town of bennington zoning board of adjustment minutes 1 veterans memorial drive, bennington, vt 05201 JUNE 28, 2000 @ 7:30 p.m. Present: Ron Alderman, Gale Wisher, Richard Owens, Bill Congdon, Kevin Goodhue, John Redding, Melissa Perrott, and Bill Barney. Excused: Edith Prandini. Also present: Zoning Administrator Daniel Monks, Jim Secor, Stefan Strohmaier, Jay Keegan, Ella Keegan, Mike von Ouhl, Mr. Brauer, Robert Burgess, and Robyn Baker. Ms. Wisher called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. Minutes of June 14, 2000. Mr. Goodhue moved to accept the minutes of June 14, 2000 as presented. Mr. Alderman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Reading of witness' oath. Ms. Wisher read the witness 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. Ella Keegan, 432 Camp Road, Mount Anthony, seeking conditional use approval for a wood/garden shed at the above address, a Forest District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable are: 3.4 and 5.2. Mr. Keegan explained that they would like to construct a greenhouse. He indicated the location of the property lines, 200 feet on one side and 1200 feet on the other. They propose a 16' x 20' shed. They are three miles from their nearest neighbor. The shed will be on concrete piers. The total square footage is 320. Mr. Barney asked, and the applicant noted that the shed would not be visible from the road. Mr. Owens moved to grant conditional use approval as requested. Mr. Goodhue seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 4. SOWAMCO XXE Limited, First City Servicing Corp. and Stefan Strohmaier, 117 Union Street, seeking a variance of minimum lot size requirement to create a five unit apartment building or office space at the above location, an OA District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable 3.4, 4.3, 8.5. Mr. Barney excused himself to avoid a conflict of interest. Mr. Secor explained that they asked for a subdivision that was denied by the Planning Commission. They have revised the plan, to keep the purchased lot intact, and to get an easement. The total square footage meets density requirements. The easement gives off street parking as required by the Bylaw. The language is written to vacillate depending on the use of 210 South Street. The lot would always have a minimum to meet the use of the structure. The site development on the existing lot has no changes except to clean the site up and provide handicapped access. They plan to level the site, provide storm water discharge, and gravel the parking area with a walk access back to other lot. Mr. Alderman asked about the house, and Mr. Secor explained that Strohmaier would purchase the house with the easement for the parking. The house would be historically restored. The location of the parking might vacillate, the use cannot change. Mr. Alderman felt that the applicant would control the parcel. Mr. Secor explained that the size was dictated by minimum lot size. The intended use is to give dedicated parking for the use of Lot B to meet their minimum off-street parking requirements, currently eight spaces, perhaps up to ten. All Lot B has is an easement to utilize parking, and to have the approval authority of where the parking spaces would be located. Mr. Alderman understood that Planning Commission turned this down because they wanted to keep the parking available in case the building is sold. Mr. Secor felt that the Planning Commission was concerned that the whole lot was controlled. Mr. Secor explained that they control a minimum parking condition at 210 South Street. Mr. Alderman asked what the access from Union Street was. Mr. Alderman felt that they could not get the subdivision and are now asking for an easement. Mr. Secor felt that they could ask for eight spaces to be dedicated for this project. The intent is for this lot to receive the off street parking requirements. Mr. Monks explained that eight spaces are required for residential use, ten for office use. Handicapped parking could be accommodated on the original site. Mr. Alderman asked, and Mr. Secor acknowledged that without the easement they would not have adequate parking. This plan leaves green space behind the building for residents' use and space for the handicapped accessibility. Mr. Alderman read from the Bylaw. Mr. Secor explained that the parcel numbers came off of the original deed descriptions, eight different parcels. Mr. Secor felt that Mr. Strohmaier should have the ability to note the location of the eight spaces in the case of future development. Mr. Alderman felt that this was backing into a subdivision. Mr. Secor felt that the Planning Commission and Town concern was that 210 South Street could not be developed without adequate parking. Mr. Alderman felt that it would be nice to see the structure used, but felt that this was going against the reasons that the subdivision was denied by the Planning Commission. Bob Brauer, owner of the property, addressed the Board. He explained that there are two buildings, one large factory building, boarded up and vacant, the other a five-unit apartment building. Mr. Brauer explained that the house is an historic structure, expensive to redo and keep historic in nature. It would not be cost effective as a single-family residence. This is a way to restore the house in an economically viable manner. The Planning Commission denied permission to cut parking off. The lot they are proposing was a house lot at one time. Feels that it is in the best interest of the town to make this happen. He noted that 210 South Street has been for sale at $300,000. They have been actively marketing the property and had a nationwide auction that generated no interest. He feels that if by chance a use for that building needs that much parking, they can still do that, and dedicate a few spots. He would love to sell the second parcel of land to the town to build a parking garage, but the town has not offered to buy it. He feels that they should develop one house, dedicate parking, and see what the future brings. Mr. Alderman felt that they are here for a variance of the minimum lot size. They do not meet the requirement without the other parcel. Mr. Secor explained that they need the easement to meet the parking