Zoning Board of Adjustments
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
May 11th, 2021
Public Hearing/Meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Shelley Nelkens (Member), Diane Kendall (Chair), Michael Ott (Member), Janet McEwen (Member), Bob Holmes (Vice Chair), David Clater (Alternate), Carol Ogilvie (Planning Consultant participating by Zoom), and Ashley Brudnick-Destromp (Assistant)
Absent:
Public Attendees: Tom Davis (BOS via Zoom), Dave & Tammie Blanchette (Applicant)
*Due to COVID-19 this meeting was conducted with social distancing and also made available to public access via Zoom*
Opening of Meeting: Chair Kendall opened the meeting at 7:00 PM
Roll Call Vote for Attendance: Diane Kendall, “Here,” Bob Holmes, “Here,” Shelley Nelkens, “Here,” Michael Ott, “Here,” Janet McEwen, “Here,” and David Clater, “Here.”
The Assistant informed everyone that Mr. Davis was attending on Zoom.
Chair Kendall explained the process for the Public Hearing and also added that the ZBA had just done at site visit at the property at 6pm prior to the Public Hearing.
I. Public Hearing: Dave & Tammie Blanchette for a variance from the 20’ foot rear yard setback requirement and 50’ foot front yard setback requirement in order to build a 154-square foot addition on property located at 95 Gregg Lake Road (Tax Map 101 Lot 065) in the Lakefront Residential District.
The Assistant read the Public Notice and confirmed it was posted correctly and abutters were notified by certified and regular mail.
Ms. Blanchette said that they are looking to add a 154 square foot addition to the existing building. There is currently a utility shed out back that is their laundry room, and both the house and shed are nonconforming structures but were grandfathered in. She added that this is outside of the Town’s Shoreland Ordinance because they are far enough back from the water.
Ms. Nelkens asked if they needed a permit with the State. Mr. Blanchette responded they do need a permit with the State because they are within the 250 FT shoreland setback for the State. Both Mr. and Ms. Blanchette explained they wanted to do this portion first before going for State approval for the Shoreland, and they added that many of their neighbors are in support of this.
Chair Kendall verified with the applicant that they are moving the existing utility shed a foot further away from the property line and flush with the side of the house. There was a discussion on the variance being requested, change of use, and the shed that is being moved. The applicants stated that they are taking the current shed down and building a new one.
Mr. Clater inquired if the house has a basement or crawl space? No
Mr. Holmes asked the applicant if moving it so that it is further away from the rock wall would be an option. Mr. Blanchette responded that they didn’t want a large impact visually so it was not an option for them.
Mr. Clater asked about how many parking spots they have on the property. Mr. Blanchette responded they have 3 side by side and one across the street. Mr. Clater asked if this would affect snow removal or parking? Mr. Blanchette responded no and that they have storm drains as well that will not be affected.
Chair Kendall asked how much additional property coverage would there be? Mr. Blanchette responded only the additional 154 square feet. Chair Kendall asked the applicant if they have any other alternatives. Mr. Blanchette responded that they do not, if it is approved ok but if not then they will have to deal with what they have. He explained that right now it is not an issue, but as they get older they would like to remain at the lake so they would like to have the laundry room connected as well as a little more space.
Chair Kendall asked what was unique about the applicant’s property. Mr. Blanchette responded that the character of the house, the stonewalls, and the history of the family they purchased it from. Ms. Blanchette added that most lots are nonconforming in that area, and that the neighbor across from them can’t even build on their lot. Chair Kendall asked if they considered building up, to which both Ms. & Mr. Blanchette responded that they are trying to keep the “lake look,” and charm.
Mr. Ott asked if the parking lot across the street was on their lot or an easement. Ms. Blanchette responded it is their lot.
Mr. Clater asked if there is a ledge under it and concrete and if there will be any blasting during construction. Mr. Blanchette responded that this is going to be pinned to the ledge and that the foundation of the house varies and is all pinned. He also added DSL Concrete will be doing the work.
