ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 24, 2010
The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Julie Matthews, Vice-Chairman: Robert Loeffler; Joyce Ingerson, Alternate; James Allen, Alternate; and Kim Crapo, Alternate. Roderic Cole was excused.
J. Ingerson and J. Allen were appointed as voting members for the meeting.
Minutes of May 27, 2010
L. Ordway moved, second by R. Loeffler, to approve the minutes of the May 27, 2010, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
#10-10: A request from Arthur Wicks for a variance from Article VI, §220-47 to permit an existing 7.10 acre lot to be developed using Article VI, Planned Residential Development when §220-47 requires a 10-acre minimum lot size. The property is located at 22 Witch Lane, Tax Map 42, Lot 23 in the MDR District. The applicant is the property owner of record.
An email from Attorney Roger Burlingame, counsel for the application, requesting a continuance was read for the record. The request noted that Mr. Burlingame had only recently been asked to assist in this matter and he would like more time to prepare.
L. Ordway moved, second by J. Ingerson, to grant the request for a continuance to July 29, 2010.
L. Ordway offered that all applicants are encouraged to be fully prepared for their hearing and it was not unreasonable to grant a first or even a second request to postpone. He added that he would have to find a compelling reason to grant a third request as it was not fair to the abutters.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
It was announced that matter number #10-10 would be continued to July 29, 2010 and there would be no additional notification of the continuance.
#10-09: A request from Patrick M. Connolly for a variance from Article III, §220-13B, to allow the parking of commercial vehicles (enclosed trailers) on a residential lot. The property is located at 8 East Pine Street, Tax Map 38, Lot 122, in the MDR District. The applicant is the property owner of record. (NOTE: This application was originally scheduled to be heard on May 27, 2010, but was withdrawn for lack of representation. The applicant has reapplied to be heard at this meeting)
Patrick Connolly, 8 East Pine Street, was present for the application.
P. Connolly explained that he would like to be able to park two (2) enclosed contractor trailers for his business, Absolute Roofing, in his yard. He said that the company had other vehicles that are stored at a commercial location and another residence on Bailey Drive, adding that storing the trailers at his home was a matter of convenience.
L. Ordway asked Mr. Connolly was his position was with Absolute Roofing.
P. Connolly responded that he was part owner with his brothers and mother.
L. Ordway asked who held the home occupation for the business.
P. Connolly replied that it was held at his mother’s address of 2 Bailey Drive.
L. Ordway noted that he had seen some of the trailers for the business and they were loaded with ladders and equipment.
P. Connolly offered that the trailers were relatively new and clean. He said that he parks them off to the side. He added that the ordinance only addressed motorized vehicles, these trailers were not motorized.
L. Ordway replied that he had read the ordinance and it specifically states that one of the commercial vehicles is to be garaged or screened. He added that he had been by the property on a number of occasions and observed the trailer parked near the house.
P. Connolly explained that he had been working on the yard recently and it may not have been the best time to be looking at his yard. He added that he could purchase a twelve (12) foot high fence.
L. Ordway noted that a twelve (12) foot high fence is illegal.
P. Connolly offered that he wasn’t sure how to screen properly.
L. Ordway explained that if fencing was inadequate then things such as bushes and evergreens might provide proper screening.
L. Ordway questioned if a pick-up truck was used to tow the trailers.
P. Connolly replied that he had a pick-up truck as does his brother, and they or someone else in the company, would come with their pick-up truck to get the other trailer. He added that he had equipment in the yard for working on his yard, not for the business.
R. Loeffler, recalling a variance that had been previously granted for a garage, asked when the garage was going to be built.
P. Connolly answered that he wasn’t sure, noting they (the business) were in the process of developing a commercial site on Route 108. He added that the down economy and recent birth of his son have shifted his focus to fixing up his own yard.
R. Loeffler, noting there was a home occupation for the business, asked why the trailers weren’t being parked there.
P. Connolly responded that it was mostly for convenience as he can leave for a job straight from his house. He said that some of the large vehicles were parked at his parent’s house (location of the home occupation). Mr. Connolly added that Bailey Drive was a very narrow road and it was difficult to back the trailers into the yard without blocking traffic (on Main Street).