requirement. Mr. Alderman would like to have the draft reviewed by the town attorney. Mr. Monks felt that Mr. Secor's explanation is accurate. It is a flexible easement. They will always have an easement for a number of spaces, but not a fixed location, just a fixed number. The applicant is allowed to chose eight to ten spaces of the new parking facility. Mr. Monks explained that the easement is proposed. Mr. Secor explained that the Planning Commission rejected the subdivision, but did not reject the idea of giving parking to that lot, without restricting large parking for 210 South Street. Mr. Monks explained that the future development of 210 South Street was their concern. Mr. Secor explained that he could put twenty spaces on that piece of land, but only needs eight. Mr. Alderman asked, and Mr. Secor explained that the easement gives the applicant the use of up to ten parking spaces, and does not limit a future buyer from using the rest of it. Ms. Wisher asked if she purchased 210 South Street, she would know that she has to give the other lot up to ten dedicated parking spaces. Ms. Perrott noted that the potential buyer would have to adhere to the requirements of the easement. Mr. Secor reviewed the conditions of the easement in detail. Mr. Goodhue felt that this is the best plan that has been presented. Mr. Goodhue noted that they have approved projects to use town parking in the past. Mr. Secor noted that 30 to 50% of the parking for CB Vaughn's use of the building was on the municipal lot. Ms. Perrott asked if there was any other way to meet the density requirement, and Mr. Secor noted that the subdivision was denied. Mr. Secor felt that the town of Bennington generated the hardship. Mr. Secor noted that there appears to be two units on the first and second floors, and one on the third floor. Ms. Wisher agreed, and would rather see the building useful. Mr. Owens agreed that the building should be fixed up, but was still opposed to the language of the easement. Mr. Secor asked if they should say that the spaces should be within 100 feet of the property line, and Mr. Owens agreed that would be better. Mr. Strohmaier had no objection to the parking requirement being within 100 feet of the property line. If this parking requirement would change, then existing ten must be within 110 feet. Mr. Strohmaier explained that his tenants would not want to use spots that the 210 South Street tenants would want. Mr. Strohmaier explained that as long as they can keep it this way right now. Mr. Secor explained 130 feet would include the curb cut. Mr. Goodhue moved to grant the lot size variance as requested. Mr. Redding seconded. The five facts were read and voted on: 1. Four in favor. Alderman, Owens and Perrott were opposed. 2. Three in favor. Three opposed. Alderman and Redding abstained 3. Five in favor. Owens and Alderman opposed 4. Four in favor. Alderman and Owens opposed. Redding abstained. 5. Three in favor. Four opposed. Mr. Strohmaier asked if there was anything that either the seller or the buyer could do to make the matter more acceptable to the Board. He explained that he is just getting the right to park some cars on the property. Mr. Brauer explained that they are trying to accommodate the wishes of the Planning Commission. The town does not own this property, he does, and he has no plans to build a parking garage there. Mr. Brauer explained that they own the property because they bought a portfolio of loans from Evergreen Bank, and they were forced to purchase this along with what they wanted. The first thing he received was a demolition notice. Parking question is not an issue. The parking that the house requires is the least useful. Mr. Brauer does not feel that 210 South Street will become a major manufacturing plant. Mr. Strohmaier noted that they tried to work out an agreement with the town before the Planning Commission hearing. He feels that setting up an agreement with a municipality takes forever. Ms. Perrott felt that the seller of the property is not concerned with the easement hampering the chance for future sale. Mr. Alderman explained that the town is encouraging small type stores with leased areas. Lot B by state statute can be subdivided and sold and utilized for residential use. Mr. Brauer felt that the municipal parking lot was also available, and Mr. Alderman felt that lot was already fully utilized. Lot B can be developed with or without this plan, as a separate parcel. Mr. Strohmaier explained that the building requires this not to be a one-unit home, but five units blends with the rest of Union Street. The expense of renovation requires that tenants pay expenses. May be developed for the purposes permitted in the district. Mr. Monks explained that this was a not separate owner. Mr. Alderman explained that there were abstentions on the vote, and those individuals might need more information. Ms. Perrott felt that they are short 3288 square feet, but they have enough for a three-unit. Mr. Strohmaier did not feel that they could make money that way, three units would not pay the mortgage. Mr. Redding moved to reconsider the original motion. Ms. Perrott seconded. The motion to reconsider was defeated. 6. Bennington Housing Authority, Julie McCauley, Willowbrook, 10 Willowbrook Road, seeking conditional use approval for 24 student day care facility at the Willowbrook Housing Development's Community Building located in an MR District. Sections of the Bylaw applicable are 3.4, 4.3, 8.5. Mr. Owens moved to grant the continuance as requested. Mr. Alderman seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business ¨ Findings of fact and minutes were passed around and signed. ¨ Mr. Monks read the warning for July 12, 2000. ¨ Mr. Monks noted that Carrigan Lane is a private roadway not maintained by the town. As there was no further business to come before the Board, Ms. Perrott moved to adjourn. Mr. Congdon seconded, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:43 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robyn C. Baker Dated this 6th day of July 2000. _______________________ ____________________ _______________________ ____________________ _______________________ ____________________ _______________________ ____________________ _______________________