ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** February 16, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Garry Coburn, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: Lorraine Whipple and Val Whipple.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-013 by Lorraine Whipple for a variance to rear and side yard setbacks for an 11 ft by 19 ft deck. The proposed deck is to be 12 ft from the side lot line and 17 ft from the rear lot line. This property is located at 65 Autumn Street and is in a general residential zoning district.

On a motion by Jack Watson and seconded by Agathe Coburn the minutes to the last meeting (Dec 22) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Whipple were present to explain the request. Denis Chenette asked about the size of the lot. The front facing Autumn St, the rear abuts Subway, the right abuts Vachon, and the left abuts the Bowen property. Denise Bowen will not be voting on this application because the Whipples are her neighbor. There is a letter from Denise and Raymond Bowen stating that they are not opposed to the deck. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

1.) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulation in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located.

Met. Small lot with a steep bank in the rear.

2.) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulation and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed. House dates back to West Derby records.

4.) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use of development of adjacent property, reduce access to renewable energy resources, not be detrimental to the public welfare.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-013 by Lorraine Whipple as submitted. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision, with Denise Bowen abstaining.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-012 by Rejean Roberge Jr for a variance to front yard setback for an 8 ft by 11 ft deck. The proposed deck is to be 48 ft from the centerline of the R.O.W. This property is located at 793 Clyde Street and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. The applicant was not present to explain the request. Jack Watson made a motion to table this application until their next meeting on February 23, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. here in the council room. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

The board discussed the NVDA zoning workshop coming up next Tuesday.

8:29 p.m.: On a motion made by Garry Coburn and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 2/17/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** February 23, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Garry Coburn, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: Suzanne Cote, Michelle Batchelder, Chantal Batchelder, and Rejean Roberge Jr.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-034 by Rene & Lori Cote for a variance to front and side yard setbacks for a 4 ft wide wrap around deck. The proposed deck is 16 ft from the centerline of the R.O.W. and 0 ft from the right side lot line. This property is located at 510 Farrant St and is in a general residential zoning district.

On a motion by Jack Watson and seconded by Garry Coburn the minutes to the last meeting (Feb 16) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mrs. Cote was present to explain the request. The house was bought a year and a half ago with the deck on. Lot #15 is owned by Delabruere. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed. Deck has been in existence for approx 10 years.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Garry Coburn made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-034 by Rene & Lori Cote as submitted. This approval is for the deck as it currently exists and does not authorize any enlargement whatsoever. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-012 by Rejean Roberge Jr for a variance to front yard setback for an 8 ft by 11 ft deck. The proposed deck is to be 48 ft from the centerline of the R.O.W. This property is located at 793 Clyde Street and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Roberge was present to explain the request. This application was tabled from last week. Mr. Roberge stated that the deck was built a long time before he purchased the property. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

The unique condition is that the deck was there prior to the current zoning regs. Based upon zoning regs at the time, the deck was probably in compliance with city bylaws.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-012 by Rejean Roberge Jr as submitted. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Other business: The board felt that it would be nice to have the dimensions of all the buildings on the lot on the application so that they could calculate the lot coverage.

On a motion made by Garry Coburn and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 2/25/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** March 9, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Garry Coburn and Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: James Privee, Robin Smith, Clark Curtis, and Bob Kelley.

7:35 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-039 by James Privee for a variance to side yard setback for an 18 ft by 24 ft garage. This is to replace the existing 12 ft by 24 ft garage. The proposed garage is to be 2 ft from the side lot line. This property is located at 106 Mount Vernon Street and is in a general residential zoning district.

On a motion by Denise Bowen and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the minutes to the last meeting (Feb 23) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Privee was present to explain the request. Photos of the existing garage were passed around. The new garage would be expanded away from the property line so that it would be no closer than the existing garage. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

The property was developed in the 1920’s and predates zoning. The garage will not be any closer than the current building.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-039 by James Privee as submitted. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to grant permit #05-002 to Michael & Chieko Coutu to add fill to a portion of their land to raise the level of their driveway. This property is located at 170 Clermont Terrace and is in an urban residential zoning district. Chairman Denis Chenette stated he would like to wait until 8:30 for Mr. Coutu to arrive. There was discussion on whether to wait or start or table the appeal. It was decided to start the hearing. Mr. Curtis, Mr. Kelley, and Mr. Coutu were present to discuss the appeal. There was much discussion about the permit, mainly centered on the ownership of the property. Mr. Coutu arrived about half way thru the discussion. The only contention is ownership of the land. Jack Watson made a motion to close the hearing on this appeal. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The board will deliberate on the appeal and probably make a decision at the end of their next meeting that starts at 7:30 on March 16, 2005. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

In other business the board discussed the application of Agathe Coburn as a full time board member. Denis Chenette made a motion to recommend Agathe Coburn to the City Council as a full time member. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Bob Kelley reviewed some changes in State Statutes that will affect the Board. Procedures policy/conflict of interest policy/notices & warnings for meeting/names & address of all persons heard at hearings.

On a motion made by Jack Watson and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 3/10/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** March 9, 2005 as amended on March 16, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Garry Coburn and Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: James Privee, Robin Smith, Clark Curtis, Michael Coutu, and Bob Kelley.

On a motion by Denise Bowen and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the minutes to the last meeting (Feb 23) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

The property was developed in the 1920’s and predates zoning. The garage will not be any closer than the current building.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-039 by James Privee as submitted. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

On a motion made by Jack Watson and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 3/10/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** March 16, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Garry Coburn, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: Pam Downer, Joseph Downer, Clark Curtis, Jim Privee, Roger Calloway, and Robin Smith.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-046 by Joseph & Pamela Downer for a variance to front yard setback for an 8 ft by 12 ft deck. The proposed deck is to be 21 ft from the centerline of the Herrick St R.O.W. This property is located at 163 Mount Vernon Street and is in a General Residential zoning district.

Chairman Denis Chenette asked for a motion on the minutes to the last meeting. Clark Curtis presented a memo on the minutes that he would like to be entered as par to the file.

Amendments to the minutes; add Michael Coutu as present at the meeting and attach Mr. Curtis’ letter dated March 15, 2005 to the minutes. On a motion by Denis Chenette and seconded by Denise Bowen the minutes to the last meeting (Mar 8) were accepted as amended. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the Downer application. Mr. & Mrs. Downer were present to explain the request. The deck was built 5 years ago and the placement was the contractor’s idea. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

House takes up most of area along Mt Vernon St. Driveway is on side of house along Herrick St with bank on upper part of Mt Vernon side and toward rear of lot.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-046 by Joseph & Pamela Downer as submitted. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-047 by Roger & Betty Calloway for a variance to front yard setback for a 6 ft by 10 ft deck. The proposed deck is to be 37 ft from the centerline of the road R.O.W. This property is located at 205 Fairview Street and is in a General Residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Calloway was present to explain the request. Garry Coburn asked questions about the deck. Mr. Calloway thought he did have a permit for the deck 3 years ago. Denis Chenette will check his records. Romeo Lemieux thought he remembered Mr. Calloway coming in front of the board for a permit. The board decided to proceed with the application in case the old permit is not found. The board recommends that the permit fee be refunded if a previous permit is found. The center of the road was in question. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Discussion ensued regarding the possibility that a permit had been previously granted circa 2002. Three members of the board seem to remember this as having been granted.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Garry Coburn made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-047 by Roger & Betty Calloway as submitted. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Deliberation on the Curtis appeal of the Coutu permit resumed. Denis Chenette passed around a copy of his opinion concerning the appeal and asked the board for comments. Romeo Lemieux will not be participating in the appeal due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Curtis is his neighbor, and stepped down. Jack Watson made a motion to deny the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to grant application #05-002 by Michael Coutu to raise the level of the driveway. Seconded by Denise Bowen. Ayes- Denis Chenette, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Agathe Coburn. Nays – none. Abstain - Romeo Lemieux, Garry Coburn. The motion passed.

Mr. Curtis would like a copy of the minutes and notice of their decision by certified mail.

The board interviewed Jim Privee, who would like to become a member of the zoning board. His letter of interest was reviewed. There is currently a vacancy on the board. Garry Coburn made a motion to recommend to the City Council that James Privee be appointed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment as a full time member. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

On a motion made by Garry Coburn and seconded by Denis Chenette the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 3/17/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** March 16, 2005 as amended on March 23, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Garry Coburn, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: Pam Downer, Joseph Downer, Clark Curtis, Jim Privee, Roger Calloway, and Robin Smith.

Chairman Denis Chenette asked for a motion on the minutes to the last meeting. Clark Curtis presented a memo on the minutes that he would like to be entered as ~~par to~~ part of the file.

House takes up most of area along Mt Vernon St. Driveway is on side of house along Herrick St with bank on upper part of Mt Vernon side and toward rear of lot.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-046 by Joseph & Pamela Downer as submitted. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Discussion ensued regarding the possibility that a permit had been previously granted circa 2002. Three members of the board seem to remember this as having been granted.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Garry Coburn made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-047 by Roger & Betty Calloway as submitted and that the money should be refunded if a past permit is found. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Deliberation on the Curtis appeal of the Coutu permit resumed. Denis Chenette passed around a copy of his opinion concerning the appeal and asked the board for comments. Romeo Lemieux will not be participating in the appeal due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Curtis is his neighbor, and stepped down. Jack Watson made a motion to deny the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to grant application #05-002 by Michael Coutu to raise the level of the driveway. Seconded by Denise Bowen. Ayes- Denis Chenette, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Agathe Coburn, Garry Coburn. Nays – none. Abstain - Romeo Lemieux, ~~Garry Coburn~~. The motion passed.

