town of bennington zoning board of adjustment minutes 1 veterans memorial drive, bennington, vt 05201 DECemBER 8, 1999 @ 7:30 p.m. Present: Ron Alderman, Gale Wisher, Richard Owens, Jim Gulley, Bill Congdon, Bill Barney, and Edith Prandini. Excused: Jane Kaufmann and Kevin Goodhue. Also present: Zoning Administrator Daniel Monks, Richard Scheer, Jack Griffin, Mrs. Morisson, Jim Secor, Leo Gauthier, Mel Stuart, Mike von Ouhl, and Robyn Baker. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. Minutes of November 10, 1999. Ms. Prandini noted that the spelling of Carrel Killen's name might be incorrect. Ms. Wisher moved to accept the minutes of November 10, 1999 as presented. Mr. Owens seconded the motion. The motion passed with six in favor, Ms. Prandini abstained, as she was not present at the meeting. 2. Reading of witness' oath. Mr. Gulley explained that there is a witness sign up sheet that must be signed if someone wishes to give testimony or submit evidence to the Board. He read the oath: "I solemnly swear and affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury that the statement I make, the testimony I give, and other evidence I submit to the Zoning Board of Adjustment at the Board's public hearing held on this date shall be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." 3. Richard Scheer, 8 Pine Circle East, seeking a variance of side yard setback to construct a 10' x 10' shed at the above address, a VR District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable: 3.4, 3.2(8), and 4.2. Mr. Scheer presented his project to the Board. He indicated the location of his house on the lot, and noted that it was a steep, deep lot, with trees in the rear. He noted that the driveway was steep, and there was parking directly under the ranch house. He noted that the shed is located on a paved area, and there are trees beside it that act as a buffer for the neighbors. He also noted the location of a paved play area in the rear, and a swimming pool. He noted that the shed is prefab, to be purchased from Tuttles, and located on the existing pavement. Mr. Gulley asked why it was located on an angle, and Mr. Scheer noted that the shed was at an angle so that they could plow the driveway straight into the shed. The shed is located 1' from a boundary, and Mr. Scheer noted that it was because of how the pavement was structured. Ms. Prandini asked if the shed was existing, and the applicant noted that it was. Mr. Scheer noted that the original application showed a 7-foot setback, but was later determined to be closer to the property line. Ms. Wisher asked Mr. Monks why the shed was not squared, and he noted that he did not look at the topography behind the shed. The applicant noted that the area behind the shed was steeply sloped. Ms. Wisher asked if the shed could be located closer to the house, and Mr. Scheer noted that there was a turn around area at the end of the driveway that precluded the relocation. Mr. Alderman asked if a permit was issued, and Mr. Monks noted that both Building and Zoning permits were issued. Mr. Monks noted that Mr. Scheer immediately filed the application once he was notified that the shed was not in compliance with the permit. Mr. Alderman asked what the setback should be, and Mr. Monks noted that it should be five feet. Mr. Alderman asked if the shed could be swung around to comply, and Mr. Owens noted that the shed would overhang the slope if that happened. Mr. Scheer noted that the survey line is actually at an angle, and is not a straight line. Mr. Griffin addressed the Board on behalf of the Morissons, abutting landowners, and noted that the present site plan indicates that the shed is one foot from the property line. He noted that the shed is actually closer to one inch to the property line than one foot. He noted that the site had been surveyed. Mr. Griffin felt that five feet was a reasonable distance for the shed, and it currently cannot be maintained without trespassing on the adjacent property. Mr. Griffin noted that there is a pool, tree house, and driveway behind the house, and the rear is reasonably leveled. He feels that the shed could be leveled and placed within the zoning boundaries. He feels that the shed is encroaching on the neighbor's land. Mr. Scheer noted that there are immediate drops on both the rear and side of the shed, and there is no level area close to the driveway. Mr. Barney asked what the shed would be used for, and Mr. Scheer indicated that it was to store a small tractor that would be used for plowing. He noted that to relocate the shed, they would have to remove trees. Ms. Prandini asked if it could be moved closer to the house, and Mr. Scheer noted that they need the room to turn at the bottom of the steep driveway. Mr. Barney asked how they turn vehicles currently, and Mr. Scheer noted that they back to the edge of the shed, and come out. Ms. Wisher felt that she would have a problem with a neighbor building something one inch from her property. Ms. Prandini moved to grant the four-foot variance as requested. Ms. Wisher seconded the motion. The five facts were read and voted on: 1. Mr. Alderman and Mr. Gulley were in favor. There were five opposed: Ms. Prandini, Ms. Wisher, Mr. Owens, Mr. Congdon, and Mr. Barney. 