EXETER ZONING BOARD
OF REVIEW
MINUTES OF
June 12, 2008
A REGULAR MEETING of the Exeter Zoning Board of Review was held on Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers of the Exeter Town Hall, 675 Ten Rod Road, Exeter, RI. Members present: Renate Aker, Chairwoman; Kathleen Ward-Bowen, Vice-Chairperson; Larry DeSack; Paul McAdam; Member Absent: Michael Picillo; Alternates Present: Richard Booth; Alternate Absent: Marc Simonini; Others Present: Per Vaage, Solicitor; Susan La Perriere, Clerk; Ron Ronzio, Stenographer.
MOTION: A motion was made by Richard Booth with a second by Kathleen Ward-Bowen to open the public hearing.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
Mr. Vaage stated that he had spoken to the attorney representing Mr. Hawker and that he would be asking for a continuance.
Attorney Robert LaMountain stated that he was the attorney representing Mr. Hawker. He said it has come to his attention that there is an objector as far as an abutter on this project and therefore he would like to request a continuance in order to resolve any outstanding differences. He would not be available for the July meeting and therefore was requesting a continuance to the August 14, 2008 meeting.
The petition of Harry Hawker, applicant and owner, of property located on West Shore Drive, Exeter, RI and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 84, Block 9, Lot 19. A request for dimensional variance from the Exeter Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Section 2.4.2 (1)(2)(4)(6)(7) to construct a 25` x 43`, 3 bedroom home in an RE-2 zone.
MOTION: A motion was made by Larry DeSack with a second by Paul McAdam to continue the application to August 14, 2008.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
The petition of Sean M & Paula M. Ford and Karen D’Olivo & Nancy J. Mowry, applicants and owners of property located at 116 and 130 Mill Pond Road, Exeter, RI and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 78, Block 5, Lots 5 & 6. A request for dimensional variance from the Exeter Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Section 2.4.2 (1) to transfer approximately .63+ acres from Lot 5 to Lot 6 as part of a court settlement involving all property owners abutting Yawgoo Mill Pond in an RU-4 zone.
Attorney Turner Scott representing the applicants was present and provided maps to the board. He stated that these two pieces of property abut each other as well as Dorset Mill Pond and both parcels have property under the water. Both parties also own part of the existing dam there. Ms. D’Olivo and Ms. Mowry wish to deed the underwater portions of their property and the dam to the adjoining property of the Ford’s and the Ford’s have agreed to accept that. He stated that this would end the law suit with all the abutters of this pond which takes care of the maintenance of the pond and relieves Ms. D’Olivo and Ms. Mowry of the responsibility for taking care of the dam and Mr. Ford then accepts that responsibility with Dorset Mill Partnership which is the other abutting property owner of the dam. Mr. Scott stated he had talked to the zoning officer and was told he did not need to go to the zoning board but the planner stated that they needed to go to the zoning board to reduce the square footage by the area underneath the water even though it’s not useable and because it can’t be built upon. Mr. Scott stated that they are asking to be able to take the area under the water, which is the striped area on the map, and transfer it to the Ford’s, the Ford’s will accept that and then all parties will sign a consent agreement and the judge will be satisfied, the case will be closed and they will record the subdivision plan.
Mr. Vaage stated that this is because of the subdivision regulations and the fact that the planning board sent this to the zoning board to approve a dimensional variance for making lots less in conforming with the zoning ordinance. The issue is though since the portion of the lot that is being subdivided out is under water and does not actually fit the definition of lot area so there is not technically a reduction in lot area and therefore the question is whether or not this application should even be before the board.
The board discussed how is it that the zoning board can grant a variance for land that’s underwater. Mr. DeSack stated that he thought all properties on water worked to the high water mark and that was it. Mr. Scott said that was true for a coastal situation but in this case you can own land underwater in an inland pond. Mr. Scott said that this lot J was already an undersized lot and they are just making it more of an undersized lot and also increasing the sq. footage in lot I to 2.77 acres still below the RU-4 district and making it more conforming.
Ms. Aker in order to clarify read the following from the application: lot 5 will be reduced from 2.23 acres to 1.6 acres and lot 6 to be increased from 2.14 acres to 2.77 acres. The planning board approved this subdivision subject to the applicant getting a variance from the zoning board for the reduction of the square footage.