L. Ordway suggested with the development of the commercial property on Route 108 that parking the trailers at 8 East Pine Street might be a short term solution as the trailers could be stored over there. He asked if the commercial site would be ready in 12 to 18 months.
P. Connolly said that he didn’t know when the commercial site would be ready or how many vehicles will be able to be stored there. He added that the trailers are often stored on a job site, depending on the size of the job.
L. Ordway noted that if the business were to grow there would be the temptation to park more business vehicles on the property and then the neighbors would have more to contend with.
P. Connolly added that the process to convert a property to a commercial use, even in the ICR (Integrated Commercial Residential) district is very costly.
R. Loeffler questioned what is kept in the trailers.
P. Connolly answered that one (1) trailer had basic carpentry tools, tar paper, ice/water shield, nail guns, compressor, etc. He added that the other trailer was set up for vinyl siding and there was nothing hazardous in either trailer.
L. Ordway asked if there were any tar boilers.
P. Connolly replied they did not do hot tar roofs, adding they did an occasional rubber roof and would have the cement for that.
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 Mr. Connolly’s application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
L. Ordway explained that procedure, noting that all matters would be heard and then the board would take a break coming back to decide each matter. He noted there would be additional input once a matter is closed.
#10-11: A request from Daniel J. Poliquin for a variance from Article IX §220-60A & C.1 and §220-65A to permit a 5’ X 7’ internally illuminated sign attached to the building. The property is located at 4 Duston Ave, Tax Map 41, Lot 38 in the CII/VD. The applicant is the property owner of record.
Daniel Poliquin, property owner 4 Duston Ave, was present for the application.
D. Poliquin explained the history of his building and offered that following in support of his variance application:
- In 1952 it was the location of Senter Tire and Auto, with two (2) work bays
- In the early 1970s the building became Hamilton Auto Parts where some engine machine work was also done
- 1994 Mr. Poliquin purchased the building and opened a welding and fabrication shop. At that time there were three (3) signs; a pole sign and illuminated attached signs on the front and back of the building.
- The pole sign was retained, as was the sign on the back of the building. The illuminated front sign was removed as it was facing residential buildings.
- The rear sign was taken down during building repairs with the intention of being replaced with a new, up-to-code sign.
- The building was repaired but the sign was not replaced. Since more than one year passed and since attached, illuminated signs are not permitted it in the CII (Commercial II) district the sign was no longer grandfathered
- A banner had been strung between two poles, but Mike Dorman (Code Enforcement Officer) told him it couldn’t be left there so he had put it on the back of the building, which Mr. Dorman had said would be okay until the permanent sign was up
L. Ordway asked how long the sign had been down.
D. Poliquin said that he couldn’t remember but he thought it was about two (2) years. He added that the sign used to be 5’X 7’ vertical and when he had the new one made it was made 5’ X 7’ horizontal.
L. Ordway said that there was no issue with the size of the sign.
D. Poliquin noted that the sign was UL listed.
L. Ordway asked if there was anything else Mr. Poliquin wanted to add.
D. Poliquin offered that the nearest building that would possibly be affected would be Dr. Holiman who was about 120 yards away. The next closest would be the former Smith property approximately 200 yards away. He added there is a natural tree line and other vegetation for screening.
The Board reviewed pictures that were provided by the applicant.
R. Loeffler asked if there had been decline in vandalism since the lighted sign was installed.
D. Poliquin answered that some of his neighbors had experienced some vandalism, but he had not. He said that a windshield was broken but since the vehicle was in the front of the building he didn’t think the lighted sign on the rear of the building would have deterred that.
R. Loeffler asked if external versus internal illumination would negate the need for a variance.
D. Poliquin said that he would prefer the internally illumination for the longevity and attention drawing factor. He added that if he had to put lighting top and bottom it would mean costlier maintenance.
R. Loeffler agreed that it did attract attention but questioned the readability of the sign.
D. Poliquin offered that he had noticed an increase in business since the new sign has been up. He said that they always ask new customers how they found out about the business and many have noted it was because of the sign. Mr. Poliquin added that the increase is in the welding business, which is advertised on the sign, not the auto repair business, which is not.