Mr. Curtis would like a copy of the minutes and notice of their decision by certified mail.

On a motion made by Garry Coburn and seconded by Denis Chenette the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 3/17/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** March 23, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Jack Watson, James Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Denise Bowen and Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: None.

7:45 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-038 by Frederick & Ruth Carter for a variance to the side yard setback for a 12 ft by 20 ft deck. The proposed deck is 14 ft from the side lot line. This property is located at 399 Clyde Street and is in a general residential zoning district.

Corrections were discussed concerning the minutes to the last meeting. On a motion by Jack Watson and seconded by Agathe Coburn the minutes to the last meeting (Mar 8) were accepted as corrected (see amended minutes for corrections). The decision was unanimous among the members present.

The applicant was not present no was a qualified representative. A motion was made by Romeo Lemieux to table application 05-038 by Frederick & Ruth Carter to 7:30 p.m. Wednesday April 6, 2005 in the Council Room of the Municipal building. Seconded by James Privee. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

The board discussed the house that burned down on Clyde Street a year ago and would like the zoning administrator to check into it. It could be a health and safety problem.

Chairman Denis Chenette welcomed the 2 new board members, Agathe Coburn and James Privee

On a motion made by Agathe Coburn and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 3/24/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** April 7, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, James Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: Marc Aube, Pauline Aube, Andrew Pepin, Michael Carter, Wendy Carter, Fred Carter, and Ruth Carter.

7:40 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-055 by Marc & Pauline Aube for a variance to both side yard setbacks for an 11 ft by 12 ft deck. The proposed deck is to be 16 ft from one side lot line and 12 ft from the other side lot line. This property is located at 109 Mount Vernon Street and is in a general residential zoning district.

On a motion by Romeo Lemieux and seconded by Jack Watson the minutes to the last meeting (Mar 23) were accepted as written and the amended minutes to the March 16^th meeting were accepted. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Pepin and Mr. & Mrs. Aube were present to explain the request. It was noted that the deck is existing. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Lot is 40’+- wide with only a couple of feet on either side of the house. Agreed.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application -055 by Marc & Pauline Aube as submitted. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision with James Privee abstaining (neighbor).

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-038 by Frederick & Ruth Carter for a variance to the side yard setback for a 12 ft by 20 ft deck. The proposed deck is 14 ft from the side lot line. This property is located at 399 Clyde Street and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Carter were present to explain the request. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

House sits approx. 6’-8’ from the Louis Carter property line and pre dates zoning by many years. Driveway on other side of house prevents deck from wrapping around corner of house.

See #5.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

See #5.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

The Board has felt it appropriate to invoke 24 VSA §4469c and impose the condition that if the applicant finds it necessary to replace or repair the deck or if the house is sold outside of the family, the deck must com into compliance.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-038 by Frederick & Ruth Carter as with the condition that should the deck have to be replaced or if the house is sold outside the family the deck must come into compliance with the zoning bylaw. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Other Business: Chairman Denis Chenette read from Clark Curtis to Environmental Court appeal the board decision on the Coutu permit.

On a motion made by Denis Chenette and seconded by James Privee the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 4/8/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** April 7 6, 2005 as amended

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, James Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: Marc Aube, Pauline Aube, Andrew Pepin, Michael Carter, Wendy Carter, Fred Carter, and Ruth Carter.

Lot is 40’+- wide with only a couple of feet on either side of the house. Agreed.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

House sits approx. 6’-8’ from the Louis Carter property line and pre dates zoning by many years. Driveway on other side of house prevents deck from wrapping around corner of house.

See #5.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

See #5.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-038 by Frederick & Ruth Carter as with the condition that should the deck have to be replaced or if the house is sold outside the family the deck must ~~come~~ be brought into compliance with the zoning bylaw. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Other Business: Chairman Denis Chenette read from Clark Curtis to Environmental Court appeal the board decision on the Coutu permit.

On a motion made by Denis Chenette and seconded by James Privee the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 4/8/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** April 13, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, James Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: Gerry Hunt, Debra Hunt, Elaine LaMadeleine, Ronald LaMadeleine, Jonathan Bouchard, and Jane Josselin.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-045 by Jonathan Bouchard for conditional use approval to convert the building into an adult daycare facility. This property is located at 34 Trempe Street and is in an urban residential zoning district.

On a motion by James Privee and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the minutes to the last meeting (Apr 7) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Ms. Hunt and Ms. Josselin were present to explain the request. They also represent Northeast Kingdom Health Care, Inc for the adult daycare. Ms. Hunt & Ms. Josselin will be in charge of the program. The facilities and their plans for the program were discussed. The program is built around 20 people 5 days a week (7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.), with the possibility of some evenings. The program will not be for overnight. Most clients will be dropped off by family members. There was discussion whether this is a daycare or personal services. It was decided that it falls under personal services, but they will use the requirements for daycare in analyzing the parking. Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4407(2) of Title 24, V.S.A. Chapter 117, Conditional Uses. Each of the standards was addressed.

General Standards:

A.) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities:

A water/sewer allocation will be needed from the City.

B.) The character of the area affected:

The character of the area will not be affected by this project.

C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:

Approximately 25+- vehicles twice a day with the in and out traffic – no congestion.

D.) Bylaws then in effect:

For zoning purposes the board is classifying this application as a “personal service” but is using the parking requirement to meet those of a “licensed daycare” for this adult daycare use.

E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:

Oil fired not water system.

Specific Standards:

A.) Minimum lot size:

.6 acres +-.

B.) Distance form adjacent or nearby uses:

N/A.

C.) Performance standards, as under division (7) of this section:

N/A.

D.) Minimum off-street parking and loading facilities:

10 spaces available in a gravel based area.

E.) Landscaping and fencing:

The trees along Bel-Aire Drive will not be disturbed. No other landscaping other than gardening is planned.

F.) Design and location of structures and service areas:

Dumpster at rear of building near parking lot. Oil fill pipe located on garage side toward the Bel-Aire property – also where parking is located.

G.) Size, location, and design of signs:

Sign location and size has not been determined at this time.

H.) Such other factors as the zoning regulations may include:

Alarms on doors that would alert employees that someone has left the building or an unauthorized person has entered. Primary entry would be though the garage.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 05-045 by Jonathan Bouchard with the condition that a water/sewer allocation is granted by the City, the parking requirement for personal services was waived and the requirement for licensed daycare was used. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-059 by Ronald & Elaine Lamadeleine for a variance to front yard setbacks for a 10 ft wide 1 story addition on 3 sides of their house (north, south, and west). The proposed addition is to be 38 ft from the centerline of the Herrick Street ROW on the North side and 10 ft from the edge of the Herrick Street ROW on the East side. This property is located at 182 Herrick Street and is in a General Residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. LaMadeleine were present to explain the request. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Lot has a house that does not sit squarely on the lot ore in the center of the lot.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed. The house is approx. 100 years old.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-059 by Ronald & Elaine Lamadeleine as submitted. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

10:05 p.m.: On a motion made by Jack Watson and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 4/14/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** April 13, 2005 as amended

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, James Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: Gerry Hunt, Debra Hunt, Elaine LaMadeleine, Ronald LaMadeleine, Jonathan Bouchard, and Jane Josselin.

On a motion by James Privee and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the minutes to the last meeting (Apr 7 6) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

General Standards:

A.) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities:

A water/sewer allocation will be needed from the City.

B.) The character of the area affected:

The character of the area will not be affected by this project.

C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:

Approximately 25+- vehicles twice a day with the in and out traffic – no congestion.

D.) Bylaws then in effect:

For zoning purposes the board is classifying this application as a “personal service” but is using the parking requirement to meet those of a “licensed daycare” for this adult daycare use.

E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:

Oil fired not water system.

Specific Standards:

A.) Minimum lot size:

.6 acres +-.

B.) Distance form adjacent or nearby uses:

N/A.

C.) Performance standards, as under division (7) of this section:

N/A.

D.) Minimum off-street parking and loading facilities:

10 spaces available in a gravel based area.

E.) Landscaping and fencing:

The trees along Bel-Aire Drive will not be disturbed. No other landscaping other than gardening is planned.

F.) Design and location of structures and service areas:

Dumpster at rear of building near parking lot. Oil fill pipe located on garage side toward the Bel-Aire property – also where parking is located.

G.) Size, location, and design of signs:

Sign location and size has not been determined at this time.

H.) Such other factors as the zoning regulations may include:

Alarms on doors that would alert employees that someone has left the building or an unauthorized person has entered. Primary entry would be though the garage.

Lot has a house that does not sit squarely on the lot ore in the center of the lot.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed. The house is approx. 100 years old.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-059 by Ronald & Elaine Lamadeleine as submitted. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

10:05 p.m.: On a motion made by Jack Watson and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 4/14/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** April 27, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Paradis, Kevin Kincaid, Kory Scott, Dan Scott, Judith Henault, William Moroney, Bill Stenger, Linda McDowell, James Kavanagh, Judy Kavanagh, Dorothy Provost, Elizabeth Scott, Jeanne /Bigelow, Bob Bigelow, Doug Phillips-Hamblett, Harriette Phillips-Hamblett, Don Hendrich, Kristy Scott, Martin Haselton, Patrick Uhsmann, Daniel Roy, Tammy Dopp, Luc McDowell, Robin Smith, Richard Reed, Lucille Lawes, Bernie Carrier, David Lawes, Ed Carrier, and Richard Baraw.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-064 by Newport Ambulance Service Inc for a variance to the side yard setback for a 30 ft by 30 ft garage. The proposed garage is to be 20 ft from the side lot line. This property is located at 830 Union Street and is in an industrial zoning district.