Mr. Vaage stated that the board could grant this variance on the grounds that there is really no lot area as defined in the ordinance and the general laws and the subdivision of merged lots provision of the nonconforming area provisions of the ordinance. There is no change in the lot area.
The question was asked what if any are the tax implications of this transfer. Mr. Scott stated that as soon as this is recorded there will be appropriate follow up with the tax officials.
MOTION: A motion was made by Larry DeSack with a second by Kathleen Ward-Bowen to close the public hearing.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
MOTION: A motion was made by Larry DeSack with a second by Kathleen Ward-Bowen to grant the applicants the transfer of .63 acres to parcel I from parcel J as recommended by the planning board.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
The petition of Gerald P. Zarrella, Trustee of the Gerald P. Zarrella Trust applicant and owner of property located on Narrow Lane, Exeter, RI and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 13, Block 3, Lot 21. A request for dimensional variance from the Exeter Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Section 2.4.2 (2) and Article I, Section IV C.5.a and C.5.c in order to convey a 19.6575 acre parcel to an abutting owner in order to reduce the size of the existing parcel & develop a rural residential compound in an RU-4 zone.
Attorney John DiBona representing the applicant was present and stated that there has been a rural residential compound pending before the planning board for several years. In 2005 the applicant was granted master plan approval for a 5 lot rural residential compound. Mr. Zarrella had been building on one of the lots that had already been approved. Since then he was approached by an abutting owner who was interested in purchasing 19.6575 acres of the property. The applicant went before the planning board in March and at that time the 2005 master plan approval was reinstated because it had expired after having been renewed on several occasions. Mr. DiBona stated that he has been in contact with Peter Ruggiero, the planning board attorney, to determine how they were going to take part of that property away from the rural residential compound and convey it. The planning board was in favor of the proposal because they were going from 5 lots to 3. The applicant was going to convey 19 acres to an abutting owner and they wouldn’t be building on it and just add it to his property with a restriction from the Zarrella’s that he wouldn’t build on it during their lifetime. Mr. Scott stated that there was one problem and referred to Section 1.4.c.5a & c of the zoning ordinance which states: no lot, which has been reduced in size or acreage after the adoption of this ordinance, shall be developed as a rural residential compound. No lot or parcel that has been developed as a residential compound shall be further subdivided or reduced in size. Mr. DiBona stated that they need dimensional relief, even though it’s not a true dimensional relief from the zoning board for this provision of the ordinance. He stated they also need relief from the requirement of the frontage for a rural residential compound and they have 42.5 feet. In 2003 the zoning board granted relief from 50 feet to 42.5 feet. In 2004 when Mr. Zarrella decided he wanted to proceed with the construction of one house the relief that was required was from the 300 foot requirement. In April of 2004 this board granted relief of 237 sq. feet to reduce it from the 300 feet to the 42.5 feet. In discussions with Mr. Ruggiero since then the question arose as to whether they need to change the relief back from 50 feet to 42.5 because now they are going to develop it as the 3 or 5 lot rural residential compound. He stated that out of an abundance of caution this was included in the application but he wasn’t sure if it’s really needed. He stated they got some relief but it’s not the same relief they were here for in 2004 it’s actually less relief now.
Mr. Vaage stated that he had spoken to Mr. DiBona a few times over the course of the past few weeks and took a look at the ordinance, some case law, and regulations that deal with this issue. With regard to the frontage, this entire 1.4 regulation is geared toward the planning board and the authorities tend to support the idea the reason a provision like this is in a zoning ordinance is to spell out how the rest of the ordinance doesn’t apply to these types of developments. There will still be provisions for use. In the zoning ordinance section c1 of 1.4, also cross referenced by section 2.4.3, the planning board is authorized to reduce the lot frontage and lot width of newly created lots in a subdivision or land development project on any public or approved private street to a minimum of 20 feet. This indicated that the planning board has authority to alter regulations with respect to frontage. Mr. Vaage stated that the board may want to make a finding as to the relief that was granted in 2003. Mr. Vaage stated that he has noticed the absence throughout this provision of the ordinance to any reference to the zoning board’s authority. There is case law that says a zoning board may have some authority over subdivision regulations but only if it’s spelled out in the Exeter zoning ordinance and it is not in our ordinance.
Ms. Aker suggested that the applicant be sent back to the planning board. Mr. DiBona stated that the planning board will not grant the relief that way and have asked that the applicant go to the zoning board.