R. Loeffler asked if Mr. Poliquin his property extended to the railroad tracks.
D. Poliquin noted that he owned to the right-of-way.
R. Loeffler questioned if Mr. Poliquin would be cutting down some of the greenery.
D. Poliquin said that he was going to leave the screening, trimming only some overgrowth and limbs.
L. Ordway asked if there was a timer on the lighted sign.
D. Poliquin replied that it was on a photocell which illuminated it at dusk and turned it off at dawn, but if the Board wanted him to put it on a timer he would do that. He said that at this time of year the sign doesn’t come on until 9:00 or so.
L. Ordway said that he could appreciate the business nature of the Holiman property but the property at 148 Main Street (former Smith property) was a single-family dwelling with the potential to be apartments so a timer might be a good solution.
L. Ordway asked if there was a way to decrease the illumination of the sign.
D. Poliquin explained that he could put a cool light in it; there are day light lamps in currently. He said that he was going to have the sign refaced and he could have it done with a “reverse weed” that would mute the brightness of the colors.
L. Ordway asked how soon that would be done.
D. Poliquin said that if everything goes right it would be in about 6-8 weeks once the graphics are worked out.
L. Ordway asked if it could be a matter of taking a few bulbs out.
D. Poliquin replied that it would be relatively easy to change to cool lamps.
L. Ordway asked if there was anything planned for the pole sign.
D. Poliquin answered that would be part of the redesigning and it too would be refaced. He added that he had no plans to light the sign in consideration of the neighbors even though the sign is blocked from Main Street view by trees.
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 Mr. Connolly’s application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
The chairman called for a break at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was called back to over at 7:46 p.m.
DELIBERATIONS
#10-09: A request from Patrick M. Connolly for a variance from Article III, §220-13B, to allow the parking of commercial vehicles (enclosed trailers) on a residential lot. The property is located at 8 East Pine Street, Tax Map 38, Lot 122, in the MDR District. The applicant is the property owner of record. (NOTE: This application was originally scheduled to be heard on May 27, 2010, but was withdrawn for lack of representation. The applicant has reapplied to be heard at this meeting)
R. Loeffler moved, second by J. Matthews, to grant the request for a variance to allow two (2) construction trailers to be stored at 8 East Pine Street.
L. Ordway summarized the evidence presented, noting the following:
- The applicant would like to park two (2) enclosed trailers on a residential lot
- The trailers are approximately seven (7) feet high
- The applicant offered to park the trailers farther back on the property
- The applicant would need to come up with some kind of screening, such as a fence or evergreens to shield the neighbors
L. Ordway suggested it needed to be carefully considered that should a variance be granted it goes with the property forever and could be a problem should the property be sold.
J. Ingerson, noting the letters provided from the Code Enforcement Officer, that prompted the variance request, indicated there were complaints. She questioned who might have made the complaints.
It was noted the complainant was not indicated in the letters.
J. Ingerson added that no one appeared at the meeting to express opposition to the application.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:
- There may be a decrease in the surrounding property values as the trailers on the property may make it difficult for neighbors to sell their property or require them to lower their price to make a sale
R. Loeffler noted there would be nothing to prevent these trailers from becoming storage trailers.
J. Matthews added there were at least three (3) family members involved in this business leaving other options for the parking of trailers.
L. Ordway reminded that they were also developing a commercial property. He added as the business grows it will have to be relocated.
- The public interest would be in minimizing the eyesore that trailers may create in a residential district but that could be resolved with some fencing or screening and would be up to the building inspector to enforce
- There was no testimony offered that there was any hardship in the land to support the granting of a variance
R. Loeffler suggested the only hardship was personal convenience.
L. Ordway added that he did hear that they were storing other vehicles elsewhere so there were possible storage alternatives.
- The loss to the individual would be that the equipment would have to be stored elsewhere and therefore wouldn’t be as convenient and the gain to the public would be that the neighbors would not have to look at the trailers
L. Ordway noted that it wasn’t asked if the pick-up truck driven by Mr. Connolly had signage on it.
R. Loeffler offered that all their (Absolute Roofing’s) vehicles had signage.
L. Ordway said that if that was the case then there could be at least three (3) vehicles on the property (two trailers and the pick-up truck) at any given time, possibly more.
