ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
July 26, 2012
Call to Order: 7:00 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present were – Larry Ordway; Chairman, Roderick Cole, Jim Allen, J. Ingerson and Tim Fisher; Alternate. Paul Boniface was excused.
L. Ordway appointed T. Fisher a voting member for the meeting.
Minutes of June 28, 2011
J. Ingerson motioned to accept the minutes of the June 28, 2012 meeting as corrected, second by J. Allen.
J. Ingerson noted that the date of the minutes needed to be changed from April 26, 2012 to June 28, 2012.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-2; J. Ingerson and R. Cole abstained.
DELIBERATION
REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING
#12-05: A request from Patrick M. Connolly Contracting, LLC, for a variance from Article V, § 220-32I and allow the use of an existing garage for commercial purposes. The garage exists 25.10’ from a residentially used parcel, which requires a 50’ setback. The property is located at 15 Newton Road, Tax Map 66, Lot 28 in the ICR District. The applicant is the property owner of record.
L. Ordway explained that the Board should have deliberated on this request for a rehearing at the last meeting. The applicant has submitted an application for a re-hearing which pertains to using the existing garage for commercial purposes. The Board needs to decide if there is any new evidence presented or if the Board has erred procedurally.
The Board read through the application for re-hearing in order to decide if there is any new evidence or errors which would allow them to grant a re-hearing. L. Ordway noted that the letter pertains to both cases (#12-04 & #12-05) so the Board will need to decide what belongs to this case.
J. Allen motioned to grant the re-hearing on this matter, second by R. Cole.
L. Ordway read the letter of request to the Board. The Board noted the following in regards to the 10 considerations submitted by the applicant:
- Please see attached “Google Earth” overhead that reflects the status of property prior to the application being files. As is noted from such overhead picture, trees were not removed from the site, which is contrary to the opposition of Ralph Scovotti, the abutting neighbor.
The Board noted that they did review and take into consideration the Google Earth overhead pictures. It was noted by R. Cole that with Google Earth they cannot be certain of what date the images where taken. It was decided that the removal of trees has no bearing on the issue of the garage being used commercially so does not apply to this case.
- Since there was no cutting down of trees by the Applicant, no adverse impact was incurred by the abutter, and actions taken by Applicant.
The Board decided this point had no bearing on this case but on case #12-04 only.
- While initial considerations were utilized to continue the property as a residence, as it was when purchased, and to be utilized by the Connolly family, a decision was rendered thereafter to convert the property to commercial use. Such notice was expressly stated to Town Officials, was never done in a surreptitious manner, and was addressed with Building Inspector and Town Officials, as to Applicant’s intentions.
The Board stated they took this point into consideration, everything was done properly and no one accused Mr. Connolly of any misdoing. There is neither new evidence nor any error by the Board here.
- The website of Absolute Roofing is a marketing device as to possible work to be performed, although information presented to the Board confirmed that no building materials would be brought to the subject premises, but would be delivered directly to the job site. As such, this should ot have been a major consideration.
The Board decided this point had no bearing on this case but on case #12-04 only.
- The plan submitted was prepared and submitted by James M. Lavelle, a licensed land surveyor, and reflects accurate reading for consideration by the Board, contrary to any further representation that may have been made by Dan Johnson, who appeared on behalf of the abutter.
The Board noted that although there was some difference of opinion between the surveyors, no one on the Board questioned the licensing of either surveyor; James Lavelle or Dan Johnson. There is nothing new here nor an error by the Board.
- The Applicant has owned the property for four (4) years, not five (5) years, as represented, and has maintained the property in a proper and suitable fashion.
The Board noted that the difference between four and five years is incidental and had no impact on the Boards decision; it is immaterial to this case.
- Since no trees were cut down by Applicant, the proposed access road would have no impact on privacy issues as raised, and the spirit of the ordinance would not be compromised by granting the variance.
The Board recalled the applicant proposing to drive equipment on an access way beside the garage next to the abutter; it was decided that the garage being commercial is the focus of this case and not the driveway.
- No substantial injustice would occur by granting the variance, especially since other commercial businesses abound in the area.
The board noted that they discussed the other commercial businesses in the area.
- There is no evidence that the abutter’s way of life would be damaged in any way as a result of the granting of a variance, nor would it deprive enjoyment of his property.
The Board decided this pertained to the access driveway and not the garage being used commercially.
- No definition of Contractor’s Yard exists by which any determination could be made of such classification.
The Board decided this point had no bearing on this case but on case #12-04 only.
The Board agreed that there was neither no new evidence presented nor any procedural errors made by the Board in their decision to deny the request to use the garage for commercial purposes.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 1-4-0; denied. L. Ordway, R. Cole, J. Allen and T. Fisher voted no. The reason stated for denial was there were no new evidence presented and no indication of errors made by the Board.
Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA
There is no other business before the Board; the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Larry Ordway, Chairman
| 