On a motion by Jack Watson and seconded by Jim Privee the minutes to the last meeting (Apr 6 & 13) were accepted as amended. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Paradis was present to explain the request. The size and location of the building were discussed. It was felt that the building could either be built smaller or moved over. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Area in the requested garage location is level however I parking space would be lost due to the relocation of the garage.

Not met. The garage could be moved over the necessary 5 ft to meet the side setback.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Applicant has requested that the building be put in that space.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Not met. Building can be moved. Applicant stated that he was not aware that the setback was 25 ft or he would have not asked for the variance. He thought that the setback was 50 ft.

Jim Privee made a motion to DENY a variance for application 05-064 by Newport Ambulance Service Inc as submitted. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision, the application was denied.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-067 by Kevin & Lisa Kincaid for a variance to the front, side, and rear yard setbacks for a 36 ft by 38 ft garage. The proposed garage is to be 38 ft from the centerline of the Spruce Street R.O.W., 10 ft. from the side lot line, and 10 ft from the rear lot line. This property is located at 163 Spruce Street and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Kincaid was present to explain the request. Mr. Kincaid came before the board for a larger garage last year and was denied. Lot coverage is ok. A letter from Priscilla Fortin in opposition of the project was read. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. Lot is certainly odd in shape.

With the size of the garage as requested, there is no way that the applicant can meet zoning setbacks.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Lot is odd in shape and the location of the residence have not been created by the applicant. The request for this garage does create a hardship.

Not agreed. We are creating more congestion in this area by granting the request.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Not agreed. Garage could be downsized.

Jim Privee made a motion to DENY a variance for application 05-067 by Kevin & Lisa Kincaid as submitted. Seconded by Agathe Coburn. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision, the application was denied.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-069 by Daniel & Richard Scott for conditional use approval for an RV and Camping Resort which will include seasonal and transient sites, cabins, pavilion with banquet hall-arcade-fitness center, camp store, beach kiosk, boar ramp & docks, tee pee’s, and recreation (tennis-pool-basketball-playground-beach. This property is located at 20 Scott Farm Road and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Haselton presented the project. Chairman Denis Chenette the people present they have to participate in the meeting in order to become an interested party. It was questioned whether this was a campground or resort? The board will review where this project fits in our bylaw. It was asked is a resort of $1,000,000 fits the spirit of the residential community? Jim Privee requested more information on the traffic study so that they can better understand it.

Jack Watson made a motion to table application 05-069 by Daniel & Richard Scott until Wednesday May 4, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. here in the council room of the municipal building. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

On a motion made by Jack Watson and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 4/29/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** May 4, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, James Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Watson and Michael Richard.

OTHERS PRESENT: Kristy Scott, Mike Sievert, Martin Haselton, Robert Alexander, Kory Scott, Dan Scott, Sid Lambert, Robin Smith, Joanne Scott, Ed Carrier, Bernie Carrier, Don Hendrich, Lynn Jenness, Douglas Jones, Harriette Phillips-Hamblett, Doug Phillips-Hamblett, Claudette Daigneault, David Laforce, Larry Daigneault, Robert Bigelow, and Jeanne Bigelow.

7:40 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order. This is a continuation of application 05-069 by Daniel & Richard Scott for conditional use approval for an RV and Camping Resort which will include seasonal and transient sites, cabins, pavilion with banquet hall-arcade-fitness center, camp store, beach kiosk, boar ramp & docks, tee pee’s, and recreation (tennis-pool-basketball-playground-beach. This property is located at 20 Scott Farm Road and is in a general residential zoning district.

James Privee made a motion to accept the minutes of April 27, 2005 as submitted. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Mr. Carrier doesn’t like the minutes. He thought that it was explained that all abutters would be notified. Denis Chenette explained the notification requirements.

Discussion began on the Scott application. A definition of a Resort was read by Denis Chenette and it was determined Resort does apply to a campground. A pavilion is an accessory use to the facility depending on the primary use of the pavilion. The definition of Accessory Use was read.

Martin Haselton was present to explain the application. He presented a preliminary review of the existing Bluff Road and discussed road width and sidewalk addition.

The width of the road was discussed. Mr. Haselton stated that the paved portion of the road had been measured and determined to be:

21.6 ft to 21.7 ft by Scott Farm

21 ft average width along Bluff Rd

24.5 ft at the intersection of Prouty Dr and Bluff Rd

He believed that 22 ft wide with a sidewalk would meet the city road.

Mr. Carrier questioned the traffic impact.

Robert Alexander presented the traffic study and how it was done. The study looked at the width of the street. Mr. Alexander gave the board a traffic impact evaluation. He used the state recommended figures on how wide and how the added traffic will affect the area. Mr. Haselton will have a concept for the sidewalk by next week. Mike Sievert, Project Engineer was available to answer questions. It was asked if they were planning a study on the water supply. Yes there will be a study. Current plans are for a 2 inch water line servicing on site hydrants. The final size will be as required by the fire department or public works department.

There will not be fuel storage on site.

The 75 ft setback from the shoreline was discussed and Mr. Haselton stated they will have to address the setback issues on some of the lots.

Mr. Haselton requested that the board table for a couple of weeks, so that they could to gather information that was requested. The board determined that the 25^th of May would be the best date to reconvene.

Kristy Scott addressed the neighbors to tell them that she would prefer to keep the farm as is but the property should raise enough money to pay for the taxes.

A motion was made by Romeo Lemieux to table the application to May 25, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the council room of the municipal building. Seconded by Denise Bowen. After some discussion Denise Bowen rescinded her second and Romeo Lemieux rescinded his motion.

Denis Chenette would like to see a traffic pattern for the intersections of Sias Ave (Darling Hill Rd) & Prouty Dr, Union St & Prouty Dr, and Bluff Rd & Prouty Dr.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to table the application 05-069 by Daniel & Richard Scott to 7:30 p.m. May 25, 2005 in the council room of the municipal building. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

James Privee made a motion to enter execution session to discuss the Scott application. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

The board returned from executive session on a motion from James Privee that was seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

11:45 p.m.: On a motion made by Romeo Lemieux and seconded by Agathe Coburn the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 5/10/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** May 4, 2005 as amended

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, James Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Watson and Michael Richard.

7:40 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order. This is a continuation of application 05-069 by Daniel & Richard Scott for conditional use approval for an RV and Camping Resort which will include seasonal and transient sites, cabins, pavilion with banquet hall-arcade-fitness center, camp store, beach kiosk, ~~boar~~ boat ramp & docks, tee pee’s, and recreation (tennis-pool-basketball-playground-beach. This property is located at 20 Scott Farm Road and is in a general residential zoning district.

James Privee made a motion to accept the minutes of April 27, 2005 as submitted. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Mr. Carrier doesn’t like the minutes. He thought that it was explained that all abutters would be notified. Denis Chenette explained the notification requirements.

Martin Haselton was present to explain the application. He presented a preliminary review of the existing Bluff Road and discussed road width and sidewalk addition.

The width of the road was discussed. Mr. Haselton stated that the paved portion of the road had been measured and determined to be:

21.6 ft to 21.7 ft by Scott Farm

21 ft average width along Bluff Rd

24.5 ft at the intersection of Prouty Dr and Bluff Rd

He believed that 22 ft wide with a sidewalk would meet the city road requirement.

Mr. Carrier questioned the traffic impact.

There will not be fuel storage on site.

The 75 ft setback from the shoreline was discussed and Mr. Haselton stated they will have to address the setback issues on some of the lots.

Kristy Scott addressed the neighbors to tell them that she would prefer to keep the farm as is but the property should raise enough money to pay for the taxes.

Denis Chenette would like to see a traffic pattern for the intersections of ~~Sias Ave (Darling Hill Rd) & Prouty Dr,~~ Union St & Prouty Dr and Bluff Rd & Prouty Dr. The board would also like to see the current figures for Sias Ave.

James Privee made a motion to enter execution session to discuss the Scott application. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

The board returned from executive session on a motion from James Privee that was seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

11:45 p.m.: On a motion made by Romeo Lemieux and seconded by Agathe Coburn the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Agathe Coburn, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on ~~5/10/05~~ 5/12/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** May 11, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, James Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

OTHERS PRESENT: Edwin Newton and Nancy Newton.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-075 by David & Heather Myers for a variance to side yard setback for a 8 ft by 20 ft addition and a 28 ft by 28 ft garage. The proposed addition and garage are to be 8 ft from their side lot line. This property is located at 157 Northern Ave and is in an urban residential zoning district. The applicant was not present so they continued on to the 2^nd application.

Chairman Denis Chenette read the warning for application 05-076 by Edwin & Nancy Newton for a variance to rear yard setback for a 8 ft by 10 ft entrance deck. The proposed deck is to be 22 ft from their rear lot line. This property is located at 144 Herrick Street and is in a general residential zoning district.

The board was given a chance to review the minutes to the last meeting. On a motion by James Privee and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the minutes to the last meeting (May 4) were accepted with the following corrections; boat was misspelled, the word requirement was left out, and a traffic pattern for Sias Ave already exist and the board would like to see those figures (see amended minutes for exact changes). The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Newton were present to explain the request. James Privee and Denis Chenette questioned Mr. Newton on the property line. He said his grandfather owned the property and it has not been surveyed for a while. The house was built in 1925 and the back of the garage built in 1979 may be on the neighbor’s lot. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

The lot is 97.5 ft wide in the front and 93-95 ft wide in the rear. Met.

