Page 1, first paragraph of public hearing, change "Exemption" to "Exception".

Page 2, first paragraph, change "Exemption" to "Exception" and delete "all zoning and result of elections" to "a zoning history available at the Town Clerk’s Office".

Page 3, halfway through the [paragraph, change "deliberative" to "deliberate".

Page 3, half way through the paragraph, change Mrs. McGrath "believed" to "said".

Page 3, three quarters of the way through the paragraph, after "Mr. Polito believed the builder had an intent" add "in mind", after "because", delete "there", and add "A 3900 square foot home with a three car attached garage are being built, This is a reasonable use of the property"

Incoming

Planning Board Legal Notice for meeting of 2/18/04.

KLC Land Planning & Consulting dated 2/6/04 re: Request for Rehearing for Saba, 8 Brushwood Drive Wetland Variance.

Outgoing

KLC Land Planning & Consulting dated 1/26/04 re: Result letter of Saba, 8 Brushwood Drive.

Zoning Board Legal Notice of meeting 2/11/04.

Anthony Grise dated 1/30/04 re: Home Business 69 Providence Hill Road, Map 6, Lot 25 - exempt approval.

The Board reviewed the request.

1.) The Board agreed and the minutes reflected that the applicant had made it clear what the garage was going to be used for. The Board did not make any error in their understanding of what this would be used for. Mrs. McGrath stated that under the zoning, a shed could be put in the wetlands. Mr. Polito stated that no one would call a 24 x 28 structure a "shed". Mr. Polito and Henrickson agreed the applicant never referred to this as a shed, but it was presented as a garage to store gas powered items. There was no new information provided in the first item.

2.) There was a change in the zoning at some point, and it is clearly indicated in the minutes that this was discussed. The applicant bought the property after the zoning had changed. There was no new information provided in this item.

3.) The minutes reflected that at the hearing the applicant was asked by the Board about getting a soil scientist’s report on the value of the wetlands, but was told by the applicant that he did not think that was feasible due to the winter weather and that he could not wait until spring. The Board agreed the availability of a soil scientist report was new information.

4.) There was no new information provided in this item.

5.) As reflected in the minutes there was a fairly incomplete application at the hearing and this new plan is new information but does not represent an error on the part of the Board.

6.) Henrickson said the applicant is now suggesting that he move the structure 10 feet further away from the wetlands. At the hearing, the Board did discuss the vegetative buffer. The proposed relocation of the structure farther from the wetland was new information provided.

7.) There was no new information provided in this item.

8.) There was no new information provided in this item.

9.) There was no new information provided in this item.

The Board discussed that there were no technical errors on their part but that there was new information provided. The Board agreed that they may look favorably on a new application that changed the location of the structure by 10 feet. This was a substantial and significant change. From a justice standpoint it is in the interest of all parties to approve a rehearing. Mr. Polito wanted it to be clear that the hardship issue will still be a hurdle to overcome and the applicant has not demonstrated that he has exhausted all avenues. Mr. Lewis thought it might be cleaner to have the applicant reapply. Mr. Polito thought that Mr. Lewis had a good point, but for purposes of moving this along, he did not see any harm in granting a rehearing in terms of affecting the abutters. The rehearing allows some continuity in this case.

Abutters List was read with the following present: Mr. Borisko

Mr. Borisko explained that he wanted to add a new garage with a bedroom over it. He plans on expanding the kitchen into one of the bays of the existing garage and then adding a new portion to the existing garage. He will still end up with a two-car garage. He is removing one of the existing bedrooms to use as a hallway to access the new addition. The second floor will be a new master bedroom above the two-car garage. Above the mudroom and kitchen will be another bedroom. He needs a three-foot variance. The house is approximately 1400 square feet. He will not end up with four bedrooms. Mr. Polito asked how close the neighbor’s house was on the adjacent lot. Mr. Borisko stated the adjacent home was approximately 50’ from the lot line. Mr. Polito asked if he looked at other designs, even though it would not be convenient. Mr. Borisko said that if he wanted a two-stall garage he had to go that way. Mr. Polito asked why he could not go in another direction even if it cost more. Mr. Borisko said there was a small brook in the back on the other side. And if he built out the back he would not have access to the second floor. Mr. Lewis thought that this design kept the continuity of the house. The lot is .69 acres.

The Board reviewed the criteria:

The adjacent home is 50’ from the property line. The Board agreed this criterion was met.

The Board agreed this criterion was met.

a.) Some members agreed that because of the design of the house, and the wetlands to the right of the house as well as the septic system, this was a good location for the addition. There was a consensus that this criterion was met. Mr. Polito did not agree and thought the applicant could probably expand out the back of the house even if it costs considerably more.

b.) The board agreed this was met based on previous discussions

c.) The board agreed this was met based on previous discussions.

There was a consensus of the Board that this was met.

Because there is approximately 60’ of property buffer between the applicant and the adjacent home, the Board agreed this criterion was met.

 

Minutes transcribed from tape Respectfully Submitted