2. The Board was unanimously opposed. 3. The Board was unanimously opposed. 4. The Board was unanimously opposed. 5. The Board was unanimously opposed. The request was denied. The applicant asked if the matter could be appealed, and Mr. Monks noted that it could be appealed to the Environmental Court within 30 days. 4. Leo & Mona Gauthier, L&G Fabricators, Harwood Hill, seeking a variance of rear yard setback and conditional use approval to construct 75' x 100' addition to metal fabrication business at the above location, a CI District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable: 3.4, 6.1, and 8.5. Mr. Secor and Mr. Gauthier were present to represent the applicant. He noted that they are proposing to enclose current outside storage. He noted that the building would be a pre-engineered metal building. He noted that the facility would only be for cold storage, a warehouse facility. They are seeking a setback for the rear area, as there is 38 feet to the railroad track right of way. Mr. Gulley felt that they should address the conditional use approval first and then the rear yard setback. The Board agreed. Mr. Alderman asked if the steel would be stored inside and out of view, and Mr. Secor indicated that it would. Ms. Wisher asked if the railroad had any comments, and Mr. Secor noted that they did not. He did note that they were not directly notified. Mr. Barney asked if a previous conditional use approval had been granted, and Mr. Monks noted that it had, and this was an extension of an existing conditional use. Ms. Wisher asked about the original conditional use, and Mr. Monks noted that Mr. Gauthier received conditional use approval for metal fabrication. Ms. Prandini moved to grant approval for the expansion of the conditional use. Mr.Gulley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Monks noted that they were not required to contact the railroad. Mr. Gauthier noted that employees currently park on the existing pavement on the North side of the building. Mr. Secor noted that they tried to match the color. Ms. Prandini moved to grant the 12-foot variance as requested. Ms. Wisher seconded the motion. The five facts were read and voted on: 1. Unanimous. 2. Unanimous. 3. Unanimous. 4. Unanimous. 5. Unanimous. 5. Mel Stuart, Cinema 7, 319 Northside Drive, seeking a variance of front yard setback to construct 22' x 79' office space addition to existing cinema at the above address, a CI District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable: 3.4, 6.1, 8.5. Mr. Stuart presented his project to the Board. He noted that there is an office at the rear of the cinema (750 square feet). He is proposing to expand about six feet, which requires a 35-foot variance. Mr. Stuart noted that there were formerly steps located at the front of the building, and the proposed addition would not extend beyond that area. Mr. Alderman asked if any parking spaces would be removed, and the applicant noted that they would not. Mr. Stuart also indicated the location of a proposed handicapped ramp, which would extend about six feet and wrap around the building. Mr. Alderman asked why they needed so much office space, and Mr. Stuart indicated that they were trying to use the space for rental purposes. Mr. Gulley asked if the amount of parking was still in compliance, and Mr. Monks noted that the Planning Commission would review parking. Ms. Wisher moved to grant the 35-foot variance as requested. Mr. Alderman seconded the motion. The five facts were read and voted on: 1. Unanimous. 2. Unanimous. 3. Unanimous. 4. Unanimous. 5. Unanimous. 6. Other Business ¨ Findings of fact and minutes were passed around and signed. ¨ Mr. Monks noted that there would not be a meeting on December 22. ¨ Mr. Barney asked about the light at the fire department, and Mr. Monks noted that it has been contracted. ¨ As there was no further business Mr. Alderman moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Owens seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robyn C. Baker Dated this 8th day of December 1999. _______________________ ____________________ _______________________ ____________________ _______________________ ____________________ _______________________ ____________________ _______________________