A.  Call to Order

Mr. Kendall welcomed the applicants and gave an overview of the order of the meeting.  

C.  Hearings and Presentations:

home has a three (3) bedroom septic system that was installed in 1975.  She further stated that there is a plot plan on a septic plan design dated April 26, 2004.

Phillip Roy of Capital Home Improvements addressed the Board on the Field's behalf.  He stated that the square footage requirement might be inaccurate; he asked if the buildup is 40% of the total size of the property.

Ms. McPheters stated that it was the total size of the existing living area of the building.

Mr. Roy asked if the garage was included.

Ms. McPheters stated that the garage is not considered to be living space.

Mr. Roy asked if he was correct in stating that they will need to downsize the existing unit by 156 square feet.  He feels there should be no problems with downsizing to meet the requirements of the Board.

Mr. Roy stated that the Fields have decided to add a small garage in the back of the building for use at a later date.  

Mrs. Field stated that they felt this it would make more sense.  This way for future use.  She stated this was not a rental property; the accessory apartment will only be used for when her mother stays with them.  In the future converting this area into a two-car garage.  

Mr. Roy reviewed the setbacks.  Side setbacks on the left side of the property are approximately 36 feet from the property line.  The right side setback from the existing house is 75 feet to property line.  He discussed the existing wastewater facility to handle the extended build up.  Mr. Sweet of Sweet Associates via a letter stated that there did not seem to be any issues.  Mr. Sweet also included information on the recourse to fix the septic should it ever fail.

Ms. McPheters asked if a copy of the septic design was submitted to the plumbing inspector?

Mr. Roy stated that three copies were made and given to the plumbing inspector.

Mr. Kendall opened the public portion of the meeting.
There were no comments.

Ms. McPheters stated that the Towns Assessor records indicate that there are 1531 square feet of living area.  She stated that 40% of that would be 612 square feet.  

Mr. Kendall reviewed:

407.1   Accessory Apartments
Any single-family dwelling or an existing accessory structure, which is either attached or detached, to the dwelling may be altered or expanded to include one apartment unit subject to the approval of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals as a special exception, and in accordance with the following standards:

The Board reviewed the Special Exception standards in Sections 603.2.3 and 603.2.7 with the following findings and conclusions.

Section 602.2.3

        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

In addition, Section 603.2.7 was reviewed with the following findings.

In addition to the standards contained in Section 603.2.3, all special exceptions must conform with the performance standards set forth herein.  No use already established on the date of adoption of this ordinance shall be so altered or modified as to conflict with or, if already in conflict with, to further conflict with these performance standards.

Mr. Manahan commented on the lot size, curious if there were restrictions.

Ms. McPheters stated that the required lot size for the MDR district is 2 acres. The lot size according to the Tax Assessors records is 26,429 square feet.

Mr. Manahan discussed 501.1, non-conforming uses.

Ms. McPheters reviewed 205.3 Lot Regulations:  In any district, notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this Ordinance, a single lot of record at the effective date of adoption of this Ordinance may be built upon subject to the following conditions:

Mr. Manahan motioned to approve the request for a special exception for an accessory apartment  at 8 Candlewick Lane on Map U14 Lot 141 in the Medium Density Residential / Setback Overlay 2 (MDR/SO2) Districts in the name of John G. and Darlene F. Field, with the condition that the Code Enforcement officer review the plans to ensure in her judgment, the unit to be added, shall not exceed 40 % of the total area of the building.  

Mr. Turner seconded.

Vote:  UNANMIMOUS

2.      Mary Pat Warming requests a special exception to operate a yoga instruction home occupation at 150 Gray Road on Map U19 Lot 6 in the Local Business (LB) District.

Ms. McPheters reviewed:  

This application was tabled from the April meeting as the applicant was unavailable to attend to present her case.  The office had been advised of this information but neglected to note it for the record.  The applicant is proposing to conduct yoga classes in the living room of her home.  It appears that the house is connected to an existing septic.  A replacement septic system design for a five (5) bedroom home is in the property file but there is no evidence it was ever installed.  The applicant is requesting a sign to identify the business.  The proposed twenty-seven (27) square foot sign exceeds the maximum allowance by two (2) square feet.  The Board approved an existing accessory apartment on October 11, 2001.  The Board may wish to address parking and hours of operation.  This application also requires site plan approval by the Planning Board.   A sign permit and an electrical permit for the proposed lighting must be requested and issued by the Code Enforcement Office.  

