BARRETOWN
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2006
The Chairperson, Paul Malone, called the BarreTown Board of Adjustment special public hearing held at the MunicipalOfficeBuilding on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 to order at 7:07 p.m. The Zoning Administrator and interested parties were sworn in.
Board Members Present:
Paul Malone, Chair Mark Reaves
Mike Gallo Dick Jensen
Paul Badger – via teleconference
Board Members Absent:
None
Staff Members Present:
Chris Violette, Zoning Administrator
Others Present:
Bill Provencher Philip Provencher
Gilles Moreau Mike Lajeunesse
Janet MacAuley Vicki Moreau
Joseph Rivard
Board Secretary:
A. WARNED HEARINGS:
STAFF REPORT
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Request by Gilles Moreau of Moreau & Moreau for a 5’ variance of right-of-way setback (allowing construction of a structure 15’ from South Barre Road) on property located at 370 South Barre Road; Parcel ID 031/029.00; Zoned: Commercial. (V-06000001)
Applicant: Gilles Moreau
Date: February 17, 2006
This request is for a variance of right-of-way setback for the purpose of placing a structure within 15’ of South Barre Road (Rt. 14). I’m sure the board is familiar with Mr. Moreau’s construction project in South Barre mainly because he has been before you a few different times. This time he is before you due to the fact he has built a structure as part of that project and part of it is too close to the road.
The main pump area were four pump islands will be available to customers has a 24’x92’ canopy over the top of them. This canopy has already been constructed. While a permit was obtained for construction of the building, a permit was not obtained for large canopy or for the relocation of the existing canopy. Upon realization that the canopies were installed I informed Mr. Moreau that he was supposed to get a permit before erecting and/or moving the canopies. Once notified Mr. Moreau did submitted permit applications.
While reviewing the permit applications I decided to field verify the setback for the large main canopy. Usually, I am not afforded this opportunity in this manner because the structures haven’t already been built. I consulted with the State of Vermont (Rt. 14 is a state right-of-way) to determine the edge of the right-of-way. The state and Mr. Moreau’s surveyor later confirmed the edge of the right-of-way and setback. The plans submitted with the building permit (which are the same plans that you’ve already seen before) indicated the property lines and even provided a building envelope (an area around the property lines set in from the lines the distances necessary based on setback requirement). The canopy is shown to be within the building envelope.
While the plans show the canopy within the envelope, something must have gone wrong at some point in the layout and construction of the canopy. What I discovered when I verified the setback is that the end of the canopy closest to the intersection of Bridge, South Barre Rd., and Sterling Hill is 4 or 5 feet too close to the edge of the right-of-way. A 20’ setback is required in a commercial zone. While a majority of the structure is acceptable, a portion of it is only setback about 15’, which is not acceptable with, regard to zoning and as a result I am not able to issue a building permit.
The question at this point is what we do now. Mr. Moreau has a couple of options. He can remove part of the structure to bring it into compliance or he can seek a variance. Obviously, his first choice is the variance. This puts the town in an unfortunate position. While a business owner is making a substantial investment to better his business, the rules need to still apply. It is my opinion that you should review this variance request as if the structure isn’t there. If upon review and acceptable affirmative answers to the five criteria questions you think a variance is justified then issue it. If not, other options will have to be explored.
I do not get the impression the Mr. Moreau has done this on purpose, I think the intent was to follow the plans but it does puzzle me that the structure is clearly angled (not parallel to the road). You can see that just by driving by. In fact, the angle might be better from a visibility aspect to see the Exxon sign (of which permits still need to be obtained) but I don’t necessarily believe that was the intent.
DISCUSSION:
Gilles Moreau – I hired what I considered the best surveyor, an excellent engineer, a good contractor, the best installer that there was and I think that everybody’s intention was to do the correct thing; I think somewhere in there, they weren’t sure what line to measure from. I am here because I have a problem and I need variance. There is nothing I can do about it now, I have too much money invested and I need the variance. This isn’t how we planned this thing, we planned so the overhang would be on my property, straight up and down. The situation now remains that my overhang is out there too far. The upside to that is that my overhang is up there so high that it isn’t going to effect the site. It isn’t going to affect the view coming out to the road; it isn’t going to block anyone; it isn’t going to get in the right-of-way; it is still going to be on my property by 12’-15’. Going back to your five questions, the first question is - Are there unique physical circumstances at this point, yes. As we said, when we first started out this lot is too narrow at this end for this but I had changed my plans to accommodate Mr. Garneau. Are there physical circumstances or conditions that prevent conformity to zoning regulations; and, a variance is necessary to enable “reasonable use” of the property, at this point yes. I can’t conform because I have an overhang that sticks out 4’. I can’t conform without cutting this off or lifting this whole thing up and moving it back. It is on my own property and not hurting anybody. The variance isn’t to a neighbor, it is to the State who isn’t here complaining about it. Is it true that no unnecessary hardship was created by the applicant? I didn’t create the problem, I didn’t intentionally do this. The people that I hired, all in conjunction somehow these people created this problem, which has created for me. Is it true that variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, yes it isn’t going to alter the neighborhood; it is off by 4’. The canopy is going to be there regardless of the 4’. Substantially or permanently, impair appropriate use or development of adjacent property, no. Reduce access to renewable energy sources, we are going to improve the power. Be detrimental to the public welfare, this doesn’t effect the welfare of the public. Is it true that the variance represents a minimum deviation from regulation and plan to provide relief, yes. This is the minimum thing I can do to get this situation resolved.
