MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Wagner and Teri Dickey-Gaignat
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Ronald Banks sitting for Joel Nadel and
Tim Moriarty sitting for Tom Berstene
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning and Debbie Reid, Recording Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The Recording Secretary read the legal notice as published in the newspaper.
ITEM: New Business
Appl. #2620-04 – An Huu Huynh, request for two variances to section 10.2: 1) a 35’ variance to allow a gazebo 15’ from the property line (50’ required); and 2) a 35’ variance to allow a shed 15’ from the property line (50’ required) at 22 Paper Chase, A-30 open space zone.
Chairperson Wagner explained to the Board that the applicant had not erected the proper signs prior to the meeting and would be heard at the next scheduled meeting.
Appl. #2621-04 – Robert & Barbara Gentile, request for a 6’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a proposed deck 34’ from the front property line (40’ required) at 112 Oak Street, A-20 zone.
Ms. Barbara Gentile came before the Board to represent this application. She explained that she is requesting a 6’ variance to allow a front porch to be constructed. The porch would encroach over the front building line. The map shows the house 49 feet from the property line but this could be inaccurate. The 6-foot request is to allow for what could be the largest variance necessary on this property. Ms. Gentile stated the hardship is that her property is currently restricted because she is on a corner lot. There is a screened porch, which received a 6’ variance, the driveway on the other side of the house and an existing deck on the rear of the house. There is no other area to place the porch and with the uncertainty of the distance to the road, it was felt that a 6’ variance would
be the largest request that would be necessary.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to this appeal.
Answering questions from the Board, Ms. Gentile explained that the proposed porch would be a traditional front porch. The only enclosure would be the roof. Although Woodland Drive is not a constructed further beyond Ms. Gentiles house, the house is considered to be on a corner lot because the road could be extended at a later date.
With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal closed at 7:40 p.m.
DELIBERATIVE SESSION
ITEM: Appl. #2621-04 – Robert & Barbara Gentile, 112 Oak Street, A-20 zone.
Commission members discussed briefly the inaccuracy of class D maps which most applicants use. A class A-2 survey is the most accurate mapping available.
Commissioner Banks stated he has two concerns with this application. The first is that a hardship unique to this property has not been demonstrated; and the second is not knowing how big a variance the applicant will actually need to accomplish what she would like.
Commissioner Moriarty stated his concern is that the porch will be converted into a three-season room. Mr. Moriarty said he would like to know the real measurements of this porch in order to know the exact distance form the street this porch will be.
Chairperson Wagner felt there is a standard setback of the houses in the neighborhood and would not want to change that.
Motion to: Deny without prejudice appl. #2621-04 – Robert & Barbara Gentile, a 6’ variance to section 10.2 to allow a proposed porch 34’ from the front property line (40’ required) at 112 Oak Street,A-20 zone.
Was made by Commissioner Moriarty
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
Hardship: Insufficient information presented which could result in a greater impact to the neighborhood. The Commission felt an A2 survey should be provided on this property.
Chairperson Wagner suggested an amendment to the motion that there is not a sufficient hardship to justify a 6’ variance.
Was made by Commissioner Wagner
Seconded by Commissioner Banks
The motion: failed
The votes were as follows: 2 to 2 with Commissioners Wagner and Banks in favor of the amendment and Commissioner Moriarty and Dickey-Gaignat in opposition of the amendment.
The original motion was called.
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Minutes
Motion to: approve the June 3, 2004 minutes.
Was made by Commissioner Banks
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Other Business:
Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning informed Board members that she had presented the Town Attorney with the concerns regarding the bylaws and public participation. The Town Attorney has not responded as of yet.
A letter was written in response to Mr. John Wrynn’s request for a waiver to a fee. Mr. Wrynn understood the Boards decision to deny that request.
The Board discussed the need for a special meeting in August to accommodate pending applications.
Motion to: hold a special meeting on August 5, 2004 in order to hear application #2620-04 – An Huu Huynh and application #2622-04 – Paul & Lucy Prevost.
Was made by Commissioner Banks
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Old Business
Suggested Revised Information Sheet
The review of the “Suggested Revised Information Sheet” discussion was tabled until the September 2004 meeting.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Banks
Seconded by Commissioner Dickey-Gaignat
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
________________________________
Deborah W. Reid, Recording Secretary
Recording Secretary
| 