Met.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Met.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Met.

Alice Macie made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-076 by Edwin & Nancy Newton as submitted. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

A motion was made by Romeo Lemieux and seconded by Alice Macie to table application 05-075 by David & Heather Myers until the end of their meeting that starts at 7:30 p.m. on June 1, 2005 in the council room of the municipal building because the applicant was not present to explain the request. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Deliberative and executive session was discussed. Denis Chenette passed around a handout from the VT Secretary of State. Essentially it said the board uses deliberative session not executive session for discussing applications among themselves.

James Privee asked if anything was known about the status of the Curtis appeal. Nothing was known.

Denis Chenette asked for a motion to go into deliberative session on the Scott application. A motion was made by Jack Watson to enter into deliberative session to discuss the Scott application. Seconded by Agathe Coburn. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

9:05 p.m.: Upon returning from deliberative session a motion was made by Alice Macie and seconded by Jack Watson to adjourn. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 5/12/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** May 25, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, and James Privee.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Agathe Coburn.

OTHERS PRESENT: Sandra McKenny, Martin Haselton, Kristy Scott, Dan Scott, Kory Scott, Bob Alexander, Doug Phillips-Hamblett, Harriette Phillips-Hamblett, Richard Reed, Kevin Kincaid, Donald Hendrich, William Moroney, and Thomas ???.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order. This is a continuation of application 05-069 by Daniel & Richard Scott for conditional use approval for an RV and Camping Resort which will include seasonal and transient sites, cabins, pavilion with banquet hall-arcade-fitness center, camp store, beach kiosk, boat ramp & docks, tee pee’s, and recreation (tennis-pool-basketball-playground-beach. This property is located at 20 Scott Farm Road and is in a general residential zoning district.

On a motion by Denise Bowen and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the minutes to the last meeting (May 11) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

On a motion by Alice Macie and seconded by Denise Bowen the minutes to the May 4 meeting were accepted as amended. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Chairman Denis Chenette passed out and read a note from Bernard Carrier concerning the Scott property and road. He voiced many concerns over the crowd and noise this would bring in. The first to speak and explain was Martin Haselton. He had 2 large maps of the area. He explained that he had spoken with the tree warden and also Mr. Bernier, Public Works Director. The tree warden has suggested a drain surface over the root system such as down by the state building. Only 9 trees will be taken down, a new fence, very plain, will be put up. There will be 22 ft travel lane on the Scott property that is the requirement of the City. The pedestrian/bike path will be off to the side. 21 new trees will be put in. Mr. Privee asked if 2 RV’s could pass each other on their road and Mr. Haselton said wouldn’t be any different than 2 long city trucks or others passing. Mr. Privee argued that it was a question of possibly frustrated drivers zipping in and out. Mr. Alexander spoke and said 11 ft lanes are acceptable anywhere and if it is a speed problem then it is an enforcement problem.

Jack Watson asked if Dan had a drainage problem on the left of his drive, but Dan said he had a drain put in. Mr. Privee asked about a breakdown lane. Mr. Alexander said people should pull over and allow for a disabled RV. Mr. Privee said this was an inconvenience then. Sandra McKenny asked when you come up from Prouty Drive there is a blind spot near Curtis’ lawn and there would be 2 cross walks in this spot. The City does not maintain this and it is very icy in the winter causing a problem if the pavilion is going to be open in the winter. This spot is as you turn onto Estates Drive and you cannot see Scott’s turn in at all. A gentleman asked about extended mirror on RV’s passing each other. If an accident happens – who gets sued, the City? Mr. Alexander said trucks pass everyday on 22 ft roads all over VT. Mr. Haselton said 8-10% of vehicles on roads are commercial and have no problem passing. He also said many RV’s pull in with a car and the car is used in the City, not the RV. It is just parked.

Doug Hamblett asked if there was a City standard for recreation paths? Harriette asked where the City’s R.O.W. went? Mr. Haselton explained this. Denis Chenette asked if John Ward told them where to put a sidewalk? No was the answer. What if the cross walks pose a safety problem? If so Mr. Haselton said then they would have to get an architect. If there is a blind spot, is there a different place to put the path? Mr. Privee asked if it could go 6 ft in front of Scott’s home? It is not possible Scott’s say because they would lose more trees and it would infuse on their privacy. Romeo asked when it became a requirement for a sidewalk? John Ward suggested it because a lot of people walk it. The speed limit is 25 in this area.

Mr. Alexander gave his traffic report. He said the size of the pavilion will determine the traffic. There have been no accidents at the Bluff Rd/Prouty Dr intersection. Sandra McKenny asked what month the traffic was based on as more people are here in the summer. Mr. Alexander said it was taken at all times but this one was taken in May and an allowance was made for summer. She also asked how many cars a day at peak time are expected. Mr. Alexander said about 90 cars peak time is 7-8 a.m. and 4 p.m. but for campers they check in by 1:00 p.m. and check out by 11:00 a.m. Jim Privee asked how many trips to the pavilion a day would the cars make per hour? About 90 at worst scenario. The pavilion seats 200 and is mainly for the campers, but could be available to the public at times. It probably won’t be used in the winter because it might not break even, but it could be used. Mr. Kincaid asked if there would be a liquor license and if it would be sold there. Yes they expect to sell it and there will be a store there. Mrs. McKenny asked about the 75 ft set back and the campground was redesigned to fit this setback. Several sites were lost to do this. Mr. Moroney asked if a resort was allowed in this area? Yes it is. Is your decision based on zoning alone? No – it is based on all that is brought before us. It will also have to go through Act 250. Mrs. McKenny wanted to know if she and others would be notified. Not for local hearing, Denis Chenette said. You have to look for the posting in the lobby of the municipal building or in the paper. Mr. Kincaid asked the jurisdiction was on this. Romeo said we work with the plan and Denis said we can also put condition on this if it is appropriate.

Denis Chenette asked if there was any more questions form the audience? Any from the audience to the board or questions from the board. Mrs. McKenny asked who owned Scott Farm Drive? Answer was the Scotts do and improvement will be made. Chairman Denis Chenette closed the hearing on this application. The board will deliberate on this application. One member was not present tonight. It is expected that a decision will be reached next week. If the board grants approval the application will then have to go thru site plan approval with the planning commission.

Other Business: The board had some concerns that the zoning administrator may want to check into. 1) does the new city garage meet the required setbacks, 2) was the land between the city garage and Newport Ambulance filled properly, 3) there is a lot of garbage by the blue house on Spring St, 4) the porch on the corner of Spring St appears very close to the road, 5) should the burnt house on Coventry St be torn down.

10:30 p.m.: On a motion made by Alice Macie and seconded by Jim Privee the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 5/27/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** June 1, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, James Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

OTHERS PRESENT: John Ward Jr., David Myers, Heather Myers, Kevin Shee, Joyce Shee, and Mike Paradis.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-080 by City of Newport for a variance to rear and both side yard setbacks for a 16 ft by 22 ft water supply well house. The proposed well house is to be 192 ft from the rear lot line, 108 ft from the west side lot line, and 174 ft from the east side lot line. This property is located at 1203 Coventry Street and is in a conservation zoning district.

On a motion by James Privee and seconded by Jack Watson the minutes to the last meeting (May 25) were accepted with 2 minor spelling corrections. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Ward was present to explain the request. Property lines were explained. The property was a farm years ago. It was explained that the City needed to put the well as far as possible from the other existing well in order to be able to redevelop the existing well after the new well is up and running. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. Because of the wetlands.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

Agreed. One pump house already exists.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-080 by City of Newport as submitted. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-082 by Joyce Shee for a variance to side yard setback for a 12 ft by 18 ft addition to her house. The proposed addition is to be 10 ft from the side lot line. This property is located at 138 Camp Elizabeth Way and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Shee were present to explain the request. Mr. Shee explained that this would just be squaring off the house. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. The lot is narrow, only 60 ft wide but very long. The house is 28ft wide leaving only 32 ft to play with.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Alice Macie made a motion to grant a variance for application -082 by Joyce Shee as submitted. Seconded by Agathe Coburn. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-087 by Newport Ambulance Service Inc for a variance to the side and rear yard setbacks for a 30 ft by 30 ft garage. The proposed garage is to be 15 ft from the side lot line and 36 ft from the rear lot line. This property is located at 830 Union Street and is in an industrial zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Paradis was present to explain the request. The building will be for storage of equipment, etc... and will not be for hazardous waste. It will be the same color and style as the present building. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-087 by Newport Ambulance Service Inc as submitted. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-075 by David & Heather Myers for a variance to side yard setback for an 8 ft by 20 ft addition and a 28 ft by 28 ft garage. The proposed addition and garage are to be 8 ft from their side lot line. This property is located at 157 Northern Ave and is in an urban residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Myers were present to explain the request. The size and shape of the lot was discussed. The Myers have lived there for 33 years and the neighbors have been there for 20 years. Lot coverage was discussed. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. The lot is narrow and L shaped.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed. Only 3 pins are referenced in the 1908 deed. The actual size of the lit is not determined therefore we are, for sake of discussion, drawing a straight line across the lot rear, allowing more acreage to a questionable lot.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant a variance, based on assumptions the board has made concerning the lot, for application 05-075 by David & Heather Myers as submitted. Seconded by James Privee. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

The board went into deliberative session concerning the Scott application for a campground.

