Newport City
2006
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** December 20, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Michael Richard, Jim Privee, Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Montague, Linda Montague, Richard Kelley, Jean Kelley, Teresa Liberty, Loren Liberty, Ellie Ingram.
7:37 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-109 by Carlita Pelkey/Steve Montague for a variance to the front yard set back for a 32 ft by 60 ft single family dwelling with a 20 ft by 30 ft garage, a 10 ft by 12 ft breezeway, and a 15 ft by 25 ft deck. The proposed house is to be 20 ft from the front lot line. This property is located at 104 Cliff Street and is in a general residential zoning district.
On a motion by Michael Richard and seconded by Denise Bowen the minutes to the last meeting (Nov 29) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.
Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Montague were present to explain the request. Denis Chenette noted that the application stated that the property is in the Urban Residential zoning district, but in fact it is in the General Residential district. The application was corrected and Mr. Montague initialed the change. Both the Kelley and Liberty families were present to review the proposed development and to voice their concerns. A concern was voiced about the clearing of the land, any plans to cut into the hill, and the clearing of the trees on the hill. Mr. Montague stated that they do not plan to cut into the hill, or to cut down trees. They will however use the level front part of the lot for the placement of the new home. The greatest concern voiced by the abutting property owners was the cutting into the hillside. They are worried about the impact of any degradation or sliding of the sandy hillside. Mr. Montague stated that his current plan is to only grade the eastern portion of the lot. They do not want to cut into the hillside. 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.
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.
Steep hill to rear of property prevents house from being placed to meet setback.
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.
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 or 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. Board requests determination from Director of Public works stating that the project is feasible and will not be a detriment to the adjacent properties.
Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 06-109 by Carlita Pelkey/Steve Montague with the conditions that the applicant obtains the approval from the Director of Public Works for the grading of the land and for the curb cut for the driveway. Also, water/sewer allocation and connections must be approved by the City. Seconded by Michael Richard. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-110 by Ellie Ingram & Carla Watson for conditional use approval to add a studio apartment to their existing single-family dwelling. This property is located at 447 Sias Ave and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Ms. Ingram was present to explain the request. The applicant is adding a studio to their existing single-family dwelling. The structure/configuration o the house has not and will not be changed. A sink and shower were recently installed to the studio apartment. There was a general review of the proposal. Intent to revert to “dwelling only” if the property is sold was discussed. The owner agreed that this would be an acceptable condition if made par of the motion. Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) 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:
Not affected.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
This project will not adversely affect the neighborhood.
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
No impact. Traffic would actually be reduced.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
None affected.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
None affected.
During the process of reviewing §4414 several additional questions came up. There was concern that the definition of an accessory apartment (studio) and how it must revert if sold became a serious concern by the board. Jack made the motion to table the application until 7:30 p.m. January 3, 2007 here in the council room. Seconded by Michael Richard. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
Denis Chenette will contact the zoning administrator to ensure that the ZBA is clear on the application/interpretation of the zoning bylaws. If the application is cancelled, the fee should be returned to the applicant, minus minimum costs.
New business: Denis Chenette handed out the agenda and application information for their January 3, 2007 meeting. He also handed out two packets: a flyer on an upcoming VT Interactive Television seminar “Subdivision Primer” and a pamphlet “Guide to Revitalizing Vermont’s Downtowns”.
Michael Richard brought up the subject that the City should make a law/requirement that contractors should be part of the application approval process. There are a small number of projects that are executed (constructed) without permits. The contractor should be required to ensure that a permit exists prior to starting construction. It should be unacceptable for a property to construct/modify property without a permit and then ask the ZBA to grant permission after-the-fact.
9:00 p.m.: On a motion made by Agathe Coburn and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.
The minutes were taken by Jim Privee, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 12/21/06.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** November 29,2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Michael Richard, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OTHERS PRESENT: Marc Proteau, Bert Lague, Claire Proteau, Doug Spates.
7:35 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-105 by Marc Proteau for a variance to front and side yard setbacks for an 8 ft by 12 ft addition to the front deck and an 8 ft by 10 ft rear deck. The proposed front deck addition is to be zero ft from the front lot line and the proposed rear deck is to be zero ft from the side lot line. This property is located at 20 Limlaw Hill 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 (Sept 6) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.
Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Lague, representing Mr. Proteau, was present to explain the request. Denis Chenette reviewed the application and the specifics (water, sewer, etc ...) relating to the property. The trailer has been on the property since 2003 and it was approved for a site variance at that time. 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.
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.
Lot is approx 6,000 sq ft with 27 ft on Western Ave & 86 ft opposite that line. Very odd shaped lot.
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.
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 or 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.
Michael Richard made a motion to grant a variance for application 06-105 by Marc Proteau as submitted. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. Ayes - Romeo Lemieux, Michael Richard, Denise Bowen, Agathe Coburn, Jack Watson. Nays - Jim Privee, Denis Chenette. The motion was granted.
Chairman Denis Chenette read the warning for application 06-106 by Douglas Spates for conditional use approval for a clinic. The clinic is to continue to do business as they have and the dispensing of methadone will continue at the Coventry Street site. 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. Denis Chenette reviewed the specifics of the application. Mr. Spates explained/provided some history about the BAART use of the property as a clinic, vice as an office building. He noted that the issue of operating the site as a clinic was recently raised following the request to dispense methadone. This request was denied by the City Council and the owner was directed to apply for a conditional use permit. Denis Chenette raised the issue why a conditional use was being requested under the definition of the Industrial District. It was assumed that the need was addressed by "conditional uses" item 2, which deals with "other commercial uses". General discussion was had about the uses made of the clinic, which was client intake, counseling, record keeping, etc... Also, the mobile clinic is stored on-site (secure garage) and the methadone is stored in a special safe. The building is alarmed.
Jack Watson made the motion to recognize that the clinic is a permitted conditional use per item 2 page 12 of the bylaw. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) of Title 24, V.S.A. Chapter 117, Conditional Uses. Each of the standards was addressed. Michael Richard wanted the board to note that there was no public participation or input against the application.
General Standards:
A) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities:
Agreed.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
Agreed. Clinic already exists down the street (ear, nose & throat specialist).
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
Agreed.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday for the most part.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
N/A.
Agathe Coburn made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 06-106 by Douglas Spates as submitted. Seconded by Michael Richard. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
Other business: There was general discussion of the possibility of combining all development review into one Board.
8:30 p.m.: On a motion made by Jack Watson and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.
The minutes were taken by Jim Privee, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 11/30/06.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** September 6, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, Jim Privee.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Agathe Coburn.
OTHERS PRESENT: None.
7:55 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-078 by Ken & Deborah Boisclair for a variance to the rear and side yard setbacks for a 12 ft by 20 ft garage/storage addition to their existing house. The proposed addition is to be 15 ft from the rear lot line and 9 ft from the side lot line. This property is located at 275 Scottsdale Rd and is in a general residential zoning district. This is a continuation on the subject application.
On a motion by Alice Macie and seconded by Denise Bowen the minutes to the last meeting (Aug 30) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present, with Jack Watson abstaining.
Denis Chenette discussed and reviewed the subject application. All dimensions and other particulars were discussed. Also, a discussion of a shed option, and an extension to the garage were proposed to the owner, which were options that were rejected. Denis also discussed the lot arrangement and that the land was not a restriction on the use of the property. Denis then discussed the questions and answers to variance criteria. However, the board, on August 30, conducted a vote and the result was a tie. Thus requiring reconsideration and another vote.
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.
There is a slope to the front of the lot but this does not preclude the addition to be placed somewhere else on the lot.
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.
Not agreed. The building could be located elsewhere. If the shed were to be built as a “shed” then it could be located 5 ft from the rear and side lot lines and there would be no variance required.
3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
Agreed.
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 or 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.
Jim Privee made a motion to DENY the variance request for application 06-078 by Ken & Deborah Boisclair. Seconded by Denise Bowen. Ayes – Jim Privee, Denis Chenette. Nays - Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, Romeo Lemieux. The motion failed and the application is granted.
8:20 p.m.: On a motion made by Denise Bowen and seconded by Alice Macie the meeting was adjourned.
The minutes were taken by Jim Privee, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 9/7/06.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** August 30, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Watson.
OTHERS PRESENT: Ken Boisclair, Dahpne Morse, Jackie Stone.
