Town of
Zoning Board of Regulations
Peter
Remy, Chairman
An
audio recording of this hearing is on a CD and available at
Minutes of
Present: Peter Remy,
Russ Huntley, Brian Merry, Barry Shonbeck
The Board met to
consider the petition of Curtis Mead for a Variance of Article V, Section 501A
Table 502 #26 of the
Westmoreland Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Mead would like to finish off the
upstairs of the existing
building at
the Commercial zone and
residences require a lot of five acres. He also requests a Special
Exception
for a change of use.
Chairman Remy opened
the meeting at
complement of Board members was
not present Mr. Mead could defer the hearing. Mr. Mead
chose to continue.
Mr. Remy noted that,
to the best of his knowledge, all of the abutters had been properly notified.
He invited Mr. Mead to
lay out the reasons for his request and to address the Zoning Ordinance
criteria for approval of
granting Variances.
Mr. Mead distributed a
packet to each board member of previous Variances which had been
granted in somewhat similar
situations. The Board members studied the pages and the Lot Map
to be sure of the
location of Mr. Mead’s lot and the lots surrounding it. Considerable time was
spent locating the
properties which were included in Mr. Mead’s packet of examples. Chairman
Remy asked Mr. Mead if
he knew of the compelling evidence for granting the Variances he was
using as examples. Mr. Mead
replied that he did not know what constituted ‘compelling
evidence’.
Mr. Merry started the
discussion by asking whether the Variance was about size, use, or both.
Mr. Remy said that it
was about size and that if the Variance was granted, the issue of use
would be addressed under
the Special Exception. He asked Mr. Mead to go through the criteria
and how explain how they
apply to his request.
Mr. Mead said his
request would not diminish the surrounding property values because there
would be no change to the
exterior of his building. It would be in the public interest because the
property would generate more
taxes for the town. There would be no risk to the health or
welfare of the neighbors.
In regard to hardship,
he said that should the Variance not be granted, he would likely have to
build a separate structure.
Also it would give him justice since the abutters had been allowed to
do the same thing which
he was requesting. His plan would not alter the character of the area or
the spirit of the
ordinance.
Mr. Shonbeck inquired whether Mr. Mead was applying for a Home
Business and Mr. Remy
detailed the requirements for
that designation. It would have to be in an allowed zone; carried
on by the resident of
the premises and no more than two employees; no outside equipment; and
no more than two extra
cars parked there; no excessive noise or odors, and secondary to the
primary use as a home. Mr.
Mead said that these restrictions were compatible with his plan and
wondered if it was important
what it be called. Mr. Shonbeck said it was a way to
have a
residence in a Commercial Zone
as long as the restrictions were met. He discussed the
repercussions for the future should
the business aspect need to expand.
Mr. Merry asked if Mr.
Mead would have trouble with any of the restrictions and Mr. Mead said
no.
Mr. Merry asked about
exterior work and Mr. Mead replied that nothing happened outside
except for cutting the
grass. There would normally not be customers coming to the business as
he meets with them in
their own homes and no retail sales are involved.
Mr. Remy stated that
the crux of the matter was the lot size. Mr. Mead asked if it mattered
when the lot had been
subdivided, which was 1986.
Mr. Remy said that the
Zoning Ordinance had been adopted in 2002 and that decisions of the
Zoning board are based on the current ordinance and not the past. The
Board agreed that the
two acres lots present a
problem because many of the people who purchase them do want to have
a multiuse and require
variances.
At that point the
public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board began their
deliberations.
The board agreed that
they would prefer to encourage the commercial use of land in the
Commercial Zone
because the businesses pay taxes and do not require as many services.
Mr. Remy outlined the
criteria for granting a Variance.
__Would not diminish
the value of the surrounding property. All agreed.
__Would denial result
in unnecessary hardship? Mr. Huntley said that the structure was
already there. Mr. Merry said
that Mr. Mead did not have a choice to buy more land; that the
lots were already
subdivided. Mr. Shonbeck said he was struggling with
the fact that so many
want the same thing. Mr.
Merry said it was not an ideal use but Mr. Mead does not have an
alternative. There is no more
land to bring him up to the five acres. All agreed.
__Granting the
petition would do justice because abutters have been allowed to do the same,
All
agreed. Mr. Merry noted that
the whole area is well kept.
__The use is not
contrary because it does not alter the character of the area because housing is
allowed in the Zone. All
agreed.
Mr. Merry moved to
grant the Variance. Mr. Remy asked about any stipulations and Mr.
Shonbeck clarified that it
would be a Home Business with certain stipulations that a commercial
property would not have. A
straight commercial property would be able to use up to 75 percent
of the land for business
purposes, whereas a Home Business would not. Mr. Remy said that the
Variance only
addressed the land and not the use. It is a two acre lot in a commercial zone
for
which they would be waiving
the lot size required for a residence. .Mr. Merry stated that in case
of future expansion of
his business Mr. Mead could come back to the town and ask to return to a
commercial designation if the
residence was no longer required.
Mr. Huntley seconded
the motion to grant the Variance. All voted in favor.
The Variance was
granted to Mr. Mead.
At that point the
Public Hearing was re-opened to consider Mr. Mead’s request for a Special
Exception
for a change of use for his property. This request was a continuation of the
hearing of
The criteria for a
Special Exception were reviewed:
__An
appropriate location? All agreed.
--Would not reduce the
value of surrounding properties? All agreed.
__Would not be or
cause a nuisance or hazard to vehicles or pedestrians? All agreed.
__Adequate
facilities for the new use? All agreed.
__The recommendations
of the Planning Board were taken into consideration? All agreed.
Mr. Shonbeck moved to approve the Special Exception and Mr.
Merry seconded. Mr. Shonbeck
said there need be no new
further stipulations as long as Mr. Mead adhered to those stated in
the ordinance for Home
Businesses.
All voted in favor of
granting the Special Exception.
A Special Exception
was granted to Mr. Mead.
Before the meeting
finished Mr. Remy passed out brochures for a training workshop on zoning
issues and offered to drive
anyone who wanted to attend with him. He hoped that the town
would reimburse them for
the workshop fees. The other present members hoped to attend.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacqueline Cleary
Zoning Board Clerk
These are the
unapproved minutes of the hearing of