R. Loeffler noted that he couldn’t get through his mind why there should be trailers on this property. He added there was no business at this property so there should not be these business vehicles there. R. Loeffler offered it was all well and good to have a pick-up truck and a trailer with signage but essentially the business was expanding to a second location.
J. Matthews reminded there was already a home occupation for this business at Bailey Drive and they couldn’t park the trailers their either. She noted that most home occupations only have one (1) vehicle.
L. Ordway added that two (2) trailers would need two (2) trucks to tow them.
- With the impression that there would be a minimum of three (3) commercial vehicles on the property at any given time this would be in violation of the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
There was additional discussion of the motion. It was consensus that in order to park commercial vehicles on a residential parcel a home occupation was in order, which limits the number of vehicles to two (2), one of which must be screened.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 0-5-0 and the motion is defeated and the variance denied.
Reason for denial:
- Potential decrease in surrounding property values
- No evidence of a hardship in the land
- Directly contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance
#10-11: A request from Daniel J. Poliquin for a variance from Article IX §220-60A & C.1 and §220-65A to permit a 5’ X 7’ internally illuminated sign attached to the building. The property is located at 4 Duston Ave, Tax Map 41, Lot 38 in the CII/VD. The applicant is the property owner of record.
R. Loeffler moved, second by J. Matthews, to grant the request for a variance to permit an attached illuminated sign at 4 Duston Ave.
L. Ordway summarized the evidence presented in support of the variance request noting the following:
- The property was purchased by the applicant in 1994 and the sign was on the building at that time
- The sign was taken down approximately two (2) years ago with the intention of being replaced once the building was repaired
- The new sign has more luminaries than the former sign but is the same size
- The sign is internally illuminated and not of wood construction which is the basis of the variance request
- The applicant is going to need a permit for the sign as there are no grounds to vary on the need for a permit
R. Loeffler added the sign is pre-existing and of little impact on the neighbors. He noted that only real difference is that there is now a sign there that can be seen.
J. Ingerson noted it can be seen because it was upgraded.
R. Loeffler offered that the building as skew to Main Street, making it difficult to see.
L. Ordway said that he would like to see the timer on the sign lighting so it was not on all night and he would also like to require the “reverse weed” that would tone down the sign. He added that the applicant admitted that he screwed up by not keeping the sign active to preserve the grandfathering, but there was no detriment to the neighbor.
R. Loeffler amended the motion, second by J. Matthews, to include the requirement that the sign be refaced with “reverse weed” as described in testimony and there be a timer the illuminates the sign from dusk until 10:30 p.m.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:
- There will be no decrease in the surrounding property values since the sign is continuing and people have adjusted and accepted its presence
- The sign is not oversized or garish and it not out of place in its location, therefore there is nothing contrary to the public interest
- There is a hardship in that the property is not visible from Main Street and a business has a right to advertise. Its better to have this attached sign illuminated rather than the pole sign that would directly affect residences
- There is no loss or gain to the public and the business will gain advertising
J. Matthews offered concern over the precedent granting this variance would set for other businesses on Main Street.
L. Ordway suggested there was a precedent in the fact that this sign was pre-existing.
J. Ingerson added that this parcel was not actually on Main Street.
There was a brief discussion that noted other businesses on Main Street with illuminated attached signs.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A and the variance was granted with conditions, as amended.
Other Business
L. Ordway requested that a letter be prepared to ask Alternate Paul Boniface if he still intended to serve on the Board. It was noted that there were only four (4) full time members of the board and alternates available to be appointed.
L. Ordway noted that Peter Bealo and Dan Lloyd had put time and effort into serving on the Board and were deserving of recognition. He asked that the Board of Selectmen be consulted about some form of joint recognition.
D. Poliquin offered that the Board of Selectmen are planning recognition for both former members.
L. Ordway suggested that people give thought to a time in early September for a gathering to include P. Bealo and D. Lloyd.
J. Matthews noted that she would not be at the next meeting.
There was no further business before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