The Assistant read the department review from the Police Department stating there are no concerns, and a letter in support from Steve Ullman. She added that she had spoken the Ms. McDevitt who is the main abutter in this case on the phone, and that she had mentioned she mailed a letter but the letter was not received. She stated that one of Ms. McDevitts main concerns was the applicants getting approval and then building up in the future as well. The Board discussed this quickly with Ms. Ogilvie and where the ordinance allows 2.5 stories or 35 Feet in height, it is a possibility they could expand up in the future without further approval from the ZBA.
The Chair asked if there were any abutters that wished to speak against the application? No response
The Chair asked if there were any comments from non-abutters? No Response.
Chair Kendall closed the Public Hearing and the Board moved into deliberations.
Deliberations:
Chair Kendall read the applicants responses to the 5 Criteria, and the Board discussed each one.
Criteria 1: The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The addition is reasonable and permitted use and is in keeping with other structures in the neighborhood.
Chair Kendall explained setbacks are for safety and to prevent clustering as well as provide more space. She added that the houses on the lake are mostly non-conforming.
Mr. Holmes said he wanted discuss criteria 1 and 2 together. He went on to say that 20’ feet is what is required and they are looking at 3.5 feet. Mr. Holmes mentioned that his concern is fires and putting them out. There are trees there and not much space. He also mentioned that when he was on the Planning Board he wanted to make the requirements less restrictive, but even Town’s that have already done so still require at least 8 feet for a setback.
Ms. McEwen mentioned that they are moving the shed from 2.5 feet from the property line to 3.5 feet, and that there was no response from the Fire Department. Mr. Blanchette mentioned they are also removing some of those trees Mr. Holmes mentioned because of the roots.
Ms. Nelkens said that if it is not granted then they are still going to be at 2.5 feet and be even closer than 3.5 feet.
Chair Kendall and Mr. Holmes discussed their concerns about going from a detached shed to an L shaped addition. There was a discussion on if they could vote on each criterion and it was decided that they can’t, they have to vote on the application as a whole.
Criteria 2: The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance because: The lot is nonconforming and any expansion of the single family dwelling requires a variance. This will still be a single family dwelling which is permitted.
-This was discussed above with Criteria 1.
Criteria 3: Substantial justice is done by granting the variance because: The property is a pre-existing nonconforming lot and the proposed addition encroaches no further than the existing structures on the property.
Chair Kendall explained the benefit to the applicant should not be outweighed by the Public, and that it might not harm the general public but could harm first responders if there was a fire at their home or possibly the neighbors. Ms. McEwen responded that Fire & Safety is a separate issue and not considered the general Public so in her opinion that is not a problem.
Criteria 4: the values of surrounding properties will not be diminished because: The addition makes the house more usable and in keeping with other residences in the neighborhood that have their utilities all within one building.
The Board concluded that this would increase property values.
Criteria 5: Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. (A) For the purposes of this subparagraph, “unnecessary hardship,” means that, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area: (i) No fair and substansital relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: The lot is small and provides no alternative location to add onto the building to allow laundry room. And (ii) The proposed use is a reasonable one because: It provides safe and accessible access to utility building, is in keeping with other properties, and does not change the character of the neighborhood.
Ms. McEwen mentioned that this is considered a hardship in her opinion because of the narrowness of the lot and that this would not encroach on the neighbors. Ms. Nelkens wanted to circle back to the 1st and 2nd criteria but Chair Kendall said they would finish discussing number 5 first. Chair Kendall mentioned how the houses on the lake are being converted into full year housing, and that owners know the conditions of the property when they are purchasing them. She mentioned how she was unsure if whether or not this is a hardship because all the lots are non-conforming. Ms. McEwen said she agreed that all are non-conforming, but that this lot is even more nonconforming because it was only built for a trailer. Chair Kendall mentioned that if it is not approved, the applicant would have to have less living space in order to accommodate a washer and dryer to which Mr. Holmes commented that the applicant could change the design. Chair Kendall and Mr. Holmes then discussed if the owners could move the design, and determined there was nowhere else to move it to and therefore that in itself is a hardship. Ms. McEwen added that by changing the design it would then change the aesthetics and that might cause an issue. Mr. Clater also weighed in on this.