Ms. Aker stated she had visited the property and there is a barn there that also has living quarters upstairs. Mr. DiBona stated that this was temporary while there is a house being built on the property. He said once the house was built there will only be one residence there. There will be 2 more houses built for a total of 3 to be built there. Ms. Aker stated she would have appreciated some identification of the location such as the pole #270 on the application.
The discussion between the board and Mr. DiBona was as to who has jurisdiction or authority to give this relief. Mr. Vaage referenced the zoning ordinance section 1.4.5 sec. 8 which defines the approval process. He read: The planning board shall review residential compounds as land development projects, as provided in section 5.2 of the land development and subdivision regulations. Rural residential compounds are to be allowed by the planning board only when a subdivider can demonstrate to the board that such development would be a better use of the land and is in the best interest of the residents of the town. Mr. DiBona stated that this provision was in the zoning ordinance and therefore it was the approval of the zoning board that they are seeking. There was a question as to what provision of the ordinance then is the applicant seeking relief. Is it dimensional or only a matter of procedural relief. Ms. Aker suggested the application be remanded back to planning. It was suggested that possibly the planning board wants an affirmation that they can proceed with this. Mr. DiBona stated that the planning board wants the zoning board to say that notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance they can proceed. Mr. Vaage suggested it could be remanded back to planning as long as their proceedings are consistent with land development and subdivision regulations which control this section of the ordinance.
Mr. Vaage stated that the board could grant the applicant permission to go forward w/the rural residential compound not withstanding the subsection c provision of the ordinance.
Mr. DiBona stated they have permission right now to build 5 houses on 51 acres. Concern was raised regarding the possibility that once the property is conveyed to the Lynch’s in the future they could potentially build 5 more houses on that 19 acre parcel. Mr. DiBona stated that that would be something that would have to be addressed in the future on another occasion by the planning board.
Mr. Vaage stated that the interpretation of the zoning ordinance is for the zoning board not the planning board and that the board’s decision should be consistent with their interpretation of the zoning ordinance. Mr. DiBona stated that his client would not be able to go forward with this rural residential compound unless he gets a decision from this board.
Diane Lynch was duly sworn in and stated that she and her husband are the parties interested in purchasing this 19 acres of land and that it abuts their property. She stated that they would like to preserve it so that they don’t have to look at any other houses. They had it surveyed and there are wetlands, but there are also some lots that could be developed. She stated they have 28 acres and would like to preserve the rural nature of the property. The property doesn’t have any frontage and they would do whatever was necessary in order to waive the development rights. She stated they are raising their family there and there is no other purpose behind their desire to purchase the property.
The board stated that although they appreciate what the Lynch’s want to do, they feel this is a procedural issue.
Mr. Vaage suggested that the board could possibly grant a conditional approval. It was suggested that the application be sent back to planning with a recommendation. It was suggested that the board consider granting the road frontage relief and the other matter be remanded back to planning. Mr. DiBona stated that he is not in agreement with the interpretation of the ordinance because they are looking for relief from something that is in the zoning ordinance. He stated that he is under the impression that this board is in the position to grant relief from something that is in their ordinance. The planning board is saying that they don’t have authority to grant this relief without getting zoning board relief. Mr. DiBona and the board could not agree on who has the authority to grant this relief. Mr. DiBona stated that he thought if the zoning board would grant conditional approval, the planning board would proceed.
The board asked Mr. Vaage for a recommendation. Mr. Vaage explained that that provision of the zoning ordinance speaks only to the planning board and reserves nothing to the zoning board and appears to be there strictly for the purpose of highlighting the difference between that kind of development and any other type of dimensional regulation for any other type of use. Mr. Vaage stated that he thought it would fine if the board decided to grant some kind of conditional form of relief reserving the question of whether or not the board actually has the jurisdiction to do it. The board was not comfortable with being asked to grant relief for something they view as procedural. It was recommended that the application be continued in conjunction with contacting Mr. Ruggiero, the planning board solicitor.