7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-078 by Ken & Deborah Boisclair for a variance to the rear and side yard setbacks for a 12 ft by 20 ft garage/storage addition to their existing house. The proposed addition is to be 15 ft from the rear lot line and 9 ft from the side lot line. This property is located at 275 Scottsdale Rd and is in a general residential zoning district.
On a motion by Denise Bowen and seconded by Alice Macie the minutes to the last meeting (Aug 9) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.
Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Boisclair was present to discuss the proposed addition. Mr. Boisclair noted that the address on the application should be 274 Scottsdale Road not 275. Mr. Boisclair initialed the change. Denis Chenette conducted a review of the lot dimensions, as well as the proposed addition. Agathe Coburn noted that the dimensions of the addition (per drawings) did not agree with the 20-foot long addition. Mr. Boisclair agreed that the addition will actually be 10 feet wide and 20 feet long. The addition will extend beyond the current garage by about 2 feet, vice the 4 feet that is shown. Denis Chenette made the dimensional changes on the file copy. The changes also changed the side and rear yard setbacks.
Denis Chenette called everyone’s attention to Section 4469 (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.
There is a slope to the front of the lot but this does not preclude the addition to be placed somewhere else on the lot.
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.
Not agreed. The building could be located elsewhere. If the shed were to be built as a “shed” then it could be located 5 ft from the rear and side lot lines and there would be no variance required.
3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
Agreed.
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 or 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.
Issues were raised on meeting questions 1 and 2. Romeo Lemieux proposed that a solution to the problem would be for the owner to construct a shed, versus the creation of an addition to the home/garage. This proposal was discussed with the owner, as well as an extension to the garage. Mr. Boisclair was not in favor of either proposal.
Jim Privee made a motion to DENY the variance for application 06-078 by Ken & Deborah Boisclair. Seconded by Agathe Coburn. Ayes - Agathe Coburn, Jim Privee, Denis Chenette. Nays - Denise Bowen, Alice Macie, Romeo Lemieux. Tie vote – no action was taken.
Denis Chenette declared that because of a tie vote, the application would be reconsidered by the seventh board member. The application was tabled until 7:30 p.m. on September 6, 2006 here in the council room.
Chairman Denis Chenette read the warning for application 06-079 by Blake & Arland Hall for conditional use approval to enlarge a nonconforming structure by replacing an existing 12 ft by 58 ft mobile home with a 14 ft by 66 ft mobile home. The proposed mobile home is to be 8 ft from the side lot line. This is no closer to the side lot line than the existing mobile home. This property is located at 77 Willey Street and is in a general residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Ms. Morse was present to explain the request. Denis Chenette noted that an amendment has been made to he application. Denis Chenette passed around the amended application. The application shows the footprint of the new trailer and a carport. The old trailer and 8x12 deck would be removed. Denis modified the application to reflect the new/amended drawing. Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) 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:
N/A.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
N/A.
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
N/A – no change.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
N/A.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
N/A.
Alice Macie made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 06-079 by Blake & Arland Hall as submitted. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
Denis Chenette handed out amended Zoning Bylaws.
9:00 p.m.: On a motion made by Alice Macie and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.
The minutes were taken by Jim Privee, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 8/31/06.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** August 9, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Watson.
OTHERS PRESENT: James Campbell, Edgar Kellaway.
7:40 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-069 by Priscilla Tobin/James Campbell for a variance to the rear yard setback for a 12 ft by 16 ft deck. The proposed deck is to be 22 ft from the rear lot line. This property is located at 29 Allendale Road and is in a general residential zoning district.
On a motion by Alice Macie and seconded by Denise Bowen the minutes to the last meeting (Jul 19) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.
Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Campbell was present to explain the request. Denis Chenette read a letter from Priscilla Tobin authorizing Jim Campbell to represent her in this matter. Denis Chenette reviewed the specifics of the application including the proposed deck, which requires the setback variance. Mr. Kellaway, an abutting property owner, was present and voiced a concern about the addition of the deck. He was concerned that the deck could later be used as an enclosed porch or room. Also, he was concerned that as a new home that it was no appropriate to grant a variance of the deck. Denis Chenette pointed out that five conditions must be satisfied for a variance to be granted. 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.
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.
The lot is 105’ x 92’ x 105’ x 96’ making this approx. 10,015 sq ft. The lot is long enough (100’) but not deep enough (100’).
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.