Upon returning from deliberative session Jack Watson made a motion to grant conditional use approval to application 05-069 by Daniel & Richard Scott with the following conditions;

1) That the applicant obtain a letter of approval from the Director of Public Works, Mr. Tom Bernier, which must state that there will be adequate water and sewer services granted to this project as presented,

2) That no more than six (6) cabins be erected on the campground site,

3) That no camping units or RV’s be allowed to park within the seventy-five (75) foot setback from Lake Memphremagog and that natural barriers in the form of hedges or like shrubbery be situated to enforce this condition (section 608.03 Newport City Zoning Bylaw),

4) That all structure heights conform to the requirements set forth in Section 205.02 of the Newport City Zoning Bylaw,

5) a) That the portion of Bluff Road from the proposed project to its intersection of Prouty Drive be examined by a city engineer to determine that there will be safe passage for vehicles based upon height, weight, length and width,

b) That a city engineer approved continuous walkway be located on the south side of Bluff Road,

6) That the project comply with all requirements set forth in the City’s bylaws regarding fences,

7) That the project meets all requirements set forth y the state and city fire codes,

8) That the project complies with Section 4407(2)(C) of Title 24 VSA Chapter 117 which addresses performance standards (low sodium area lighting, smoke pollution, etc…),

9) The storage of camping units, boats and/or RV’s be restricted to the proposed rally area and only to those parties who lease a camping space at the facility during the regular campground operational season. In other words, there is to be no storage of items for the general public on the premises,

10) The project sign must meet current zoning regulations, and

11) Rental of the pavilion is to be limited to six (6) public or non-campground related events in a 12 month period.

Seconded by Alice Macie. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

A five (5) page document titled “Findings and Decision of the Newport City Board of Adjustment Regarding the Application for Zoning Permit Number 05-069” is considered a part of the official minutes and record of tonight’s meeting.

10:00 p.m.: On a motion made by Alice Macie and seconded by Agathe Coburn the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 6/2/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** June 8, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Alice Macie, Garry Coburn, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Watson.

OTHERS PRESENT: David Willis.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-092 by Chad & Victoria Prue for a variance to the side yard setback for a 10 ft by 21 ft storage shed attached to the back of their building. The proposed shed is to be 1 ft from the side lot line. This property is located at 509 Glen Road and is in a general residential zoning district.

On a motion by Jim Privee and seconded by Denise Bowen the minutes to the last meeting (Jun 1) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Willis was present to explain the request. Mr. Willis read a paper from when the house was bought, nothing new has been built since the Prue’s bought the building. The shed was built by a prior owner. The building is over 75 years old. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. There is a sharp hill in the rear of the lot and the house already sits on the lot line. The house is over 75 years old.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed. The shed was built by a prior owner.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Not met. However when applicants sell the house, the current owners (Prue) must take the shed down or have the new owners remove it.

Jim Privee made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-092 by Chad & Victoria Prue with the condition that the shed must be taken down when Chad & Victoria Prue transfer the property. Seconded by Alice Macie. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Other business: The board discussed the upcoming appeal on June 22^nd. Denis Chenette & Jim Privee updated the board on the Scott campground planning commission meeting.

8:35 p.m.: On a motion made by Jim Privee and seconded by Agathe Coburn the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 6/9/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** June 22, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, Garry Coburn, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

OTHERS PRESENT: Clark Curtis, Linda Curtis, Norman Rivard, Theresa Rivard, Yves Brasseur, Yolande Brasseur, Paul Major, Christine Smith, Norma Major, Kevin Messier, Michael Coutu, Leo Willey, Martin Haselton, Diane Laramie, Bob Kelley, and Brian Sullivan.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s letter dated May 10, 2005 responding to a request for a written decision as to whether the project proposed by RSA Limited Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless and St. Mary’s Church and the Burlington Diocese, as co-applicants, requires conditional use approval. Due to a conflict of interest Romeo Lemieux sat out this appeal. Mr. Kelley was present to defend his decision, Clark Curtis was present to explain the appeal for all the appellants, and Mr. Sullivan was present representing Verizon.

Denis Chenette read letters concerning the appeal they included:

Letter dated May 5, 2005 from Gerald Tarrant to Bob Kelley requesting written decision if Verizon/St. Mary’s Church project needs conditional use approval.
Letter dated May 10, 2005 from Bob Kelley to Gerald Tarrant responding to the May 5 letter (this is the decision under appeal)
Letter dated May 20, 2005 from Gerald Tarrant to Zoning Board (Notice of Appeal of May 10 letter)
Letter dated June 20, 2005 from Brian Sullivan to Robert Kelley (Verizon’s opinion of the appeal)
Letter dated June 20, 2005 from Gerald Tarrant to Robert Kelley (Appellants’ opinion of the June 20 Sullivan letter)

Brian Sullivan talked about his redesign of parking places by putting some behind the garage. He thinks the original plan that was approved was correct but if the court wants restriping of parking lot, he also had a plan. All of this was before court on June 8 and will be decided when the court decides.

Mr. Curtis passed out sheets showing the original site plan that came before the board and said no parking was discussed. Mr. Sullivan said he didn’t mention parking as it wasn’t brought up but the shed is the same as it was. Mr. Curtis said that the church can stay as it is forever but it cannot enlarge or change anything without condition use approval because it is a nonconforming use. Mr. Privee asked what is the use. You’re saying because of this equipment shelter the church is now a nonconforming use? Mr. Curtis said that because of parking spaces it is a nonconforming use and I will prove it to you. He passed out sheets on parking and also a letter from himself to thee zoning board dated June 22, 2005. He explains the changing of the church parking lot which is way under par. Some of the parking is not even on church property. Mr. Curtis was told by Mr. Sullivan that is a matter that is now in court and will be decided by them.

Mr. Curtis passed out testimony of Father Yvon Royer. Jim Privee asked why striping is changing the parking lot. Your reasoning is it is a nonconforming use because of this. No, Mr. Curtis said the church seats 550 -556 and divided by 3 the church needs a lot more spots. Mr. Privee said he still did not understand what pushed this over into a nonconforming use. Mr. Curtis said it is still over parking on his land, in the street, on grass, and other places where they do not own.

Mr. Coutu asked to speak. He said his son painted the lines about 8 years ago and if there hadn’t been any there would be no issues.

Bob Kelley stated his position. §602 state he cannot issue a permit until everything is submitted and all approvals. Definition of nonconforming use is a use that does not comply with all parts of the bylaw. The parking requirements are for new construction on vacant lots only. He doesn’t believe conditional use is needed because of section .01 of parking regs applies.

Mr. Curtis states that no one cares about other churches and their parking, only St. Mary’s. Parking spaces are defined in the bylaw and the parking lot can be measured to determine the number of spaces even if the lot was not striped. It has nothing to do with the striping as Mr. Coutu mentioned. He showed how church cars parked on Daughters of Charity land. Leo Willey stated this is part of the old convent and this was used by the Daughters until the convent was removed and now it has reverted back to the church. Bob Kelley said the tax maps are for assessment purposes only not as deed lines.

Denis Chenette reread the warning as we are here to vote on the warning. He also reread Bob Kelley’s letter and said we are here to decide if Mr. Kelley was proper in his response to Mr. Tarrant.

Jack Watson made a motion to uphold Bob Kelley’s decision as to his letter dated May 10, 2005. Seconded by Agathe Coburn. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision with Romeo Lemieux abstaining.

Mr. Curtis said he watched Mr. Watson and he paid no attention to anything he said. Mr. Watson said he was listening and Mr. Curtis said he was too arrogant to listen. Mr. Curtis said he expected more from the board and it depends who you are when you come before the board. His was disappointed and expected more from the board and it could have dire consequences. He saw Mrs. Coburn pat Mr. Sullivan on the back and Denise Bowen had signed his petition 2 years ago. Norma Major asked if the board had looked into the sound of the 2 large air conditioners. Denis said noise was looked into and experts have looked into it. Mrs. Curtis said the board didn’t care or listen to anything and was very biased. The discussion ended and the board went on to other business.

On the Scott application #05-069; under conditions 5A and 5B imposed by the board, a mistake was made. It says that approve is needed from the city engineer. As the director of public works is not a city engineer and the city has no engineer it should have been approval is needed by the Director of Public Works. A motion was made by Alice Macie and seconded by Denise Bowen to correct conditions 5A and 5B to read that the approval is needed by the Director of Public Works and not the City Engineer. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

On a motion by Jim Privee and seconded by Alice Macie the minutes to the last meeting (June 8) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

On the Prue application #05-092; Jim Privee said he gave a wrong calculation of the building coverage; it is 19% not 25%. This changes the analysis on the variance criteria. A motion was made by Jim Privee to change the findings of fact for criteria #5 for application #05-092 to “Met” and to grant the application as submitted without the condition regarding removal of the shed upon transfer of the property. Seconded by Alice Macie. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

The board upheld the decision of the zoning administrator in his May 10, 2005 letter to Mr. Gerald Tarrant. We feel that since the courts are handling this determination of the cell towers on church property it is now out of our jurisdiction. This decision is further confirmed by a letter from Brian Sullivan to Mr. Robert Kelley dated June 20, 2005, however a letter from Gerald Tarrant to Mr. Kelley, also dated June 20, 2005, cites otherwise. This being the case, the board has chosen to uphold the zoning administrator’s decision. Denis Chenette.