Ms. McPheters handed out to the Board, photographs of the proposed sign.

Mr. Kendall asked Ms. Warming if the sign exists.

Ms. Warming stated that the sign does exist.
 
Ms. Warming stated that she misunderstood Ms. Nixon, the Town Planner with regards to a home occupation.   She further mentioned that she did review the website and did not see information on the website regarding signs, so she proceeded to put a sign up.

Mr. Kendall asked if there were any students at this time.

Ms. Warming stated not at this time.

Mr. Kendall asked if there were any intended employees.

Ms. Warming stated no.

Ms. Warming proceeded to read a letter she addressed to the Board of Appeals, explaining her business, parking, signage, lighting and hours of operation.

Mr. Kendall asked how many students will attend the classes?

Ms. Warming stated 4.

Mr. Kendall addressed the parking, exiting and entrances.

Ms. Warming stated that parking is not an issue.
Mr. Manahan asked if the Planning Board reviewed the signage?

Ms. McPheters asked that the Planning Board review the signage.

Mr. Manahan stated that the sign issue seems to be a Planning Board issue rather than a Board of Appeals issue.

Ms. McPheters stated that she is ultimately responsible for the approval of the sign.

Ms. McPheters stated that the size of a sign is 25 square feet maximum.

Ms. Warming stated that there is some "extra on the bottom of the sign and she is able to cut most of the bottom off the sign to adhere to the ordinance.  She stated she would like to have alittle room to add hours to the sign.  She also mentioned that the large sign is a safety issue due to Route 100 being busy and it is easy readable.  

Mr. Copp asked how many lots away from the HC district she was.

Ms. McPheters stated that Ms. Warming's lot is two lots down from HC district.

Mr. Kendall opened the public portion.  No comments.  

Mr. Kendall reviewed:

414.1   Any home occupation such as arts and crafts work, dressmaking, tutoring, music teaching, and the use of a portion of a residential building as a bed & breakfast inn, day care home, or as the office of a physician, dentist, lawyer, engineer, architect, hairdresser, barber, real estate broker, insurance agent, accountant or similar uses may be approved as a special exception by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals if:  [Amended, effective 12/13/89]

               The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

               The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

               The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

               The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

               The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

               The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

The Board then reviewed the Special Exception standards, Section 603.2.3 with the following findings:

        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

In addition, Section 603.2.7 was reviewed with the following findings.

In addition to the standards contained in Section 603.2.3, all special exceptions must conform with the performance standards set forth herein.  No use already established on the date of adoption of this ordinance shall be so altered or modified as to conflict with or, if already in conflict with, to further conflict with these performance standards.

        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

Mr. Turner stated that the sign is excessive and needs to be addressed.

Mr. Kendall stated that the applicant will remove some of the sign size.

Ms. Warming stated she would like to have an hour"s sign that hangs on the existing sign.  

Mr. Turner stated that as long as she conforms to the ordinance and considering that she is located in the LB district that he is okay with it.

Mr. Manahan made a motion to grant a special exception to operate a yoga instruction home occupation at 150 Gray Road on Map U19 Lot 6 in the Local Business (LB) District in the name of Mary Pat Warming with the condition that the sign must conform to 25 square feet, inclusive of anything that hangs.  

Mr. Black seconded.

Vote:  UNANIMOUS

3.      Kay Fowler, Greg Fowler and Spring Brook Farm request a variance of thirty (30) feet from the thirty (30) foot side setback requirement or a variance to reduce the width for a private street to access a backlot at 168 Greely Road on Map R04 Lot 32B in the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) District.

Mr. Fowler stated they would like to change the use of a long road used to service a barn, a silo and a compost pad.  As these were built, theyve continued to upgrade the road.    The hardship would be that they would have to go through a nice piece of level field land (to get to the back lot), the last nice piece since selling the 100 acres to the Town.  If they had to do this, it would take away from the good land that is left at Spring Brook Farm.

Ms McPheters stated that the setback variance she had spoke to Mr. Fowler was for the barn, the store and the farm storage center.  All of these will be very close to this new proposed right of way.  

