matthews reminded that would mostly recreational things would be in this garage.
L. Ordway noted that his concern was for the future. He added that more than once before the attached garage has been converted to living space and then the detached garage becomes the primary garage. L. Ordway suggested there was nothing special about the tree that was blocking access to the front of the building.
There was a discussion of the tree and what might make a tree special.
J. Matthews offered that she had purchased her property for the trees and she wouldn’t be happy if her husband wanted to cut any of them down.
R. Loeffler noted that if people want to expand their property they have to be prepared to conform to the ordinances and that might mean cutting down a tree.
L. Ordway added that if this was the only tree in the yard it might be a different matter.
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 this driveway would be to for access to a resident garage on a residential lot and extending the existing driveway would not affect the property values
- Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public’s interested as the driveway already exists in a non-compliant condition
- There are reasonable alternatives to extending the non-compliant driveway, the tree in the front can be cut down and the doors changes to be on the front of the structure instead of the side and then the driveway could be constructed to be compliant
- There is no injustice the garage will still be built – It was noted that the loss of the tree could be a loss to the applicant while there would be no loss to the public with a non-compliant driveway
- It contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance which it to maintain separation of structure (in this case the extended driveway)
There was no further discussion of the motion. The vote was 2-2-0 (Ordway and Loeffler dissenting) and the motion to grant was defeated.
There was no further business before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