9:55 p.m.: On a motion made by Jack Watson and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 6/23/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** June 22, 2005 as amended

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, ~~Garry Coburn~~, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

Denis Chenette read letters concerning the appeal they included:

Letter dated May 5, 2005 from Gerald Tarrant to Bob Kelley requesting written decision if Verizon/St. Mary’s Church project needs conditional use approval.
Letter dated May 10, 2005 from Bob Kelley to Gerald Tarrant responding to the May 5 letter (this is the decision under appeal)
Letter dated May 20, 2005 from Gerald Tarrant to Zoning Board (Notice of Appeal of May 10 letter)
Letter dated June 20, 2005 from Brian Sullivan to Robert Kelley (Verizon’s opinion of the appeal)
Letter dated June 20, 2005 from Gerald Tarrant to Robert Kelley (Appellants’ opinion of the June 20 Sullivan letter)

Mr. Curtis passed out sheets showing the original site plan that came before the board and said no parking was discussed. Mr. Sullivan said he didn’t mention parking as it wasn’t brought up but the shed is the same as it was. Mr. Curtis said that the church can stay as it is forever but it cannot enlarge or change anything without condition use approval because it is a nonconforming use. Mr. Privee asked what is the use. You’re saying because of this equipment shelter the church is now a nonconforming use? Mr. Curtis said that because of insufficient parking spaces it is a nonconforming use and I will prove it to you. He passed out sheets on parking and also a letter from himself to thee zoning board dated June 22, 2005. He explains the changing of the church parking lot which is way under par. Some of the parking is not even on church property. Mr. Curtis was told by Mr. Sullivan that is a matter that is now in court and will be decided by them.

Mr. Curtis passed out testimony of Father Yvon Royer. Jim Privee asked why striping is changing the parking lot. Your reasoning is it is a nonconforming use because of this. No, Mr. Curtis said the church seats 550 -556 and divided by 3 the church needs a lot more spots. Mr. Privee said he still did not understand what pushed this over into a nonconforming use. Mr. Curtis said it is ~~still~~ spill over parking on his land, in the street, on grass, and other places where they do not own.

Mr. Coutu asked to speak. He said his son painted the lines about 8 years ago and if there hadn’t been any there would be no issues.

Denis Chenette reread the warning as we are here to vote on the warning. He also reread Bob Kelley’s letter and said we are here to decide if Mr. Kelley was proper in his response to Mr. Tarrant.

Mr. Curtis said he watched Mr. Watson and he paid no attention to anything he said. Mr. Watson said he was listening and Mr. Curtis said he was too arrogant to listen. Mr. Curtis said he expected more from the board and it depends who you are when you come before the board. ~~His~~ He was disappointed and expected more from the board and its decision could have dire consequences. He saw Mrs. Coburn pat Mr. Sullivan on the back and Denise Bowen had signed his petition 2 years ago. Norma Major asked if the board had looked into the sound of the 2 large air conditioners. Denis said noise was looked into and experts have looked into it. Mrs. Curtis said the board didn’t care or listen to anything and was very biased. The discussion ended and the board went on to other business.

On a motion by Jim Privee and seconded by Alice Macie the minutes to the last meeting (June 8) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

9:55 p.m.: On a motion made by Jack Watson and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 6/23/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** June 29, 2005 as amended

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

OTHERS PRESENT: Sandra Grady, Tom Grady, and Yvon Parenteau.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-099 by Tom Grady for a variance to front yard setback for an 8 ft by 40 ft porch. The proposed porch is to be 37 ft from the centerline of the West Main Street right of way. This property is located at 363 West Main Street and is in an urban residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Grady were present to explain the request. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Met. This is a triangular shaped property with a bank on the left side. All agreed.

House has been at this location since circa 1912. Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Met. House was there for many years, appellant did not cause it. All agreed.

Agreed. It will not change the neighborhood.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Alice Macie made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-099 by Tom Grady as submitted. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-101 by Yvan & Linda Parenteau for a variance to the front and side yard setbacks for a 6 ft by 20 ft porch, a 10 ft by 28 ft attached storage shed, and a 6 ft by 7 ft bathroom addition. The proposed porch is to be 48 ft from the centerline of the Clyde Street R.O.W., the shed is to be 10 ft from the side lot line, and the bathroom addition is to be 32 ft from the centerline of the Clyde Street R.O.W. This property is located at 523 Clyde Street and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Parenteau was present to explain the request. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Approx 55% to 60% of the lot is a steep hillside allowing only a minor portion of the lot to be built on. Met.

Topography limits the use of the property. Met.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-101 by Yvan & Linda Parenteau as submitted. Seconded by Agathe Coburn. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

The minutes to the last meeting were amended to show that Jim Privee was present and Garry Coburn was not. In the 4^th paragraph insufficient was added in ~~from~~ front of “parking spaces”. In the 5^th paragraph it should be spill not still. On the 2^nd page 4^th paragraph it should read “He” not “His” was disappointed and it should read “its decision” not “it” could have dire… On a motion by Jim Privee and seconded by Alice Macie the minutes to the last meeting (Jun 22) were accepted as amended. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Denis Chenette passed out copies of a letter from Mr. Clark Curtis stating his opinion of last weeks meeting. Much discussion was given to this. All agreed we were not here to be convinced or discuss what Mr. Curtis brought in. Last week we voted on the ~~behavior~~ decision of Mr. Kelley in his letter. Jim Privee made a motion to recommend to Mr. Kelley that he not respond to this letter from Mr. Curtis. Seconded by Jack Watson. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Denis Chenette read an email from Mr. Privee on proposed changes in conditional uses.

8:50 p.m.: On a motion made by Agathe Coburn and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 07/01/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** July 20, 2005 as amended

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Denise Bowen.

OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Chandler, K Joy Toll-Chandler, Tina Favreau, Robert Favreau, Della Reilly, John Ward Jr, Doug Spates, Robin Smith, and Garry Coburn.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-110 by Della Reilly for a variance to height limit for 72 feet of 6 ft high stockade fence. The proposed fence is 10 ft from the rear lot line. This property is located at 796 Bluff Rd and is in a general residential zoning district.

On a motion by Jim Privee and seconded by Agathe Coburn the minutes to the last meeting (Jun 29) were accepted with a spelling correction and change the word “behavior” to “decision” on the second page. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Ms. Reilly was present to explain the request. She explained that there was already a fence there and the new one was placed 10 ft in from her property line because she wants to plant flowers on both sides. Most fences ~~con~~ come in 6 ft high sections now. She also said one neighbor complained this morning about being disappointed by her putting this up. Ms. Chandler spoke up and said their house is behind it and they didn’t know about it and it is very high and they have concern for their view. Mr. Chandler spoke up and said he had pictures which he provided and they are very concerned. Ms. Reilly said she ~~plant~~ planned to plant things along it, but Mr. Chandler said she never asked them because she decided all of a sudden to put it up. Ms. Reilly didn’t realize she had created such havoc. She was sorry if she offended them but she doesn’t tell people what she is going to do in the future, she doesn’t even buy green bananas at her age. Jim Privee asked the Chandlers if it was 5 ft high would it still be offensive to them and they said yes because it is closing their backyard off. Jim Privee asked if the board knew why the 5 ft limitation was set. Denis Chenette said he thinks it was set at 5 ft because of looks. Ms. Reilly said it only comes in 6 ft height not 5 ft. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

None found.

Not found.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Applicant is the one who had the fence put in.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and from the plan.

Agreed.

Jack Watson made a motion to DENY a variance for application 05-110 by Della Reilly as submitted. Seconded by Jim Privee. The variance was denied by a unanimous decision.

The board would like Bob Kelley to look into the reasoning for the 5 ft height restriction. 6 ft high fences are one of the standard sizes.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-111 by Robert & Tina Favreau for a variance to the front and side yard setbacks for an 8 ft by 12 ft deck. The proposed deck is 15 ft from the side lot line and 18 ft from the centerline of the Richards Drive R.O.W. This property is located at 72 Richards Drive and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Favreau were present to explain the request. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. The house is situated on the side of a steep hill and the lot is irregular in shape on a dead end road.

Agreed. Rear of house on this same side is approx 10’ – 12’ setback. It is not possible to do it any other way to have reasonable use.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed. The location of the house was created in the early 1900’s.

Agreed. This will not alter the neighborhood.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed. This is the least deviation.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-111 by Robert & Tina Favreau as submitted. Seconded by Alice Macie. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-112 by Doug Spates for a variance to the front yard setback for a 5 ft by 25 ft enclosed walkway between the 2 sections of the building. The proposed enclosed walkway is to be 35 ft from the centerline of the Union Street R.O.W. This property is located at 475 Union Street and is in an industrial zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Spates was present to explain the request. The walkway is so they will not have to go out in the winter to get to the other building. The back portion of the building will be rented separately. The walkway will not be heated. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. Sub standard lot that does not ~~met~~ meet current zoning.

Agreed. No possibility – current walkway is 75 ft from the R.O.W.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed. To reasonably use this building so as not to go out in the snow it is needed.

Agreed. This will not change the neighborhood.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed. This will be set back from the front plane of the building.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-112 by Doug Spates as submitted. Seconded by Agathe Coburn. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-113 by the City of Newport for a variance to the front yard setback for a 180 ft by 150 ft city garage building. The proposed building is 21 ft from the lot line bordering Union Street. This property is located at 900 Union Street and is in an industrial zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Ward was present to explain the request. Jim Privee remarked that you have to choose one front yard and the address is 900 Union St yet you seem to declare Prouty Dr as frontage. Mr. Ward said he didn’t believe you have to declare one frontage. We meet the front yard setback on Prouty Dr and all other front yard setbacks only need to be 25 ft. Denis Chenette asked if the building location had not been changed would it have met setbacks. Yes, Mr. Ward said. Jim Privee said clearly 900 Union St is your front and you do not meet the setback. All buildings are faced that way in that area. Mr. Chenette said the bylaw says one front yard must meet the setback and all other must be a minimum of 25 ft and you do not have to choose. Mr. Ward said they are 3 ½ to 4 ft short and are only here to ask for a variance. The building is supplied with city water and sewer. The city bought extra land in the rear that is combined with the larger lot on Union Street and it is all zoned industrial. Mr. Privee said we should make it clear whether it is met or not, just like about the front yard being 2 instead of one. We should keep it the same for all. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Not met. The lot is flat and larger than required for the district.