Mr. Fowler stated that there are two lots.  The old farmstead, which is divided by the trees, is on the right.  The property on the left side of the diagram, is the home that he lives in.  The farmhouse is on 4 acres of land.  His lot is 2 acres.  

Ms. McPheters reviewed the new ordinance changes with regards to private ways.  Where a street or other right of way that is or may be used for motor vehicle access other than a driveway that serves no more than two residential lots is located within the boundaries of a property, the required setbacks shall be measured from the nearest edge of the street or right of way rather than the property line.  Her interpretation of this is that there is the farmstead home, the Fowler home and the new lot, which will be the home of a family member stating that there will be more than 2 residences using this driveway.

Mr. Fowler stated that the existing driveway is 20 feet wide and as it goes out to the barn area it goes to about 40 feet wide.  It then swings to the left to go out back to service the back area.  

Mr. Black asked what other alternatives there were to access the back lot.

Mr. Fowler stated that the driveway would go adjacent to their property line, out through the field and end in the same area out beyond, however, taking a couple of acres of land from farm use.

Mr. Black is unclear why there is a setback problem.  He stated that 4 acres is being carved out of 32B, the set back problem comes into the access of that 4 acres.  Questioning why he cannot just have an easement.

Ms. McPheters stated that the ordinance states that the required setbacks shall be measured from the nearest edge of the street or right of way rather than the property line.   The line that is shown would be the edge of the street or right of way.  

Mr. Black stated that to get access to this back lot there has to be a right of way put in.  This would mean that all other buildings would have to be moved to adhere to the setback from the required amount.  This is a driveway that serves no more than two residential lots.

Ms. McPheters disagreed.  She stated that there is access from this private street to these two homes and to the back lot.  If this driveway did not serve more than two lots then there would not be an issue.  

Mr. Copp asked if a paper street could be an alternative.

Ms. McPheters stated that the ordinance states that if you are creating a backlot you have to create a private way.  The private way has to be constructed and inspected before a building permit is issued.  

Mr. Fowler suggested blocking off the driveway to the farmstead land.  

Mr. Black stated that they could potentially build on the other parcel (32B).

The Board discussed the driveway and the lots it will be serving.
Mr. Fowler stated that this is a farm.   They are not serving houses, but serving farmstead.
He is happy to block off the life estate driveway.

Ms. McPheters stated that the applicants would still need to meet the standards for a private way.

Ms. McPheters stated that the Board did need to make a determination on how they want to proceed.

Mr. Kendall opened the public portion.  No comments.

Mr. Manahan moved to find that a variance was not required to allow the driveway as depicted on the plans, as long as the driveway is not used for motor vehicle access for lot 32 at 168 Greely Road, Tax Assessor Map R04, Lot 32B in the Rural Residential (RR1) District.  This driveway will be used to access the residences on lot 32A and 32B.  Should this driveway be used to access 3 residences (lot 32, 32A and 32B), the applicant will be in violation of the ordinance.

Mr. Black seconded.

Vote:  5
Opposed:  Mr. Martin

4.      Scott Simoneau requests a special exception to operate a glass application home occupation at 117 Longwoods Road on Map U07 Lot 5A in the Highway Commercial / Rural Residential 1 (HC/RR1) Districts.

Mr. Andy Filmore is representing Scott Simoneau, owner of Cumberland County Glass.
Mr. Fillmore stated that Mr. Bill Ward owns the home.  Mr. Simoneau would like to purchase the home pending the approval of the Board of Appeals and Planning Board for the special exception to operate the glass business.  The business will be in the garage with the office in the breezeway.  The garage portion of the house is in the HC district.  The breezeway, along with the residential portion of the house, is located in the RR1 district.  

Mr. Kendall asked how much glasswork is done on site.

Mr. Simoneau stated that most work would be done in the garage (shop).  Screens will also be done on location.  

Mr. Black asked about the delivery of supplies.

Mr. Simoneau stated that a truck would be delivering supplies every two weeks.

Mr. Black made mention to the noise this will produce.

Mr. Simoneau stated that the noise is most like a sander.  

Mr. Kendall asked if the garage was insulated.

Mr. Simoneau stated it is not insulated at this time but he plans to insulate in the near future.

Mr. Manahan asked about a storage area.

