TOWN OF SUTTON
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DRAFT
Meeting Minutes
October 25, 2006
Present: Bill Hallahan, Doug Sweet, Dane Headley, Tom Brooks, and Derek Lick
Also present: Marnee Saltalamacchia, ZBA Assistant
7:00 p.m. Case #06-09 04 026,499
Saltalamacchia stated that the posted Notice was in three town locations and published in the Intertown Record on October 17, 2006 and that all fees were paid. She then read the public hearing notice into record:
A request by Andrew Garrett and Tara Evans for a special exception to the terms of Article V section D. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to construct an outdoor wood furnace approximately 6 ft. x 9 ft. at 11 Hermit Hollow Lane in the Rural Agricultural district. The structure setback from wetland is required to be 75 ft.
Saltalamacchia also stated that there were no responses from any abutters.
Chairman Hallahan read Article V section D. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance into record.
Garret Evans was present and clarified that the actual size is 72 ft. x 62 ft. with 4 ft. pipe.
Evans stated that the furnace would be used as a primary heat source. He stated that 50ft. from brook would allow for a distance of 25 ft. from the house. He stated that having consulted the Fire Chief, Palmer felt that it should be a minimum separation of 25 ft. from the house.
Evans explained that there is a smaller less impact wetland but it is at the end of the driveway. He stated that his location is the most convenient at approx. 25 ft. from property line.
Chairman Hallahan suggested that based on a visit to the site this would be the best location. He stated that at the 50 ft. distance there is a drop off on the property.
Hallahan made mention that the system is one that only requires once a month cleaning.
Evans added that you feed it once or twice a day. He explained that it requires a trench and a crushed stone pad and power that would run the same line.
Hallahan stated that it appears to be a seasonal brook.
Evans confirmed that it normally runs 8 to 9 months a year.
Brooks stated that he agrees the crushed stone is a better way to go than the concrete slab.
Evans added that a slab could capture water and actually cause the unit to rust.
Headley asked if the unit was made of steel.
Evans replied that it looks like metal roofing.
Hallahan asked about the burn off.
Evans responded that he did not know what the emissions are but it is cycled through the boiler and does have a blower. He stated that the house is radiant heat.
Headley questioned the cost of the unit.
Evans replied that he believes the initial investment is approximately nine thousand dollars. He explained that is why he wanted to secure the variance before purchasing the unit.
Lick confirmed why alternative locations behind the house would not suffice.
Evans explained the reasons including that it is a walk out basement.
Sweet stated having been to the site that he found it a logical place to locate the unit.
Hallahan pointed out that there were no abutters (except the applicant’s father) in attendance.
Motion made by Bill Hallahan to close the public hearing. Second by Dane Headley. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
The Board completed the special exception worksheet. Some comments included:
§ On this particular property, it is an appropriate location for both the choice of location and the use on the property.
§ Assuming the emissions is comparable to a wood stove the Board recognized that it would likely not be detrimental, injurious, noxious or offensive to the neighborhood.
§ The property has very little if any traffic.
§ Design of the unit has the stack in the back of the unit. Sweet stated that the applicant having checked with the Fire Chief for safe distance is applicable.
§ The shed requirement is 50 ft. in the new wetlands ordinance and allowed because of the size; therefore, this is definitely in the “spirit of the ordinance.”
Motion made by Bill Hallahan to return to session. Second by Dane Headley. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
Motion made by Bill Hallahan to GRANT the special exception with no conditions. Seconded by Dane Headley. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
7:30 p.m. Case #06-10 09 930,516
Saltalamacchia stated that the posted Notice was in three town locations and published in the Intertown Record on October 17, 2006 and that all fees were paid. She then read the public hearing notice into record:
A request (for a variance) by Evans Land Consultants, LLC on behalf of John M. and Julie K. Pellerin Revocable Trusts to the terms of Article V section D. 1 and Article XVI section B. 2 (with the same required structure setback of 75 ft. from wetland) of the Zoning Ordinance in order to construct a new home located on Rowell Hill Road in the Rural Agricultural district.
Chairman Hallahan read the Article V section D. 1 and Article XVI section B. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Hallahan stated that when visiting the property, it was difficult to tell where the house may be set and he could not determine any boundaries. He mentioned that it was also difficult to tell where the wetlands were.