Not met. The building could have been place in the right place and would have met the setback.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Not met. The appellant erred in not placing the building in the proper location.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Not met. The building could have been ~~place~~ placed to meet the bylaw.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-113 by the City of Newport as submitted. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. Garry Coburn said this does not set a good an example, several months ago Dean Morrill had the same problem and he was turned down. Mr. Ward said the city would have to change the bylaw if the variance was denied because he did not consider tearing down the building a good option. Doug Spates said to look at the first case tonight, she was denied and told to see about getting the bylaw changed. The City is asking for the same thing. Mr. Ward said he was done arguing. Denis Chenette read a court case on page 77 of the red Planning and Development Act book where a foundation was improperly set and the variance was denied by the court. Ayes – Jack Watson. Nays - Agathe Coburn, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, Denis Chenette. Abstain - Romeo Lemieux. The motion was DENIED and therefore the variance was not granted.

10:10 p.m.: On a motion made by Jack Watson and seconded by Alice Macie the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 7/26/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** August 10, 2005 as amended

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

OTHERS PRESENT: Gerry Hunt, Debra Hunt, and Dick Horst.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-127 by W S Holdings for conditional use approval for an adult day care program. This property is located at 100 Second Street and is in urban residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Hunt were present to explain the request. Phoenix Engineering may retain some offices in the building for a transitional period. The adult daycare will only be open during the daytime hours. They are expecting about 25 clients and will have about 7 employees. There will be a handicap access ramp built in the rear for accessibility. There is a driveway on both sides of the building (the one on the Governors Mansion side is not currently being used), so they can drive in one side and out the other side. Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4407(2) of Title 24, V.S.A. Chapter 117, Conditional Uses. Each of the standards was addressed.

General Standards:

A.) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities:

B.) The character of the area affected:

C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:

D.) Bylaws then in effect:

E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:

Specific Standards:

A.) Minimum lot size:

B.) Distance form adjacent or nearby uses:

C.) Performance standards, as under division (7) of this section:

D.) Minimum off-street parking and loading facilities:

E.) Landscaping and fencing:

F.) Design and location of structures and service areas:

G.) Size, location, and design of signs:

H.) Such other factors as the zoning regulations may include:

Jim Privee made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 05-127 by W S Holdings with the stipulation that it have only one primary use. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-121 by Donald Mcinnes for a variance to the rear yard setback for a 34 ft by 51 ft 2 story single dwelling including a second story deck. The proposed building is to be 20 ft from the rear lot line. This property is located at 189 Widgeon Dr and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Horst was present to explain the request. The land is very uneven and trees line the drive. They are taking down the old house and putting up a new one in approximately the same place, but with an upper floor. The deck is jutting out and this is what the variance is for. This is a grandfathered lo lot in the 60’s. It will be moved back from the shore line 2or 3 ft. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Lot is not standard in size – 75 ft wide. All agreed.

The house will be similar to the existing house only 2 stories. It could be moved further ~~bank~~ back, but the owner wants the room in the drive.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

It is grandfathered and will be on approximately the same footprint. Agreed.

Will not change the neighborhood. Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Will represent minimum and similar to neighbors home. Agreed.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-121 by Donald Mcinnes as submitted. Seconded by Alice Macie. Ayes – Denise Bowen, Alice Macie, Romeo Lemieux, Jack Watson. Nays – Denis Chenette, Jim Privee, Agathe Coburn. The motion was granted.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-122 by Ruth Horst for a variance to the side yard setback for an 8 ft by 12 ft shed. The proposed shed is to be 2 ft from the side lot line. This property is located at 120 Widgeon Dr and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Horst was present to explain the request. Romeo said he thought if the shed was under 100 sq ft you could put it where ever you want, as long as it doesn’t have a foundation. This will be a 3 sided shed with the front open to pile wood in. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Lot is non-conforming as far a width is concerned (75 ft) but does meet minimum lot size (10,000 sf). All agreed.

It could be made to conform to the 5 ft setback.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

The lot was not his fault. Agreed.

Will not change the neighborhood. Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Not met.

Jim Privee made a motion to DENY a variance for application 05-122 by Ruth Horst as submitted. Seconded by Denise Bowen. Ayes – Denise Bowen, Romeo Lemieux, Denis Chenette, Jack Watson, Jim Privee, Agathe Coburn. Nays – Alice Macie. The motion was granted and the variance was denied.

Denis Chenette asked him if he would consider changing the size to leave 5 ft. Romeo Lemieux said then it wouldn’t need a variance. Mr. Horst said he was willing to do anything to be within the guidelines.

Denis Chenette and the board would like Bob Kelley to have a bylaw pertaining to lean-to’s. Sheds are a 4 sided structure and a lean-to only has 3 sides.

Mr. Horst said he will make the shed 16x6 which will not need a variance, so Denise’s second and Jim’s motion was rescinded on the motion for #05-122.

Denis Chenette changed the application to show the shed size of 6x16 and the setback to 5 ft with Mr. Horst initialing the changes.

On a motion by Agathe Coburn and seconded by Jim Privee the minutes to the last meeting (Jul 20) were accepted with minor grammatical corrections. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

9:20 p.m.: On a motion made by Jack Watson and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 8/12/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** August 17, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Watson.

OTHERS PRESENT: Tammy Simoneau and Timothy Simoneau.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-131 by Timothy & Tammy Simoneau for a variance to front and side yard setbacks for a deck and building addition. The proposed addition is to be 51 ft from the centerline of the road and the proposed deck is to be 40 ft from the centerline of the road and 15 ft from the side lot line. This property is located at 108 Clyde Street and is in a commercial zone B zoning district.

On a motion by Jim Privee and seconded by Denise Bowen the minutes to the last meeting (Aug 10) were accepted after correcting two typo errors (lot instead of lo and back instead of bank). The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Simoneau were present to explain the request. The wraparound porch is to be used by a person with a walker to get outdoors and be able to walk around easily and the living space addition is for a bedroom and bathroom. Jim Privee made a motion to take a straw vote to get a feeling for the boards opinion to see how much the Simoneau’s could get before a final vote is taken. Denis Chenette said this is possible. However he would like to propose making a few changes to the deck to square it off with the front of the house. Mr. Privee withdrew his motion. The width of the deck was cut back 5 ft to make it 6 ft wide, which eliminated the 5 ft wide section on the west side and eliminating the need for a side yard variance. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. The house predates zoning and was built too close to the road and the Blais lot back in the 1940’s

Agreed. No building could be done toward the front of the house.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed. House was built in the 1940’s.

Agreed. Most buildings are residential in nature.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed. The board took off 5’ of the front deck therefore reducing the deviation of the front setback and totally removing a need for a side yard setback variance.

Jim Privee made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-131 by Timothy & Tammy Simoneau as amended. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Other business: It was noted that there will be 2 items on their next agenda in 2 weeks. The board would like the zoning administrator to look into possible violations on the Edgerly property, the Newport City Motel, and garbage on Spring St.

8:30 p.m.: On a motion made by Denis Chenette and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 8/18/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** August 31, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, and Jim Privee.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Agathe Coburn.

OTHERS PRESENT: Gary Kuron, Nicholas Florakas, and E Florakas.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-139 by Gary Kuron for a variance to the minimum lot frontage for a 2 lot subdivision. The proposed lot with the existing dwelling is to have approximately 90 ft of lot frontage measured at the building front face on Landing Street and approximately 100 ft of lot frontage measured at the building front face on Colfax Street. The proposed vacant lot meets the required lot frontage. This property is located at 48 Landing Street and is in a general zoning district.

On a motion by Jim Privee and seconded by Denise Bowen the minutes to the last meeting (Aug 17) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Kuron was present to explain the request. This property has 2 fronts and as Jim Privee explained Mr. Kuron could choose his front and one only had 90 ft which is 10 ft short of the required 100 ft. Mr. Kuron stated he would like to amend the application to make the vacant lot 25 ft wider. This would change the house lot to .43 ac and the vacant lot to .35 ac. The changes were made on the application and initialed. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. Lot is irregular shaped.

N/A.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

N/A.

Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Jim Privee made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-139 by Gary Kuron with the changes to the lot sizes. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-140 by Nicholas Florakas for a variance to the shoreline and both side yard setbacks for a 32 ft by 16 ft deck. The proposed deck is to be 60 ft from the shoreline, 10 ft from one side lot line and 13 ft from the other side lot line. This property is located at 159 Paddock Lane and is in a general zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Florakas were present to explain the request. The deck was built about 9 years ago and has about a 20 inch drop as the land is very uneven. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. Lot is very narrow and uneven.

The deck which was built approx 9 years ago to replace a previous deck of same dimensions would remain approx 30 ft above the level of the lake.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

Agreed. It is not going to change anything as one was there before.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed. The deck could have possibly been outside the 20 ft setback on the 430 ft side but would still be within the 20 ft setback on the192 ft side. The 75 ft setback from the lake is not met but the deck is well above the lake level. The deck is a replacement of a previous deck. The nonconformity is not being enlarged but continued.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-140 by Nicholas Florakas as submitted. Seconded by Alice Macie. Ayes - Alice Macie, Romeo Lemieux, Jack Watson, Denise Bowen, Denis Chenette. Nays – Jim Privee. The motion was granted.