Doug Farnham – While I agree with the conversation that this is an unfortunate situation to happen it has happened. This is something that is unique and hopefully won’t happen again, but the Town needs to look at it as if it would happen again. I look at it a couple of ways; one is that it happened by mistake. I’ll just throw this out because someone will do this again and a precedence will be set depending on what you people do, I thought a long time about this you have a problem, my issue is that you give the variance and attach a fine. Paul Malone - do we have a fine system? Mr. Farnham – it is something to think about because this didn’t happen on purpose. Mr. Malone – we review each application on a case by case basis.
Paul Badger – We drove by there a couple of weeks ago, it is definitely a formidable structure. Mr. Moreau makes a good point, no matter where he puts it, it is going to be there. I would like to discuss this in deliberative session.
Motion by Paul Badger to close this hearing and discuss during deliberative session, seconded by Mark Reaves. All in favor.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Reaves, seconded by Mr. Gallo, the Board voted to approve the variance request by Gilles Moreau with the understanding that this is an aerial variance, for an overhang of a canopy, not for a ground structure; meeting the Five Criteria; on property located at 370 South Barre Road; Tax Map 031, lot 029.00; Zoned: Commercial. (V-06000001)
CONDITIONS Yes___ No___
MOTION BY: REAVES
SECOND BY: GALLO
ROLL CALL:
Paul Malone YES Mark Reaves YES
Dick Jensen YES Mike Gallo YES
Paul Badger YES
STAFF REPORT
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CHRIS VIOLETTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Request by Philip Provencher for a conditional use permit to add 2 units to an already existing 3 unit multi-family dwelling on property located at 120 Richardson Road; Tax Map 008, lot 009.00; Zoned: RES C. (CUP-06000001)
Applicant: Philip Provencher
Date: February 9, 2006
Mr. Provencher is before the Zoning Board this month to essentially correct the record with regard to the fact he has a multi-family dwelling and may or may not have the proper permits. In any case, he clearly has one more unit than what zoning allows. The subject parcel is located in a residential C zone.
Article V, Section 4.2 states that multi-family dwellings in residential C zones are only allowed after issuance of a conditional use permit. Mr. Provencher apparently has an existing home that has five apartments (living units) in it. The house has existed in some form as a multi for quite some time but there seems to be some confusion over whether it has been a three unit or a four-unit apartment house. While the town is only assessing sewer charges for three units, tax records seem to indicate the existence of four units going back into the 70’s.
I think there is enough evidence to say this structure has existed as a four-unit multi-family dwelling long enough to not need review as a conditional use for units one through four. However, only three sewer units are being assessed and that should be adjusted. Mr. Provencher needs to take out another sewer permit to obtain allocation for the fourth living unit. Permit fee is $1,500.
Turning to the fifth living unit, that is a different story. There is no record of a fifth unit in that structure even as recent as the 2004 re-appraisal. The fifth unit only surfaced recently in conversations with the assessor. So, if Mr. Provencher wants a fifth unit, conditional use review is necessary. However, I need to point out that article V, section 4.2 h. under conditional use permits allows multi-family dwellings in the Res C. zones but only allows up to four living units. Mr. Provencher is one unit over the maximum allowed.
The parcel is 117 acres in size so minimum square footage of the lot is certainly not an issue. Access to the home is by way of Richardson Road and appears to be satisfactory. Water is municipal as well so that should not be an issue. The only issue, and it is significant is the fifth living unit.
The following are the criteria used when considering a conditional use permit.
The general standards include assurance that the proposed use will not adversely affect:
Specific standards include the following:
My recommendation based on zoning requirements is to not allow the fifth living unit. If it is there already, it needs to be removed. If however, the fifth unit is allowed to remain, then at a minimum Mr. Provencher needs to obtain a sewer unit for that apartment. This would mean two additional sewer units at $1,500 each would have to be obtained.
DISCUSSION:
Janet MacAuley – I have some insurance documents that show five apartments. (Ms. MacAuley submitted paperwork to the Board)
Board members stated that they believe there is enough documentation to prove that five units have existed since 1966.
Chris Violette – Additional sewer units will need to be paid for. They will have to go to the Selectboard and make the same plea to avoid paying the $1500 per unit.
MOTION & RECOMMENDATION:
On a motion by Mr. Jensen, seconded by Mr. Badger the Board voted to deny the request without prejudice by Philip Provencher for a conditional use permit to add 2 units to an already existing 3 unit multi-family dwelling on property located at 120 Richardson Road; Tax Map 008, lot 009.00; Zoned: RES C. (CUP-06000001)
CONDITIONS Yes___ No___
MOTION BY: JENSEN
SECOND BY: BADGER
ROLL CALL:
Paul Malone YES Mark Reaves YES
Dick Jensen YES Mike Gallo YES
Paul Badger YES
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
C. CORESPONDENCE & MISCELLANEOUS:
D. DELIBERATIVE SESSION:
On a motion by Mr. Reaves, seconded by Mr. Badger, the Board voted to move into deliberative session at 7:37 p.m.
On a motion by Mr. Reaves, seconded by Mr. Jensen, the Board voted to return to public forum at 8:05 p.m.
E. ROUND TABLE:
F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
G. ADJOURN:
On a motion by Mr. Jensen, seconded by Mr. Gallo, the Board voted to adjourn the Board of Adjustment meeting of February 22, 2006