Gerald Zarrella was sworn in and stated the Lynch’s are great neighbors and take care of their property. He stated that the Lynch’s approached him because they did not want him to build two houses there. The applicant stated that he is a builder and the Lynch’s wanted to maintain their privacy. Mr. Zarrella stated that there could not be 5 houses built there because it is all wetlands. He stated that he stopped all his wetlands approvals because he knew he was coming to the zoning board to ask for relief. He stated he has no intentions of building anymore than one house for himself there. He stated he is a good member of this community and would appreciate the board granting the relief he is requesting.
MOTION: A motion was made by Larry DeSack with a second by Paul McAdam to close the public hearing.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
Board discussion: The board is sympathetic to the applicant because he is in front of the board at the instruction of the planning board, and if he does not receive his relief from this board and is sent back to planning they may not agree to grant his relief. They realize that he is in a situation that may find him being sent back and forth between planning and zoning based on this board’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance. It was stated that the suggestion that the relief be given but final approval should come from the planning board was a good solution. The concern was raised again that although Mr. Zarrella and the Lynch’s have stated that there will be no other building there, theoretically sometime down the road there could be more lots developed there. Mr. Booth stated that the Lynch’s did offer to relinquish any development rights and he suggested that that might be something this board could recommend to the planning board to consider. Ms. Aker stated that the applicant had stated that this was a very different area in that it involves property located in Exeter, North Kingstown and East Greenwich and that the Lynch’s property is in East Greenwich.
MOTION: A motion was made by Kathleen Ward-Bowen with a second by Larry DeSack to grant the applicant a dimensional variance from the Exeter zoning ordinance, Article II, Section 2.4.2 and Article I, Section 4 c; 5 a, c; 5 c, in order to convey a 19.6575 acre parcel to the abutting owners conditional on the approval of the planning board.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
Ms. Aker apologized to the remaining applicants, because when the order of the agenda was changed in order to hear the previous applicant she didn’t expect the applicants hearing to be so time-consuming and she wanted to express that it wasn’t the board’s intention to inconvenience everyone else.
The petition of Gail Burchard and Cindy West, applicants and Gail Burchard, owner of property located at 36 Plantation Drive, Exeter, RI and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 82, Block 2, Lot 5. A request for dimensional variance from the Exeter Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Section 4.3.2.C to construct a 28` x 28’ addition to include a mudroom, 2-car garage with in-law apartment above, replace existing deck and a deck around the addition in an RE-2 zone.
Gail Burchard and Cindy West were present and sworn in. Ms. Burchard stated that she has heard the concerns of the neighbors regarding the proposed addition, with garage and in-law apartment upstairs. The applicant stated that although she has not been contacted by any of her neighbors she would like to take a few minutes to state who she is and why she is here. Ms. Burchard stated that she resides in Gloucester, MA at 518 Washington Street where she has owned her home there for 38 yrs. She is divorced, single and earns her income by part time nursing and legally renting rooms at a studio apartment in her home on a seasonal basis. Ms. Burchard stated that she resides at this residence. She stated she has photos of the garage she put on her Gloucester residence and it is 12` x 40` or 480 sq. feet with an outside stair access. Ms. Burchard stated that in the past and in 1986 she built, owned and operated a guest house in Puerto Rico which was sold in 2002 and she owns no other property other than her current home in Gloucester, MA and the one on Plantation Drive. Ms. Burchard was reading from a statement she had prepared and continued to say that her reason for selling her property in Puerto Rico was to be closer to her children and grandchildren. She stated that her home in Gloucester needs more maintenance than the one on Plantation Drive and she will plan to sell her home in Gloucester and move permanently to Rhode Island. Ms. Burchard stated that her ex husband and friend lives in Florida and during the summers spends time closer to his grandchildren and when he visits he would like to reside in the proposed in-law apartment. Until now and for the last 2 years Ms. Burchard stated that she has been renting out 36 Plantation Drive, to two different families. The current renters lease expires in August and then they will continue to rent on a month to month basis until they find a home of their own. The applicant stated that the home on Plantation Drive was purchased in 2006. Ms. Burchard stated that she had her property surveyed and then her neighbor at 28 Plantation Drive and she ran into a conflict. Ms. Burchard stated that the developer of Shermantown Estates did not place the homes squarely on the lots but rather perpendicular to the design of the road. The applicant showed the board a site plan which shows the placement of the homes.
Exhibit 1 – site plan
Ms. Burchard continued reading from her prepared statement regarding the problem of not being able to contact her neighbors to discuss her proposal. Ms. Aker stated that this had nothing to do with the application.