Although a deck may not be able to be placed in the rear of the lot, a patio type of structure is permissible with no permit.
3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
Agreed.
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 or 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.
It was agreed by both James Campbell and Edgar Kellaway that a 10’ x 16’ deck would be acceptable therefore the represents the minimum variance according to these parties.
Discussion was made after reviewing the questions. Mr. Kellaway said that a 10 x 16 deck would be acceptable. Mr. Campbell agreed to the change. Denis Chenette change the width of the deck from 12 ft to 10 ft on the application and Mr. Campbell initialed the change. Alice Macie made a motion to grant a variance for application 06-069 by Priscilla Tobin/James Campbell with the deck amended to be 10 ft x 16 ft. Seconded by Agathe Coburn. Ayes - Denise Bowen, Agathe Coburn, Alice Macie, Romeo Lemieux. Nays – Jim Privee. Abstentions – Denis Chenette. The motion was granted by a majority decision.
8:30 p.m.: 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 08/10/2006.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** July 19, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, Jack Watson, Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OTHERS PRESENT: Cosmo Fedele, Yvette Fedele.
7:35 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-052 by Cosmo & Yvette Fedele for a variance to front yard setback for a 5 ft by 9 ft entry deck. The proposed deck is to be 10 ft from the front lot line. This property is located at 124 Herrick Street and is in a general residential zoning district.
On a motion by Alice Macie and seconded by Denise Bowen the minutes to the last meeting (May 31) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.
Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Fedele were present to explain the request. Romeo Lemieux announced that he would not participate in the discussion and vote on this application. Denis Chenette noted that the city drawing of the property showed that the rear and left set backs did not agree with the application. It was agreed that the rear setback was approximately 10 ft and the left setback was approximately 6 ft. A short discussion was had on the possibility that this application could fall into a “nonconforming” category. It was agreed that it did not since the nonconforming portions (rear and left side) are not impacted/involved in the application/project. A variance request is the correct application. 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.
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.
Bylaw met. Lot is approx 7,967 sq ft +- (10,000 minimum for general residential).
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.
House built circa 1925. House is approx 20 ft from front lot line.
3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
Agreed.
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 or 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.
Requested deck is to cover an existing entryway. Deck will be no closer to the road than the current structure.
Alice Macie made a motion to grant a variance for application 06-052 by Cosmo & Yvette Fedele as submitted. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision, Romeo Lemieux abstaining.
8:05 p.m.: 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 7/20/2006.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** May 31, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OTHERS PRESENT: Sheryl Baraw.
7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-036 by Sheryl Baraw for conditional use approval to expand a nonconforming structure by adding an 8 ft by 18 ft addition to the garage. The proposed addition will be approx 13 ft from the property line. The existing garage is approx. 3 ft from the property line. This property is located at 265 Union Street and is in an urban residential zoning district.
On a motion by Alice Macie and seconded by Denise Bowen the minutes to the last meeting (May 24) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.
Discussion began on the above application. Ms. Baraw was present to explain the request. The current structure is very narrow. She does not intend to open the wall between the existing garage and the addition. The addition will simply be a connected structure; it will not be an enlargement of the interior of the existing garage. It will be enclosed. It will not be a lean-to. Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) 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:
Not affected.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
Not affected. Character will remain the same.
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
Not affected.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
Not affected.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
Alice Macie made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 06-036 by Sheryl Baraw as submitted. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
7:50 p.m.: On a motion made by Jack Watson and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.
The minutes were taken by Jim Privee, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 6/1/06.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** May 24, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Atherton.
7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-035 by Hilda Gleason for conditional use approval to expand an nonconforming structure by adding a 7 ft by 12 ft deck to their trailer at 63 Hinman Street. The proposed deck will be no closer to the Hinman Street property line than the existing entryway. This property is located at 52 Fairview Street and is in a general residential zoning district.
On a motion by Alice Macie and seconded by Agathe Coburn the minutes to the last meeting (May 17) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present with Jack Watson abstaining (he was not present at the last meeting).
Discussion began on the above application. Larry Atherton was present to explain the request. The address of the trailer is 63 Hinman Street and the owner resides at 52 Fairview Street (both buildings are on the same lot). The deck is prebuilt and it will replace an existing and smaller entry deck. The location of the new deck will be as shown in the application. The deck has railings. Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) 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:
Not affected.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
Not affected.