Mr. Simoneau stated that product must be on site.  The storage will be in the basement side of the home.

Mr. Filmore stated that this will also be Mr. Simoneau and his families primary residence.

Mr. Manahan read the home occupation provision of the ordinance, which states: Noise, vibration, smoke, dust, electrical disturbance, odors, heat, or glare will not be detectable beyond property limits. (Sec 414.1.4)

Mr. Simoneau stated that it will not be that loud where he would be in violation of the ordinance.

Mr. Manahan also stated that section 414.1 of the zoning ordinance states that: Any home occupation such as arts and crafts work, dressmaking, tutoring, music teaching, and the use of a portion of a residential building as a bed & breakfast inn, day care home, or as the office of a physician, dentist, lawyer, engineer, architect, hairdresser, barber, real estate broker, insurance agent, accountant or similar uses may be approved as a special exception by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.  

Mr. Manahan stated that putting a glass business in with these above-mentioned uses does not seem to make sense.
Ms. McPheters stated that the property is split between two zones.  More specifically the home occupation will be located in the garage/breezeway.  She reviewed the plot plan with the board describing how the house is divided into two districts.  

Ms. McPheters stated that the ordinance states that this business would be a permitted use in this zone.

Mr. Black made mention to the waste-trash (glass, boxes, etc.)

Mr. Simoneau stated that there is a dumpster on his property.  A small sized dumpster which will be placed on a concrete slab and hidden by a fence.  A dump truck will empty the dumpster every two weeks.  

Mr. Black asked about the size of the sign.

Mr. Simoneau stated that the sign is 2x3 and can be put wherever the Board suggests.

Mr. Black asked if the basement (lower level) was finished.

Mr. Simoneau stated that the daylight side was finished. The other side is not and it will mainly be used for storage.  Access to the storage area is through the house or from the door on the finished side.  

Mr. Kendall opened the public portion.  No comments.

Mr. Black stated that this was not your typical home occupation, but in this case, the house is zoned in two districts.  The vast majority of the business will be in the HC side of the home.  He stated that if there were in a Rural Residential, this type of business would not be allowed as a home occupation.  Some restrictions should be placed on this application.  

Mr. Martin stated that this is an usual circumstance and should not be used as precedence.

Mr. Copp stated he is familiar with what he doing there.  He stated that noise and chemicals will not be an issue.  It should be a secluded business other than the sign.

Mr. Kendall stated that the sign should only be lit during business hours.  A vehicle should not be used as a sign.  

The Board reviewed:

414.1   Any home occupation such as arts and crafts work, dressmaking, tutoring, music teaching, and the use of a portion of a residential building as a bed & breakfast inn, day care home, or as the office of a physician, dentist, lawyer, engineer, architect, hairdresser, barber, real estate broker, insurance agent, accountant or similar uses may be approved as a special exception by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals if:  [Amended, effective 12/13/89]

               The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.2      The occupation or office will be located wholly within the principal or accessory structures, and;
               The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

               The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

               The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

               The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

               The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

The Board then reviewed the Special Exception standards, Section 603.2.3 with the following findings:

        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

In addition, Section 603.2.7 was reviewed with the following findings.

In addition to the standards contained in Section 603.2.3, all special exceptions must conform with the performance standards set forth herein.  No use already established on the date of adoption of this ordinance shall be so altered or modified as to conflict with or, if already in conflict with, to further conflict with these performance standards.

        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

Mr. Manahan motioned to grant a special exception to operate a glass application home occupation at 117 Longwoods Road on Map U07 Lot 5A in the Highway Commercial / Rural Residential 1 (HC/RR1) Districts, in the name of Scott Simoneau with the following conditions:

1.      Sign will only be lit during business hours. 8am-5pm Monday-Friday; 8am-12pm Saturday.  
2.      The glass business will be limited to the garage and breezeway as stated in the application.

Mr. Martin seconded.

Vote:  UNANIMOUS

Ms. McPheters handed out to The Board, copies of the 1993 Boca Code standards and pictures of the stairs.

Mr. Knowles stated that he has lived at 158 Middle Road for 20 years.  This is the oldest house in Cumberland.  He stated that the stairs are 125 years old.  These stairs are not the primary use, but more for safety in case of emergency as there are bedrooms upstairs in that area of the home.  He would like to retain the stairs, but move to reconfigure the space.  