The board stated that there were no dimensions on the site plan with respect to the new deck, and that the in-law apartment is limited to 600 sq. feet although the applicant is proposing to build a 784 sq. foot apartment. The site plan also did not show the side setback relief from the new addition to the border on the southerly side or the setback relief from the new deck to the back of the property. Ms. Aker also stated to Ms. Burchard that an in-law apartment means only relatives can stay at this property and she cannot rent out the property.
MOTION: A motion was made by Kathleen Ward-Bowen with a second by Larry DeSack to close the public hearing.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
Board discussion: the application is incomplete. There are no dimensions of the deck nor is there any setback from the new deck to the boundary. The board also asked for more information with respect to the in-law apartment regarding size, bathroom, kitchen, etc.
MOTION: A motion was made by Larry DeSack with a second by Kathleen Ward-Bowen to continue the application to August 14, 2008.
Ms. Burchard stated that she is not available for August 14.
AMENDED MOTION: A motion was made by Larry DeSack with a second by Kathleen Ward-Bowen to continue the application to September 11, 2008.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
Ms. Aker explained to Ms. Burchard again what it was that the board needed from her with regard to her application. There were no drawings with respect to the in-law apartment. There was no setback stated on the site plan from the new deck to the borderline and also the addition side setback relief and measurements for a shed that is there. Ms. Burchard was told to refer to the zoning ordinance for the specifications of an in-law apartment. Ms. Burchard was told that there were 3 letters received by the board from the neighbors regarding her application which will be read into the record at the September meeting. Ms. Burchard stated there would be no bed and breakfast although there was a rumor that there would be one.
The petition of Christine Therrien, applicant and Dennis & Christine Therrien, owners of property located at 42 West Shore Drive, Exeter, RI and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 83, Block 6, Lot 32. A request for dimensional variance from the Exeter Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Section 2.4.2 (1)(2)(6)(7) to replace 16` x 21` cottage with a 20` x 24` cottage and add 2nd story in an RE-2 zone.
Mr. Therrien was duly sworn in.
Mr. Booth stated that he would like to make a disclosure that he is a resident of Boone Lake and a consultant to the newly formed dam management district as well as a former member of the Boone Lake board of governors. He stated he does not know the applicant and to his knowledge has never met him. Mr. Booth stated he has no interest financially whether the application is approved or denied.
Mr. Therrien was asked by the board if he would accept Mr. Booth’s disclosure or if he would prefer the application be continued until August at such time when another board member would be present to hear the application because there is no quorum present if Mr. Booth does not hear the application. Mr. Therrien stated he did not object to Mr. Booth hearing the application.
Mr. DeSack stated that the site plan is incomplete as far as the dimensions required. It was suggested that the board tighten the requirements of who is preparing the documents for the applicants because so often the site plans are incomplete.
Point of order was made that it is inappropriate to be discussing application requirements at this time.
With reference to the site plan the board questioned who the abutter is because there is no lot # between 22 and 17. It was stated that the radius map came from the town assessor’s office. Mr. Booth stated that from his experience on the dam management district that the whole Boone lake neighborhood is a mish mash and there was not one standard followed in the establishment of that neighborhood. The board continued to discuss to try and resolve the unknown lot numbers. Mr. Therrien did not know who the lots belonged to. Mr. Vaage stated that the applicant under state law is only required to rely on the tax assessor’s records in determining who the abutters to the property are.
Mr. Therrien stated that the existing house is too small, has no foundation and is not structurally sound. They would like to put in a foundation with a home 20` x 24` with a second story and move it over. There is an ISDS upgrade proposed but approval has not been given by DEM. Mr. Therrien stated that the driveway is centered along the property and will remain that way. Mr. Therrien stated that the new deck is 5` x 20` and runs along the entire house and also 3 or 4 feet to the side. There are no dimensions for the existing deck on the site plan provided with the application.
The board discussed the possibility of hearing the application without the deck since it was not included in the application or possibly continuing the application.
Mr. Booth stated that on the CRC (certified revaluation company) property info website it stated there is a lot 20 owned by James and Robin Less. He identified the property as plat 83 block 5 lot 20 and stated it was a vacant lot. The board stated that Mr. Therrien needs to verify that lot 20 exists and that the owner is notified properly.
