ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 26, 2010
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Robert Loeffler; Roderic Cole; Paul Boniface, Alternate; Joyce Ingerson, Alternate; James Allen, Alternate and Kim Crapo, Alternate. Julie Matthews, Vice Chairman, was excused.
Also present: Dee Voss, ZBA Administrative Assistant.
J. Ingerson was appointed as a voting member for the meeting. It should be noted that P. Boniface was also a voting member for this meeting though it was not stated initially.
Minutes of July 29, 2010
R. Cole motioned, second by R. Loeffler, to approve the minutes of the July 29, 2010. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A
# 10-13: A request from Donald Connolly for a variance from Article V, §220-32I to permit a car port to be built within 10 feet of the property line, where 15 feet is the minimum required setback. The property is located at 2 Bailey Drive, Tax Map 38, Lot 96, in the MDR District. The property owner on record is Lynne V. Connolly.
D. Voss noted for clarification of the record that the car port had already been constructed and the application was for it to remain, not to be constructed, as was stated in the legal notice.
Donald Connolly, 2 Bailey Drive, was present to represent himself. He stated that in 2002 he applied for permit to build a car port there and poured the concrete pad and built car port. Building Inspector, Michael Dorman told him it was too close to property line and he then took it down. He then put up a fence, said to be ten (10) feet from the concrete pad and one (1) foot from the property line, and re-erected the car port again to store his car in. Mr. Connolly stated that the car port is smaller than previous one, ten (10) feet out instead of twelve (12) feet. He noted that he keeps it neat and doesn’t understand what the objection is other than how close it is. He noted he did originally have the permit and it was not denied until months later when he had already poured the concrete. At that time he did take car port down, and there was no fence so it was exposed. No neighbors other than Mr. Kinney opposed.
L. Ordway asked why D. Connolly didn’t apply for a variance back in 2002 when he took it down for being illegally built.
D. Connolly stated that it is a good question. He didn’t feel it was necessary as he thought it was within what it needed to be.
L. Ordway asked why he didn’t apply for building permit this time.
D. Connolly answered that M. Dorman told him it was too close, so he applied for a variance instead.
L. Ordway wanted clarification that M. Dorman told D. Connolly that the car port he built was too close to property line and that he should go to ZBA for a variance. D. Connolly answered yes.
L. Ordway asked if he was told this before or after it was built.
D. Connolly answered yes, it was after.
L. Ordway asked if he had applied for a building permit before it was built.
D. Connolly responded that he didn’t think it was necessary as it wasn’t seen.
L. Ordway asked if the original car port went out thirteen (13) feet.
D. Connolly responded that he had said it went out twelve (12) feet from the other building, and this time it is only out ten (10) feet.
L. Ordway asked if he would only make it seven (7) feet since he was just going to park a car there.
D. Connolly replied that seven (7) feet is not wide enough as there is a set of stairs that come out of the side of the garage, with a ten (10) inch step so it is really only a nine (9) foot garage. If you made it seven (7) feet, it would only be five (5) feet and would not fit a car.
L. Ordway asked if he keeps the car under a protective tarp, and D. Connolly responded yes.
R. Loeffler asked what the height of the car port is in relation to the roofline of the garage.
D. Connolly responded that the garage is 21 feet (walls 9 feet and peaks 12 feet), and the carport is seven (7) feet on one side and five (5) feet on the other, adding it was just a lean-to.
L. Ordway noted that the application mentioned access to the back yard, and the house is built in a u shape. He asked if there was any access to the back yard.
D. Connolly answered no, the yard is completely fenced in and the septic system is behind the garage. He added that you cannot build a car port on the other side of the house as there was a building there originally that he took down when he built the garage because there was not enough room.
L. Ordway asked if it is a one-car or two-car garage.
D. Connolly responded one-car. He noted that it is not a garage, it is used as storage. He said they store windows in it, but it was originally used as a garage.
L. Ordway asked why he does not use it to store the car.
D. Connolly answered that it is used to store windows and doors for his roofing and siding business. He noted that he used to keep the windows and doors outside, but moved them into the garage as people had complained about them.
L. Ordway asked if D. Connolly was the principle of Absolute Roofing.
D. Connolly answered his son Patrick (Connolly) is. He said he is one of the owners, it is an LLC, and that there are four (4) owners.
D. Voss noted that the home occupation is located at D. Connolly’s address.
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 to the application.
Paul Kinney, 7 Forrest Street, stated that he and his wife oppose the car port that was put up illegally. He stated that when D. Connolly built the car port he came before the ZBA and was granted a four (4) foot variance (No evidence was presented by Mr. Connolly of any previous variances for the car port). He discussed with the Board how he calculated the distance to his property line from the car port, disputing Mr. Connolly’s measurements and noting that he had not actually measured the distance.
P. Kenny asked to see that the petition is changed to reflect that D. Connolly is not the property owner as the petition states.
D. Voss clarified that Mr. Connolly was informed that since he was not the property owner he would have to supply a letter of authorization from Lynne V. Connolly. Such a letter was received.
P. Kinney explained the history of his frustrations with non-complaint issues with this property, noting an old issue of an oil spill along with the setback problems. He submitted pictures to show the size and use of the car port. There was additional discussion regarding how Mr. Kinney determined the distance from Mr. Connolly’s car port and concrete slab to the property line.