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
Not affected.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
Deck will not be any closer to road than the current deck. It will only be longer. A previous deck (entryway) ran the full length of the trailer but was removed due to disrepair.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
Jack Watson made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 06-035 by Hilda Gleason as submitted. Seconded by Alice Macie. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
8:10 p.m.: On a motion made by Alice Macie and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the meeting was adjourned.
The minutes were taken by Jim Privee, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 5/25/06.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** May 17, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Alice Macie, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Watson.
OTHERS PRESENT: Dennis Lantagne.
7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-031 by Dennis Lantagne for conditional use approval to expand a nonconforming structure by adding a 10 ft by 28 ft deck. The proposed deck is to be even with the front of the building, which is 48 ft from the shoreline of Lake Memphremagog. This property is located at 50 Heron Lane and is in a general residential/shoreland control zoning district.
On a motion by Alice Macie and seconded by Denise Bowen the minutes to the last meeting (May 3) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.
Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Lantagne was present to explain the request. The rear (lake side) porch will be enclosed and used as living space. The structure of the previous deck and bulkhead were reviewed. Mr. Lantagne explained that the entire foundation was replaced and the bulkhead was modernized ant the old deck/enclosure was removed. Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) 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:
Not affected.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
Not affected.
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
Not affected.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
N/A.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
Forced hot air.
Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 06-031 by Dennis Lantagne as submitted. Seconded by Alice Macie. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
On a motion made by Alice Macie and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the meeting was adjourned.
The minutes were taken by Jim Privee, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 5/19/06.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** May 3, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Garry Coburn, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OTHERS PRESENT: Michael L. Pray, Michael R. Pray.
7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-026 by Marie Morse for conditional use approval for an addition to a nonconforming structure. It is proposed to replace the existing 8 ft by 25 ft addition with a 12 ft by 35 ft one story addition. The existing addition is 28 ft from the front lot line and 8 ft from the side lot line. The proposed addition will not get any closer to these lot lines. This property is located at 88 Hinman Street and is in a general residential zoning district.
There was a brief discussion about the minutes. It was noted that there were 2 typos in the minutes. Garry Coburn wanted to ensure that Mr. Bernier provided a letter authorizing both water and sewer allocations. On a motion by Jack Watson and seconded by Garry Coburn the minutes to the last meeting (Apr 26) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.
Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Pray (brother of Marie Morse) was present to explain the request. There were no issues noted. Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) 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:
N/A. Only living area being built. Not extended us of planned community facilities.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
No change.
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
No change in traffic.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
None.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
Jack Watson made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 06-026 by Marie Morse as submitted. Seconded by Garry Coburn. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
On a motion made by Garry Coburn and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.
The minutes were taken by Jim Privee, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 5/4/06.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** April 26, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Jack Watson, Garry Coburn, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Denise Bowen.
OTHERS PRESENT: Christopher Roy, Sherry Norris, Steven Mayo, Kevin Messier.
7:35 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-022 by Steven & Heidi Mayo for conditional use approval for a 7 ft by 17 ft addition to their house. This is an enlargement to a nonconforming structure and the addition will not be any closer to their property lines than the existing structure. This property is located at 50 Hinman Street and is in a general residential zoning district.
On a motion by Garry Coburn and seconded by Jack Watson the minutes to the last meeting (Apr 19) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.
Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Mayo was present to explain the request. Romeo Lemieux had a conflict of interest and stepped away from the board on this application. This is a 7 ft x 17 ft addition that will connect an existing porch to the existing garage. After a brief discussion of the project Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) 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:
N/A.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
N/A.
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
N/A.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
N/A.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
N/A.
Garry Coburn made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 06-022 by Steven & Heidi Mayo as submitted. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
Romeo Lemieux returned to the board.
Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-019 by City of Newport for conditional use approval for expansion of a nonconforming structure for a 21 ft by 30 ft addition to the Chamber of Commerce building. The existing building will be demolished and rebuilt. The final size will be 21 ft by 51 ft. This property is located at 246 Causeway and is in a conservation zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mrs. Norris was present to explain the request. Denis Chenette asked about the river/water level and sewage pipes that would occasionally back up. Mrs. Norris answered the question by noting that the entire toilet system will be replaced to correct this old problem. Two toilets will be installed. There was a question about how the parking that is to the left of the current building will be replaced since the space will be used for the building extension. Mrs. Norris explained that parking would be toward the City Bandstand. This is common parking space. Garry Coburn was concerned how the front of the building will be used. He was concerned that travelers may park in front of the building, which is not safe. The area will be shared with the bandstand, farmer’s market, and the visitor’s center. There is a concern that this combination may create conflicts with parking and pedestrians and shoppers. The hours of operation is 10 am to 4 pm seven days a week. Question about signs. The state signage will remain where it currently is located. The center will have its sign on their building. Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) 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:
Two restrooms will be located within the proposed building. A letter from Director of Public Works Tom Bernier is required as there have been problems in the past with the sewage system.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
No change.
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
There is concern regarding the entrance to and egress from the property with the most concern pertaining to the Farmer’s Market and the bandstand. Also, pedestrians in the area are of great concern.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
Signs – 3 main signs designated to the Chamber
Parking – Under public building (k), the Planning Commission will determine amount of spaces. Handicapped space and host/hostess space on the northern side of the building and handicapped space in front along the road.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
Garry Coburn made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 06-019 by City of Newport with the condition that sewer is approved in writing by Director of Public Works Tom Bernier. Seconded by Romeo Lemieux. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
8:50 p.m.: On a motion made by Garry Coburn and seconded by Jack Watson the meeting was adjourned.
The minutes were taken by Jim Privee, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 4/27/06.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** April 19, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Jack Watson, Jim Privee, Agathe Coburn, Garry Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen.
OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Roy, Doug Spates, William Smith, Marie Smith, Cheryl Cornell, Harvey Robitaille, Beverly Robitaille.
7:50 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-016 by William & Marie Smith for a variance to the side yard setback for a 24 ft by 28 ft detached garage. The proposed garage is to be 6 ft from their side lot line. This property is located at 606 Pleasant Street and is in a general residential zoning district.
On a motion by Agathe Coburn and seconded by Jack Watson the minutes to the last meeting (Apr 5) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.
Discussion began on the above application. Mr. & Mrs. Smith were present to explain the request. Ms. Cornell, the neighbor to the east was present to support the project. Mr. Smith showed the board an estimate from Roger Gosselin Excavation. It confirmed that the hillside could be safely removed and sloped to provide drainage and to retain the remaining embankment. They will cut into the bank by 16 ft and then it will be gradually sloped. Mrs. Robitaille had a concern about water runoff. The answer provided was that all water would run down the street. 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.
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.
Topography doesn’t allow a garage to be built anywhere else on the lot. Proposed garage would be placed on only flat area available. Both sewer and water pipes run beneath the driveway.
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.
Applicant has exhausted all other options for placing garage on lot. Garage cannot be moved closer to the house due to location of drainage pipes.
3.) That the unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
Agreed.
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 or 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.
Jack Watson made a motion to grant a variance for application 06-016 by William & Marie Smith as submitted. Seconded by Garry Coburn. Ayes - Jack Watson, Garry Coburn, Agathe Coburn, Jim Privee. Nays – Denis Chenette. The motion was granted.
The City of Newport was not present to for application 06-019 and the board decided to skip to the next application.
Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-020 by Douglas & Vivian Spates for conditional use approval for expansion of a nonconforming structure to remove the existing porch and to rebuild it to code for Labor and Industry Regulations. The final size of the porch will be 8 ft by 42 ft with a 4 ft by 8 ft deck. This property is located at 86 Pleasant Street and is in an urban residential zoning district. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Spates was present to explain the request. There was a thorough discussion and review of the physical change that will be made by Mr. Spates. Denis questioned available parking. Twelve were considered appropriate, however this parking is shared between 86, 96, & 72 Pleasant St. This arrangement is acceptable at this time, but it could pose a problem in the future. Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) 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:
Not affected. Six apartments in the building.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
Not change to area.
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
N/A.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
Parking – 12 spaces required for the 9 apartments in both spates buildings. Dumpster located in yard behind upper Spates building.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
Garry Coburn made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 06-020 by Douglas & Vivian Spates as submitted. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
Garry Coburn made a motion to table application 06-019 by City of Newport until their meeting on Wednesday April 26, 2006 at 7:30 pm in the council room of the municipal building. Seconded by Jack Watson. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
Denis noted that application #06-019 mistakenly was identified as being in a conservation zoning district. It is actually in an urban recreational zoning district.