MOTION: A motion was made by Renate Aker with a second by Larry DeSack to close the public hearing.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
Ms. Aker stated that there is an abutter missing that should be notified and the applicant needs to provide the board with the dimension of the deck and the dimension from the deck to both side lines.
MOTION: A motion was made by Larry DeSack with a second by Kathleen Ward-Bowen to continue the application to August 14.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
The board explained to Mr. Therrien again what it was that is required by the next meeting.
The petition of Mark Bombard, applicant and owner of property located at 37 Pinecrest Drive, Exeter, RI and further designated as Assessor’s Plat 38, Block 3, Lot 81. A request for dimensional variance from the Exeter Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Section 2.4.2 (1)(2)(4)(6)(7) to install a 16` x 32` in ground pool in an RU-3 zone.
Mark Bombard was duly sworn in. Ms. Aker stated she had driven by the property and saw a barn, but on the site plan it says proposed barn. Mr. Bombard stated that he had received a variance for the barn that says proposed on the site plan. Ms. Aker referred to the zoning ordinance and states that a swimming pool shall conform to the appropriate side, front and rear yard requirements of the particular residence district in which it is located. Ms. Aker stated that the applicant was located in an RU-3 zone and does not meet the setback requirements. Ms. Aker also said it states in the zoning ordinance that the installation or construction of any swimming pool shall require a building permit, except those pools that do not require pumps. Ms. Aker told the applicant that his property exceeds the lot coverage for that zone. The zoning ordinance states that you cannot have more than 15% of your property covered by structures such as pools, sheds, barns, a house, a deck. The board stated that the applicant had 19.456 lot coverage with all existing buildings, including the proposed pool which would put him at 19% lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage he would be allowed is 1,875. Mr. Bombard stated that he lives in a non-conforming, pre-existing neighborhood and there are some in-ground pools in his neighborhood. Ms. Aker stated that she noticed that the site plan had an above ground pool. The applicant said that the pool had already been taken down.
MOTION: A motion was made by Larry DeSack with a second by Paul McAdam to close the public hearing.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
MOTION: A motion was made by Larry DeSack with a second by Kathleen Ward-Bowen to grant the applicant permission to install a 16` x 32` in-ground pool.
Board discussion: In their findings of fact the board referred to the zoning ordinance Section 4.4 which refers to swimming pools, and the fact that the applicant is over the 15% lot coverage was the basis on which they made their decision.
VOTED: (0 in favor; 5 against) petition denied
Correspondence:
Administrative Issues:
Daniel & Kristen Mullen – Request for Extension
MOTION: A motion was made by Larry DeSack with a second by Richard Booth for a 1 year extension to
July 18, 2009.
VOTE: (5-0; all in favor)
Merry-Beth Cutler – Request for Extension
MOTION: A motion was made by Larry DeSack with a second by Richard Booth for a 6 month extension to December 12, 2008.
VOTE: (5-0; all in favor)
Minutes:
May 8, 2008 – regular meeting
MOTION: A motion was made by Larry DeSack with a second by Kathleen Ward-Bowen to approve the minutes.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
Solicitor’s Report:
Per Vaage, Esq. of Gidley, Sarli & Marusak
Mr. Vaage stated he is in the process of finishing up his brief regarding the kennel.
Zoning Inspector’s Report:
With reference to the frustration of the board having to deal with incomplete applications, it was suggested that the application language needs to specifically state what the consequences for submitting an application that is incomplete would be in order to rectify this issue. The board discussed the possibility of no longer accepting hand drawn site plans but requiring a professional drawing instead. Hal Morgan stated that he tries to explain to the applicants what is required and there is a sample of a site plan included in the application. The board discussed what the procedure for submitting an application is and what happens when the applicant comes before Hal for a zoning certificate. The board also discussed putting a time limit on the applicant’s comments since there have been occasions where the applicants comments regarding their application are in excess. It was suggested that in the model site plan included with the application that language to the effect of, include all structures, be added to it. It was also suggested that before the hearing begins the board agree that all the applications are complete, and if they are found to be incomplete the applications will be continued.
Future Meetings:
July 10, 2008
Adjournment:
MOTION: Larry DeSack made a motion to adjourn the meeting with a second by Kathleen Ward-Bowen.
VOTED: (5-0; all in favor)
Meeting adjourned at 10 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan L. La Perriere
Zoning Board Clerk
Approved August 14, 2008