Mr. Martin asked in what ways the stairs do not meet the Boca Code.  

Mr. Knowles stated that the current stairs have a tread of 7 ¾, the risers are 8 ½  and the width is 33.  The Boca Code standards are a tread of 9, riser of 8 ¼  and a width of 36.  

Mr. Black and Ms. McPheters determined that this is not an approval of a variance, but rather a building code appeal.

Ms. McPheters stated that she brought this application before the Board because Mr. Knowles was removing the L and at this time he could build the stairs to the comply with the current standards.

Ms. McPheters discussed requirements of the stair dimensions with the Board.

Mr. Knowles stated they will be adding a handrail to the wall.  

Mr. Kendall opened the public portion.  No Comments.

Mr. Kendall stated that this is a special exception with regards to the age of the home.  He appreciates the homeowners commitment to preserving the home.

Mr. Black moves to grant relief from the stairway dimensions as required by the BOCA National Building Code/1993 in a single family dwelling at 158 Middle Road on Map R01 Lot 20 in the Rural Residential 2 (RR2) District, in the name of Jonathan and Cynthia Knowles.

Mr. Turner seconded.

Vote:  UNANIMOUS

Ms. McPheters stated the applicants are requesting approval of a garage addition at their existing home.   The applicants plan to convert the current garage into a family room.  The Board of Adjustment and Appeals granted this same request on December 12, 2002 and the variance has since expired.

Mr. Rouda stated that since they last appeared before the Board, he was unable to convert the garage into a family room.  He explained to the Board that it will be a detached garage.  

Ms. McPheters stated that some changes have been made to the ordinance since the Roudas had last appeared before the Board, that if non-conforming structures did not exceed the current invasion that they would be permitted.  

Mr. Rouda stated he was not aware of the setback change, however, it means he is asking for 10 feet versus 20 feet.  

Mr. Manahan asked when the house was built.

Mr. Rouda stated IN 1985, the rear setback was the stone wall. The garage and breezeway were built in 1986.

The Board reviewed the minutes from December 12, 2002.

Mr. Manahan stated that the issue was whether there was another feasible alternative.  The alternatives are not feasible because of the economic injury.  

Mr. Rouda stated there were two options: Sell his house and buy a larger one. Or move the septic system to put the garage up.

Ms. McPheters read section 501.1:  Non-conforming Buildings

.1      Repairs and Alterations:  A nonconforming building or structure may be repaired, altered, improved, or reconstructed.  A non-conforming building or structure may be added to or expanded after obtaining a permit from the same permitting authority as that for a new structure, if such addition or expansion does not increase the non-conformity of the structure or expand the area of a non-conforming use.

Mr. Manahan asked why the garage could not be moved back another 10 feet.

Mr. Rouda explained how it would look.  It is an appearance/aesthetic issue.

Mr. Manahan argued that the last time the Roudas appeared they were asking for a 20 foot variance, now with a change in the ordinance, they are requesting a 10 foot variance.  It does not seem as problematic this time around.  The garage could be built to comply.

Mr. Turner stated that the ordinance was written to alleviate some of these issues, to make it easier for the applicant.

Mr. Kendall opened the public portion.  No comments.

Mr. Kendall stated that really nothing has changed since the last meeting.

Mr. Turner stated that he has not changed his mind since the last meeting.  Keeping with the aesthetics is important.  It is a deminimus accommodation to the applicant.  

Mr. Manahan moved to grant request a variance of twenty (20) feet from the seventy-five (75) foot rear setback requirement for an addition to a single family dwelling at 1 Hunter Way on Map R08A Lot 68C in the Rural Residential 2 (RR2) District in the name of Neil and Jacqueline Rouda with the conditions adopted in the previous application.

Mr. Turner seconded.

Vote:  4
Opposed:  Mr. Black

No Administrative matters.

Ms. McPheters stated that she will not be at the next meeting and that Mr. Longley will appear in her absence.

Mr. Manahan moved to adjourn.

Mr. Black seconded.

Vote:  UNANIMOUS

Adjourned at 9:50am


A TRUE COPY ATTEST


_____________________                 _____________________
Scott Wyman                                 Nancy Decker