Chair Kendall said the use is reasonable, and if there are no other alternatives then it is a hardship. The new design would move the nonconforming utility shed 1 foot further away from the property line, but is this enough? Mr. Ott said that the building is already a fire risk but it can’t be moved anywhere else on the lot without being in a setback. Ms. Nelkens addressed the Boards concern on the fire risk and mentioned how there is nothing on the other side of the stone wall. Mr. Clater asked if there was a fire hydrant nearby. Mr. Blanchette responded that there isn’t but they would use the lake and it is easily accessible from the other side of the property. He also added that if he changed the design it would not be aesthetically pleasing and that might cause an issue with neighbors as well as they want to keep the look the house has now.
Chair Kendall added if there is an alternative there is no hardship. Mr. Ott mentioned it seems that the applicant can do this without hurting public interest and that this is the best way. Chair Kendall asked the applicant if they could have what they need with a smaller space and Mr. Blanchette responded no.
Mr. Holmes asked if the Board was in agreement that the front setback is not a problem, and the Board agreed it is not an issue because it isn’t bringing the house any closer to the front property line.
Chair Kendall asked to circle back to criteria 1 and 2 for Ms. Nelkens, but Ms. Nelkens said it was no longer necessary.
Mr. Holmes mentioned he was not okay with only being 3.5 feet from the rear property line, and Ms. Nelkens, Ms. McEwen, and Mr. Ott said they were ok with it.
The Assistant mentioned that Mr. Clater and Mr. Ott cannot vote, as they were not sworn in yet. Chair Kendall offered the applicant to reschedule and explained that only 4 were be voting and if there is a tie it is a denial. Mr. and Ms. Blanchette were ok with 4 voting.
The Board felt that the applicant met the criteria for number 3 and 4.
Motion: At 8:01 PM Ms. McEwen motioned to approve the application for a variance from Article VIII, Section C. (3) & (5), and Ms. Nelkens seconded it at 8:02 PM.
Roll Call Vote: Diane Kendall, “Aye,” Bob Holmes, “Nay,” Shelley Nelkens, “Aye,” and Janet McEwen, “Aye.”
The motion PASSED and both variances were approved.
II. New Member Orientation:
Chair Kendall explained that both Mr. Ott and Mr. Clater need to get sworn in with the Town Clerk. The Chair went over what are appropriate questions for an application and what questions are not relevant, and the order for asking questions. She informed the Board that they act as a Board, and there are no unilateral discussions and no discussions with the applicant prior to the Public Hearing. She also went over the importance of a quorum, and a full Board of 5.
There was a discussion on accepting the applications as complete such as the Planning Board does. The Board decided that they would like Appendix B from the OSI manual to be included with application packets to help residents answer the criteria better and clearer. They also want applicants to include the measurements in their answers. Ms. Ogilvie explained that not much was required at the moment but can do the process. It was discussed about having 3 separate applications, but the assistant explained some applicants need more than one and that is why all 3 are in the same application so the Board decided to leave it alone.
At 8:37 PM Ms. McEwen motioned that the Board move forward.
III. Amend/Approve minutes from 4/20/2021 Public Hearing/Meeting & Site Walk:
Motion: At 8:37 PM Ms. McEwen motioned to approve both sets of minutes from 4/20/2021, and Ms. Nelkens seconded it at 8:37 PM.
Roll Call Vote: Diane Kendall “Aye,” Bob Holmes, “Aye,” Shelley Nelkens, “Aye,” and Janet McEwen, “Aye.”
IV. Other Business:
The Board said for now on the site visits can be at 6:30 PM. There was discussion about applications that were approved in the past and denied. Mr. Holmes made a comment that they hadn’t denied an application but had instead decided that it was not complete. Mr. Davis who was on Zoom was the applicant for that application and said he did not appreciate Mr. Holmes comments.
V. Planning Assistant Report:
The Assistant reminded the Board that the training for May 15th is this weekend.
Motion to adjourn: At 8:43 PM Ms. McEwen made a motion to adjourn, and at 8:43 PM Mr. Holmes seconded it.
Roll Call Vote: Diane Kendall, “Aye,” Bob Holmes, “Aye,” Shelley Nelkens, “Aye,” and Janet McEwen, “Aye.”
Meeting Adjourned: 8:54 PM
Respectfully Submitted,
Ashley Brudnick-Destromp
Assistant to Land Use Boards