Jeff Evans in attendance representing the applicant stated that the jurisdictional wetland versus the hydric soil at this property has made it a difficult plan to prepare. He stated that there is some history in the tax files about runoff from the lot. He informed the Board that the property is being taxed as a buildable lot. He explained that he has approached the property to determine the best location for the septic system.
Lick looked to confirm that because there is such runoff at one place on the property it has made that alternative location on the property unfeasible.
Evans agreed and stated that John Pellerin has previously been in contact with Road Agent Paul Parker to try to address the runoff problems.
Sweet asked about the area at the end of the driveway as a location despite runoff closer to the street.
Evans stated that hydric soil amounts and the fact that the site suggests that maybe there is a historical gravel pit there is what deterred him from that area of the property.
Sweet agreed that the borings on site were unusual.
Hallahan asked where the water ends up.
Evans replied eventually the marsh, which would not be part of the wetlands overlay district.
Evans stated that the bird sanctuary lot is wet and deeded with no option to build.
Saltalamacchia stated that abutters Bruce and Laura Crawford called and explained their understanding is that no building would take place on the bird sanctuary lot.
She stated that they did not feel it necessary to put something in writing but because of the wetlands were particularly concerned with the septic system and leaching.
Sweet stated that the sewerage leaching area does need to be in the best possible location but he thinks that there is ample area to place the house closer to the driveway. He feels that it is a better area to put it rather than to grant relief on a 20 ft. setback.
Headley asked Evans how he feels about that location.
Evans replied that he thinks the high water table in that area could lead to foundation problems.
Hallahan questioned if there is any place on the lot where you can put this house that would meet the 75 ft. wetlands setback.
Evans replied no – it will require a variance at some point in order to build on this lot.
Brooks asked if you could gain area by placing the house differently in the same proposed location.
Evans replied that the southern exposure and the distance to the adjoining property were considerations. He did not feel it would be possible to gain 10 ft. and acquire a 30 ft. distance.
Motion made by Bill Hallahan to close the public hearing. Seconded by Dane Headley. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
Hallahan stated that we established 75 ft. on a new house in the new wetlands ordinance and would not like to approve the first application on this Article at 20 ft. to the wetland.
Headley agreed that it would set a bad precedent.
Brooks stated that he is curious about the alternative location proposed by Sweet but recognizes that if it was a gravel pit that there may be a lot of water.
Sweet reiterated his thinking that there is room in the SW portion of the lot.
Lick stated that the 3b finding of the variance worksheet is in question for him because of Sweet’s comments. He stated that the hydric soil location would be more appealing to him then the close distance to jurisdictional wetlands. He added that if the applicant found that it is impossible to build in the alternative location then it would lead him to look differently at the current proposed location.
Hallahan stated that public interest influenced the new wetland ordinance.
Brooks stated that he feels it is not serving the public interest when someone has a buildable lot that they cannot build on.
Hallahan stated that the Board is not 100% sure that this is the best location.
Headley asked if when property is classified as a building lot by the town that means that it is buildable.
Discussion ensued.
Hallahan stated that there remains information that is unanswered such as:
§ No alternative place
§ Type of wetlands
§ 50 ft. from a less significant wetland
Headley shared that he is not comfortable with sending an applicant to look for an alternative site and then if there is not one have the applicant believe that the Board might approve the original location.
The Board completed questions on the area variance worksheet. Comments included:
§ Will not diminish other property value: no evidence to that effect;
§ Hallahan felt it violates 75 ft. setback and Lick felt that an alternative site with a greater wetlands buffer given the unique nature of this property……..part of the contrary to public interest is the degree of the contrary to ordinance;
§ 3A – Lick stated there may be other means to accomplish same goal;
§ 3B – Brooks stated that we don’t know for sure about whether there is another means;
§ 4 – Substantial justice – Headley does not think so because this could be one of those lots that is not buildable. Brooks took exception.
§ Spirit of the ordinance – see worksheets.
Motion made by Bill Hallahan to return to session. Second by Dane Headley. Roll call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
Motion made by Bill Hallahan to DENY the variance because the setback distance of 20 ft. is not adequate. Second by Derek Lick. Roll Call: Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
8:25 p.m. Meeting Adjourned.
| 