Other business: Because of upholding Bob Kelley’s decision in his letter to Curtis, the case is going to court. The Board might be asked to state why we made the decision we did.

9:45 p.m.: On a motion made by Jim Privee and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 9/1/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** September 14, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

OTHERS PRESENT: Shawn Lanoue.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-145 by Shawn Lanoue for a variance to front yard setback for an addition to the existing front porch. The proposed addition is 38 ft from the centerline of Spring Street. This property is located at 48 South Ave and is in a general residential zoning district.

On a motion by Jim Privee and seconded by Alice Macie the minutes to the last meeting (Aug 31) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Lanoue was present to explain the request. The old porch was removed and the new one is being built in mostly the same location. It is being squared off and the final size is 10 ft by 21 ft. Denis and Jim Privee questioned about blocking the sight on the corner, but it was noted that Bob Kelley looked at it and said it was OK. Denis noted that the new porch is only about 6 ft by 4 ft where it was squared off. The building is a single family residence. The Certificate of Service of abutters list was read by Denis Chenette. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

The house was built prior to zoning regulations and due to the progressive changes to the bylaws, the property does not currently conform to present day zoning. The lot is substandard by today’s zoning. Agreed.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed.

This project will not alter the neighborhood. It does not impair the sight distance at the corner. Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

The applicant is bringing the property more into compliance by eliminating approx 50 sq ft and adding only 12 sq ft, all of which does not go beyond the frontal plane of the building. Agreed.

Jim Privee made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-145 by Shawn Lanoue as submitted. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Other Business: Alice needs a copy of the red Planning & Development Act book. Jack mentioned that cars are being sold at the corner of Bluff Rd and Union St. Denis noted that the Board did put in our minutes the answer to Curtis’ letter as to why we made or our decision as a board.

8:10 p.m.: On a motion made by Alice Macie and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 9/15/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** September 28, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

OTHERS PRESENT: Patricia Bryan, Stephen W Gelatt, Jay Downer, and Roxana Bailey.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-150 by Patricia Bryan for a variance to the rear yard setback for a 24 ft by 26 ft one story attached garage. The proposed garage is to be 20 ft from the rear lot line. This property is located at 324 Wishing Well Ave and is in a general residential zoning district.

On a motion by Jim Privee and seconded by Agathe the minutes to the last meeting (Sept 14) were accepted with a minor typo correction in the last paragraph, the word or should have been our. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Ms. Bryan was present to explain the request. Mr. Chenette noted that the existing garage was being converted to living area and building a new garage. The rear yard setback was amended to be 26 ft. The applicant initialed the changes to the application and site plan. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. The lot is required to be 40,000 sf by the bylaw and is actually only about 19,600 sf. The lot is irregular in shape.

Agreed. If the garage were moved forward it would cause a slight blockage of the neighbors view. It is only extending the rear plane of the building.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed. The house was built in 1950.

Agreed. Will not alter the neighborhood.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed. It is 28 ft on the corner and narrows to 26 ft. If it was moved forward it would not look right.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-150 by Patricia Bryan as amended. Seconded by Alice Macie. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-151 by Rachel Queenin for a variance to the front and rear yard setbacks for a 26 ft by 40 ft L-shaped deck. The proposed deck is to be 39 ft from the centerline of the road right-of-way and 19 ft from the rear lot line. This property is located at 284 Spruce Street and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Ms. Bailey was present to explain the request representing Ms. Queenin. The maximum width of the deck was change from 26 ft to 24 ft and the rear yard setback was increased to 21 ft. Ms. Bailey initialed the changes on the application acknowledging the changes. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. The lot is more or less rectangular, but it is narrow. It is only about 74 ft at the widest end.

Agreed. Placement of the house creates the hardship.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed. The house was built circa 1940 and was not built by the current owner.

Agreed. Will not alter the neighborhood.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed. Original request scaled down to 24 ft wide instead of 26 ft with a rear yard setback of 21 ft instead of 19ft. Possible wheel chair ramp to be erected along rear of house in future when owner moves to house.

Alice Macie made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-151 by Rachel Queenin with the changes to the width and rear yard setback. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-152 by Stephen Gelatt for a variance to the front yard setback for an 8 ft by 20 ft addition. The proposed addition is to be 49 ft from the centerline of the road right-of-way. This property is located at 203 Herrick Street and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Downer & Stephen W Gelatt were present to explain the request. A letter was accepted by the board authorizing Mr. Downer to represent Stephen H Gelatt. The existing porch on the side of the house is to be torn down and the new larger living area addition is to be built in the same location. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

Agreed. The lot is long and narrow with a steep bank in the rear.

Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

Agreed. The house was built circa 1920’s.

Agreed. Will not alter the neighborhood.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Agreed.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-152 by Stephen Gelatt as submitted. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

It was requested that Mr. Gelatt be sent a copy of the tax map of this property.

9:05 p.m.: On a motion made by Jack Watson and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 9/29/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** October 5, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None.

OTHERS PRESENT: Benjamin Farrar and Garri Favreau.

7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-154 by Ben & Jessica Farrar for a variance to front and side yard setbacks for an 8 ft by 16 ft deck. The proposed deck is to be 29 ft from the centerline of the Clyde Street ROW and 7 ft from their easterly side lot line. This property is located at 498 Clyde Street and is in a general residential zoning district.

On a motion by Jack Watson and seconded by Jim Privee the minutes to the last meeting (Sept 28) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Farrar was present to explain the request. It was noted that there is a bulkhead in the rear and the deck could not be built there. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

The house is very close to the easterly lot line and there is a steep bank to the river in back. The lot is mostly flat however the house was built 8 ft from the easterly lot line making a unique physical circumstance. Agreed.

5 members felt that this was a reasonable request of use for this property. 2 did not. Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

House was built circa 1920’s. Agreed.

Will not alter the neighborhood. Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

Only asked for 8 ft wide deck. It doesn’t encroach on the easterly lot line. It is about the least he could ask for and is a reasonable use. Agreed.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-154 by Ben & Jessica Farrar as submitted. Seconded by Alice Macie. Ayes - Alice Macie, Agathe Coburn, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Denis Chenette. Nays – Jim Privee, Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted.

Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-155 by Dennis & Garri Favreau for a variance to front and side yard setbacks for a 19 ft by 23 ft carport. The proposed carport is to be 40 ft from the centerline of the Mount Vernon Street ROW and 3 ft from their easterly side lot line. This property is located at 121 Mount Vernon Street and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mrs. Favreau was present to explain the request. Denis Chenette read a letter from Tom Bernier, Director of Public Works, in regards to his approval of the location of the new driveway with 3 conditions. The carport is will be open on the sides and Brian Crowe is the builder for the project. Denis Chenette asked if the width of the carport could be cut to 16 ft. Mrs. Favreau said yes and the application and site plan were amended to show a width of 16 ft. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4468 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

The lot is only 66 ft wide and 165 ft deep and slopes down in the rear. Agreed.

6 board members felt that this was a reasonable use of the property but 1 felt that the carport could be built in their rear of the house to accommodate the city bylaws. Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

The house was built circa 1920’s and the lot is narrow and long. Agreed.

Will not change the neighborhood. Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

With the width cut down from 19 ft to 16 ft it would still be enough to offer protection from the weather and would be the minimum that would afford relief. Agreed.

Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant a variance for application 05-155 by Dennis & Garri Favreau as amended to a 16 ft width. Seconded by Agathe Coburn. Ayes - Alice Macie, Agathe Coburn, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Denis Chenette, Romeo Lemieux. Nays – Jim Privee. The motion was granted.

8:40 p.m.: On a motion made by Jim Privee and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Alice Macie, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 10/06/05.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** November 30, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Alice Macie.

OTHERS PRESENT: Marcel Delabruere.

7:35 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 05-172 by Marcel Delabruere for a 20 ft by 24 ft addition to his garage. The proposed garage addition is to be 16 ft from the side lot line. This property is located at 220 Sias Ave and is in a general residential zoning district.

On a motion by Denise Bowen and seconded by Agathe Coburn the minutes to the last meeting (Oct 5) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.

Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Delabruere was present to explain the request. Mr. Chenette then directed the Board to Section 4469 (variances) of 24 VSA Chapter 117 for the current application and began review of each of the 5 criteria.

The lot frontage is 90 ft which is less than the current code. The house and structures are at an angle with the lot line. These differences limit the full use of the land. Agreed.

The location of the house on the lot is already too close to the property line. Addition/extension would not worsen this situation. Agreed.

3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.

The original home was established on the lot in 1907. The current owner has not created an unnecessary hardship. Agreed.

The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Agreed.

5.) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least deviation possible from the zoning regulation and form the plan.

The extension will have a slightly higher roof line from the existing structure. Except for this small difference the extension is minimal impact and minimum variance. Agreed.

Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application -172 by Marcel Delabruere as submitted. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.

Denis Chenette informed Mr. Delabruere of the 30 day appeal period.

New business: Denis Chenette handed out the Board’s current Rules of Procedure and a boiler plate version of from the state. He asked the board to review and prepare comments that will be reviewed at the next meeting.

The board noted that the amendments to the Bylaw will be open to public input on December 6^th.

On a motion made by Denise Bowen and seconded by Agathe Coburn the meeting was adjourned.

The minutes were taken by Jim Privee, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 12/1/05.