ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVED:_____________________ ATTENDING: Sandra Heaney (Chairman), Larry Denton The meeting opened at 6:00 pm. Mr. DeStefano and Ms. Shattuck sat in for 2 of the missing members. Ms. Heaney stated that, as there was no wetlands survey done, she would like to continue the 3 variances until after the Planning Board hears the Special Use Permit hearing next week. Her reason for doing so is that, if the permit is denied, the 3 variances will be a mute issue. We still need a wetlands survey, she added. She felt that the Planning Board shall need to see one also. Ms. Deborah Hinds, Hinds Septic Design Services, stated that she is a certified Wetlands Scientist. Ms. Heaney stated that we need to know if there are any wetlands within 125’, including abutting property. A. DeStefano made a MOTION, second by L. Denton, to CONTINUED THE VARIANCES FOR JOHN & CATHERINE MESSINA TO JANUARY 5, 2010. The motion CARRIED. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4, 2009:
-2- WORKSHOP: PROCEDURES Ms. Heaney began with the variance criteria, distributing these 5 requirements. She stated that, in every hearing, these are the 5 criteria that the members must go back to. She advised that the members take notes during testimony. Ms. Bonsteel explained that she requires a narrative on these from each applicant now and the members can make their notes on this as the applicant reads from them. She emphasized that each case must be judged individually; if the answers are ambiguous or it they do not meet the criteria, the member cannot vote in favor of the variance requested. The 5 criteria were then looked at: Ms. Bonsteel mentioned the comparison of Lake properties: there are those near the Lake and there are some that are away from it but still in the Lake District. The unique setting is necessary in these cases. Ms. Heaney added that applicants are not automatically given a variance approval if it is something that they just want. A discussion of examples was held: the mica building that had no parking area available to them, a Hillside case where the only available flat piece of the property was partially in the setback, the old Dole property on Summer St. where the Realty got a variance for their parking and then came in wanting to add a second business, and the Babcock case where ill health could not be a criteria for adding a second residence. Ms. Bonsteel emphasized that the members should vote their conscience. -3- WORKSHOP continued: #3. Contrary to the Spirit of the Ordinance. Ms. Bonsteel stated that members must be professional and objective in their judgment, not on their emotions. She mentioned that on a Board that she had served on in the past, a friend addressed her after he was turned down and said that he thought she was his friend. She answered that, by asking, he was showing that he was the one who was not being a friend. Recusing oneself was addressed. Members can ask to be recused if they feel that they cannot fairly judge a case. Members are not to chat about a case on site or on the street, as well. If they do, they should recuse. It was felt that, being in a small town does not necessarily prove a conflict if you know the applicant. As to motions, following much discussion, it was determined that, during deliberations, the Board will address each criteria individually with discussion and then a vote. Should a criteria be given a negative vote, the remaining criteria need not be addressed further as a negative of any one criteria will negate the variance. Ms. Bonsteel stated that we need to ask Atty. Waugh about substantial judgment when he comes. He shall be coming the 3rd or 4th week in January and it is strongly advised that all of the members attend. Ms. Bonsteel also mentioned that you can get on-line training from the LGC website. With no other business, A. DeStefano made a motion, second by L. Denton to adjourn at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, |