P. Kinney, noting that he felt the concrete slab was already closer than the ten (10) feet stated in the application, questioned how much of a variance Mr. Connolly could be given. It was verified that the application was only for ten (10) feet.
There was additional discussion of Mr. Kinney’s distance calculations.
P. Kenny noted his disappointment that it has taken so much time to have something down about this issue when there is a violation. He noted that for years he’s been talking with M. Dorman, and the car port was removed but not the cement pad. He left on vacation last year and came home to find car port built back up.
L. Ordway responded that the Board can only grant or not grant the variance. That it then becomes an enforcement issue for the building inspector.
A letter from Robert Farrar, 11 Forrest Street, was read into the record. Mr. Farrar noted that he objected to the variance but did not list ant specific reasons.
L. Ordway closed the hearing and explained the procedure for deliberations.
R. Cole noted that Mr. Connolly had not been given a chance to rebut the objections to his application and the hearing was reopened.
D. Connolly stated that the car port is at an angle and it is ten (10) feet, maybe nine (9) feet six (6) inches.
R. Loeffler asked about the location of the stairs and D. Connolly replied that they are beside the car on the left hand side.
L. Ordway asked if there was anyone else to speak in favor of or against the petition. There was no one and the case was closed.
DELIBERATION:
# 10-13: A request from Donald Connolly for a variance from Article V, §220-32I to permit a car port to be built within 10 feet of the property line, where 15 feet is the minimum required setback. The property is located at 2 Bailey Drive, Tax Map 38, Lot 96, in the MDR District. The property owner on record is Lynne V. Connolly.
R. Loeffler motioned to grant, second by R. Cole, D. Connolly’s request to permit a car port already built within ten (10) feet of property line at 2 Bailey Drive.
L. Ordway offered a summary noting the following:
- Carport was built in 2002 without a permit
- The building inspector granted a permit.
- When found car port was too close to property line, D. Connolly was told to come before ZBA for a variance, which he did not, and lost his chance for a variance.
- He was told to remove car port, which he did.
- D. Connolly was not told to remove the concrete footprint, an error on the building inspector’s part.
- P. Kinney’s testimony stated that when he came home from vacation last year a new car port had been built a foot or so shorter than previous car port.
- This new car port was built without a building permit, or coming before the ZBA for a variance.
- Abutter’s have now complained to the building inspector who has sent D. Connolly to the ZBA for a variance.
R. Loeffler asked if D. Connolly opted to stay within the fifteen (15) feet and build a smaller car port, would he be able to.
L. Ordway responded yes, but the car port would be too small.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance, noting the following:
- THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
L. Ordway suggested that this means the public wants to be reassured that there is adequate separation between houses and properties. D. Connolly’s car port is between eight (8) and ten (10) feet, where fifteen (15) feet is required. The Board is being asked to vary between seven (7) and five (5) feet. A fence is between the properties, maybe on the line.
L. Ordway noted that when he viewed the properties, it was very close to abutter’s property. He was not able to measure the difference between the property line and the house, but they have a tax map for an approximation.
It was noted that the tax map does not show where the house is on the property.
L. Ordway stated that he believes the car port is too close to the property line and therefore contrary to the public’s interest.
- THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED.
L. Ordway offered that he felt the car port meets this provision.
- SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE.
L. Ordway stated that there is a garage on the property being used as storage. He added this diminishes the need for a car port, and the general public is losing having the car port so close to the property line.
R. Loeffler added that if you have a garage used as storage, then that is your decision to not store the car there. It is not a necessity to store windows in garage.
- THE VALUES OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE NOT DIMINISHED.
L. Ordway noted his impression of the property to be that all of the square footage of property is being used, which he feels does affect the surrounding property values. He reminded that the abutter did produce photos of trucks, barrels, rims, and windows being stored all around the property as well.
- LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
L. Ordway offered that he didn’t see a hardship in the land.
R. Loeffler feels the hardship is that it took the town a while to do something, since 2003, about the concrete slab. He feels that the applicant would not be before the Board now if the concrete slab was not still there for the car port.
L. Ordway disagreed, noting that he could still park car on it without a roof over it.
R. Loeffler stated that because the slab sat on the property for seven (7) years and the town did nothing about it, that he could see that the applicant felt the town didn’t care, and rebuilt it again. If the town had made him remove it, the applicant would then need to come in with new plans. R. Loeffler added that he could understand the temptation to rebuild the car port since the slab was allowed to remain.
L. Ordway disagreed, noting the Town did tell him to remove the slab.
R. Cole read from a staff report from the Department of Building Safety “This office should have, but did not, make sure Mr. Connolly remove the slab,” and so feels that R. Loeffler is accurate.
R. Cole feels that what he heard the case to be was that no permit was pulled when the car port was first built, Mr. Connolly was instructed to remove the car port and slab, and then he put it back up with no permit, that he is finished hearing the case and ready to vote.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 0-5-0 and the motion to grant the variance was denied.
Other Business:
A number of training opportunities coming up in the near future where noted. All interested members should contact Dee Voss in the office.
There was no further business before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Laurie Pagnottaro
Recording Secretary
| 