On a motion made by Garry Coburn 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 4/20/06.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** April 5, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jack Watson, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Garry Coburn.
OTHERS PRESENT: Sylvain Fortier, Tim Martell, J.D. Abbott.
7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-013 by JSL Auto Sales for conditional use approval to add an auto repair business in the remainder of the building not occupied by Moore’s Dry Cleaners. This property is located at 169 East Main Street and is in commercial zone B zoning district. Mr. Fortier was present to explain the request. Denis Chenette read a letter that way signed by Brad Thomas, Kathleen Baker and Dwight Baker. The letter voiced concerns about a garage being added to the building. Mr. Fortier indicated that a survey has been done and the rear property line is about 10 feet closer to the building than indicated on the tax map. Parking was discussed. Mr. Fortier explained that cars would be dropped off in the front (East Main St side) and the mechanic would drive the car into the repair shop. The business would operate from 8 am to 5 pm. A concern was voiced that Taylor Street is narrow and it is a dead end. Also, there is a parking ban to that street. Problems will occur when customers get on that street. Also, tow trucks will create issues on the narrow dead end street. §332 Performance standards were discussed. Concerns were voiced on nearly all the standards. It is requested that the Planning Commission consider these items when the y conduct their Site Plan Review. It is requested that Bob Kelley obtain a copy of the property survey for the file on this application. Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) 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:
The copy of Tom Bernier’s letter concerning water/sewer should be placed in the packet. Bob Kelley should have this letter. A copy of the Baker survey should be made part of the packet.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
Character not adversely affected. One more business is being added to the lot. Property has been substantially cleaned up compared to what it was. No dumpsters on site. No storage of automobile parts on exterior of building lot.
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
Taylor St has parking ban on street. Concern arose with people driving down Taylor to dead end and turning around. (see accompanying letter from residents). Intent is for clients to drop off vehicles and pick up vehicles in front of the building on the East Main Street side.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
Parking falls under “K” which would be designated by the Planning Commission per zoning bylaw. Business will operate from 8 am to 5 pm. Sign will be placed in front of building facing East Main Street and will have to comply with appropriate bylaws. No venting of noxious odors or gases that might be produced. Noise generated by revving engines.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
Agathe Coburn made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 06-013 by JSL Auto Sales as submitted. Seconded by Jack Watson. Ayes – Denis Chenette, Denise Bowen, Agathe Coburn, Jack Watson, Romeo Lemieux. Nays – Jim Privee. The motion passed.
On a motion by Romeo Lemieux and seconded by Denise Bowen the minutes to the last meetings (Mar 8 & Mar 29) were accepted as written. The decision was unanimous among the members present.
Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order to continue review of application 06-007 by Jerry Abbott for conditional use approval for expansion of a nonconforming structure. The proposed 24 ft by 46 ft 2 story addition is for a handicap bedroom and bathroom, a 2-stall garage, and an accessory apartment. This property is located at 28 Cottage Street and is an urban residential zoning district. This application was table from last weeks meeting. Discussion began on the above application. Mr. Abbott and Mr. Martell were present to explain the request. They presented their property survey drawing that indicates an adequate sized lot. Next discussed was the excavation that will cut deep back into the bank, which will provide adequate space for parking and space to turn around. The project will still provide a 4-foot retaining wall to hold back the remaining embankment. Tim Martell explained that a drainage field/catchment would be created in the back yard (west side of property). Most water would be directed to his catchment and the water would collect and disperse that water. Mr. Chenette directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) 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:
No noticeable increase in water use. Fire hydrant located near corner of Cottage and Prospect.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
No change to area.
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
Less than what is currently stored on property. Fewer vehicles will be located on lot.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
Section 337. The Board requests that Tom Bernier inspect the proposed and finished work and state in a letter that project will not affect adjacent properties in regard to water runoff.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 06-007 by Jerry Abbott with the condition that approval must be obtained in writing from the Director of Public Works in regards to surface drainage as per §337 of the Newport City Zoning Bylaw. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
On a motion made by Denise Bowen and seconded by Romeo Lemieux the meeting was adjourned.
