ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 25, 2010
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Robert Loeffler (arrived 7:10 p.m.), Peter Bealo; Roderic Cole; Daniel Lloyd, Alternate and Paul Boniface, Alternate. Julie Matthews, Vice Chairman, was excused.
D. Lloyd and P. Boniface were appointed as voting members for this meeting.
Minutes of January 28, 2010
L. Ordway moved, second by R. Cole, to approve the minutes of the January 28, 2010, meeting. There was no discussion and the vote was 3-0-2 (L. Ordway and R. Cole abstaining).
#10-02: A request from Charles L. Blinn, Jr., for a variance from Article V, §220-32I to allow a shed to be within 3 feet of the property line where thirty-five feet is the minimum. The property is located at 40 Main Street, Tax Map 38, Lot 41in the CII District. The property owner of record is Charles L. Blinn, Jr.
Charles and Janice Blinn, 40 Main Street, were present for the application.
L. Ordway asked how long the shed had been there.
C. Blinn replied it was over twenty (20) years.
Pictures were shown to the Board depicting the location and condition of the shed in question.
J. Blinn offered that when they made the application they had thought the shed was only three (3) feet away from the property line. She noted that they had since re-measured and the location of the shed is actually 6½ to 7 feet from the property line.
There was a discussion regarding the procedure. It was noted that the Blinn’s originally were going to be removing the shed as part of an amended site plan approved by the Planning Board. (The Blinns have a combined commercial/residential use of their property and all changes require Planning Board approval). Sometime after that approval the Blinns decided the shed was still important to their residential use of the property and made a request to the Planning Board to keep it. Since the shed was in the setback the Planning Board sent the Blinns to this board to seek variance relief.
J. Blinn asked if they were to receive variance relief from this Board, could the Planning Board then still tell them they couldn’t have it.
P. Bealo offered that the Planning Board would have to allow the shed in the noted location.
L. Ordway asked if there was once a plan to relocate the shed.
J. Blinn explained that there was no place to relocate it short of the middle of the yard or in the parking lot.
L. Ordway asked how far the shed was from other structures on abutting lots.
J. Blinn said that it could not even been seen from any abutting residential property.
R. Loeffler arrived at 7:10 p.m.
There was a brief discussion of the location of the shed in proximity to abutting structures. It was noted that the closest abutter to the location of the shed was a commercially-used property and their building was between 50-60 feet from the shed.
L. Ordway asked if the rear of the property was fenced.
J. Blinn replied that it was.
C. Blinn added that it was a six (6) foot stockade fence.
L. Ordway noted that the shed appeared from the pictures to be in good shape.
C. Blinn offered that it housed his property maintenance equipment, such as his snow blower, and family bicycles.
It was noted that the distance of the application was being changed to the 6½ -7 feet of its current location.
The Blinns offered the following information in support of their variance application:
- The shed cannot be seen by anyone but themselves, therefore there is no adverse impact to surrounding property values
- While there may be no betterment to the public interest, there is no detriment either and there is no environmental impact
- The current location is the only location available due to the contours of the property and the location of the leach field
- Without the shed there would be no other way to practically store the things currently housed in the shed
- The shed is located on the private residential portion of the property and does not interfere with any abutter’s property or use of their property
- Since the Town (Planning Board site plan regulations) required them to pave more of the commercial portion there were less possibilities for the location of their residential shed
- Since there was no floor in the shed there was no detrimental impact
L. Ordway (noting a location on the property) asked why the shed couldn’t be relocated there.
J. Blinn responded that was the location of their leach field.
L. Ordway questioned why, with a 1.25 acre property, couldn’t a compliant location for the shed be found.
J. Blinn offered that the whole back of the property was taken up with the addition to the business building (the original reason for the amendment to the site plan) and parking for the business.
C. Blinn noted that there were no outside storage buildings for the business; all storage is within the commercial building.
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 Blinn’s application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
L. Ordway noted the procedure for the meeting, explaining that all matters would be heard and the Board would deliberate each. He noted there could be no additional input on a matter once the public hearing was closed.
#10-03: A request from Gary Densen for a special exception under Article X, all sections to permit a home occupation, namely and office for a construction company. The property is located at 58 Westville Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 44, in the CI District. The property owner of record is Plaistow Little River Realty, LLC (Gary Densen).
Gary Densen, 58 Westville Road, was present for the application. He noted that he was seeking a home office, consisting of a desk, telephone, computer and a few files, for his construction business.
G. Densen offered the following information regarding his application:
- The use would be secondary to the residential use of the home
- The application qualifies under §220-66C – Contractors
- There would be no uses that are noxious, injurious, by reason of smoke, fumes or emissions or result in electrical fluctuations
- There would be no outside or equipment storage
- Residential use of the property was established before the business use
- The office would use 4% of the living space
- The residential character of the dwelling would not be changed
- There are no covenants or restrictions in the deed
- There would be no signage
- No one not living in the home would be working on the premises
- There will be no clients coming to the property and there is ample parking for the residential use
L. Ordway offered this appeared to be a cut-and-dry application.
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 Blinn’s application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
DELIBERATIONS:
#10-02: A request from Charles L. Blinn, Jr., for a variance from Article V, §220-32I to allow a shed to be within 3 feet of the property line where thirty-five feet is the minimum. The property is located at 40 Main Street, Tax Map 38, Lot 41in the CII District. The property owner of record is Charles L. Blinn, Jr.
R. Cole moved, second by L. Ordway, to grant the request for a variance to locate a residential shed within 6½ -7 feet (existing location) to the property line at 40 Main Street.
L. Ordway summarized the application noting the following:
- The shed has been in its current location for at least 20 years
- It cannot be seen by any abutters
- There isn’t another practical location on the property to allow residential use of the shed
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:
- There would be no decrease in surrounding property values as the small shed has been in its current location for many years
- There is no adverse affect to the public’s interests as the only abutter who might see the shed is a commercial business
- There is a hardship in seeking an alternative spot for the shed due to the location of the leach field and the commercial business on the property
- There would be justice in allowing the continued residential use of the shed
- Residential storage in a shed that has been in its current location is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance, which calls for separation of structures
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
It is noted for the record that R. Loeffler did not vote on the matter and the appointed alternate heard and voted on the entire matter.
#10-03: A request from Gary Densen for a special exception under Article X, all sections to permit a home occupation, namely and office for a construction company. The property is located at 58 Westville Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 44, in the CI District. The property owner of record is Plaistow Little River Realty, LLC (Gary Densen).
R. Cole moved, second by P. Bealo, to grant a special exception to Gary Densen for a home office at 58 Westville Road.
L. Ordway summarized the application noting that it seemed to be a classic application and there was nothing presented that would prevent approval of the application.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
It is noted for the record that R. Loeffler did not vote on the matter and the appointed alternate heard and voted on the entire matter.
REORGANIZATION:
R. Cole moved, second by D. Lloyd, that the current slate of officers, L. Ordway as Chairman and J. Matthews as Vice Chairman, be re-elected for the 2010 year.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Members voting were: L. Ordway; R. Loeffler; P. Bealo; R. Cole; and D. Lloyd.
There was no further business before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 7:29 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