The minutes were taken by Jim Privee, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 4/7/06.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** March 29, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Denise Bowen, Jim Privee, and Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Watson, Garry Coburn.
OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Abbott, JD Abbott, Tim Martell, Mike Olden, Deborah Olden, John Cote, Melanie Graham.
7:30 p.m.: Chairman Denis Chenette called the meeting to order and read the warning for application 06-009 by Michael & Deborah Olden for conditional use approval to add a single family dwelling unit in the rear and on the 2nd floor of their existing building. This property is located at 1670 East Main Street and is in commercial zone B zoning district. Denis Chenette stepped down from this application because he has a conflict in interest, he works with Mrs. Olden. Mr. Privee took over the meeting as acting Chairman. Mr. & Mrs. Olden were to explain the request. A letter from adjoining property owner Greg Howe was read at the meeting. It stated that he had no objection to his project. Another adjoining property owner, John Cote, also said he had no objection to the project. Water is supplied from a shared well and sewage disposal is on onsite septic system. Mr. Privee directed the Board to Section §4414 (3) 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:
No impact on the capacity of existing or planned community facilities.
B.) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the Municipal plan:
The character of the area will be unaffected by the project.
C.) Traffic on roads and Highways in the vicinity:
No impact on traffic on the existing road.
D.) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect:
No impact to existing bylaws or ordinances.
E.) Utilization of renewable energy resources:
Romeo Lemieux made a motion to grant conditional use approval for application 06-009 by Michael & Deborah Olden as submitted. Seconded by Denise Bowen. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision, with Denis Chenette abstaining.
Denis Chenette resumed as Chairman and read the warning for the continued review of application 06-007 by Jerry Abbott for conditional use approval for expansion of a nonconforming structure. The proposed 24 ft by 46 ft 2 story addition is for a handicap bedroom and bathroom, a 2-stall garage, and an accessory apartment. This property is located at 28 Cottage Street and is an urban residential zoning district. Jerry & JD Abbott were present to explain the request. Tim Martell, the construction supervision, was also present to discuss the details of the project. Drainage was a very big concern of the Board. The developer stated that a drainage pipe and trough would be installed on the north side of the entire building. The drainpipe would end in a concrete pad that would allow the water to spread out and flow into the street. The drainage on the south side would be by way of the driveway. The location of the rear property line was discussed. There is one corner post that is at the corner of the Richardson property corner. Mr. Abbott said that he has scheduled a land survey that would verify the rear lot line. This survey would become part of the application file. There was a discussion of the excavation of the dirt bank. The project will remove the soil for the project slab, plus approximately four feet. A concrete wall will be built (4 feet in height) to retain the remaining hillside. The excavation will include the land that will provide a driveway and garage access. There was a concern that a car exiting the rear garage stall would not be able to backup, then turn the car/truck so that the exit could be made in the forward direction, verse backing out of the driveway. It was stated that the intent was that the car/truck would be able to back out and use the large space so that a car can drive forward out of the driveway. The new design eliminates the previous “accessory apartment”. The new design calls for the existing second floor rooms being used as an apartment. It will have a separate entryway. A dormer on the second floor will be used as a fire escape. The escape stairs will end up at the driveway pavement (garage front). Parking was also discussed. Four parking spaces are possible: one in each garage space and two spaces facing the new building.
It was agreed that this application be tabled. More design information is required. The following is needed:
Romeo Lemieux made a motion to table application 06-007 by Jerry Abbott until their 7:30 pm meeting on April 5, 2006 here in the council room of the municipal building. Seconded by Agathe Coburn. The motion was granted by a unanimous decision.
If the applicant is not ready for this meeting he should contact Zoning Administrator Bob Kelley about rescheduling.
9:50 p.m.: On a motion made by Romeo Lemieux and seconded by Denise Bowen the meeting was adjourned.
The minutes were taken by Jim Privee, typed by Bob Kelley and filed for record on 3/30/06.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *** MINUTES *** March 1, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Denis A. Chenette, Romeo Lemieux, Jack Watson, Jim Privee, Agathe Coburn.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Denise Bowen, Garry Coburn.
OTHERS PRESENT: Rachel Coulter, John Guadagni, Terry Kibbee, John Ward, Delton Bohlman, Lisa Bohlman.