Town of Bradford
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Draft Minutes of Zoom Meeting March 17, 2021.
Members: Brooks McCandlish (Chair), Ken Parys (Vice Chair), Nathaniel Bruss, Bill Duffy, and Beth Downs (7:15pm).
Meeting called to order at 7:00pm.
Bill Duffy was welcomed as the newly elected and sworn in member of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Motion was made by Bill Duffy, seconded by Nathaniel Bruss to approve of the minutes from March 3, 2021. Ken Parys- Ayes, Brook McCandlish-Ayes, Bill Duffy-Ayes, and Nathaniel Bruss-Ayes. Motion approved unanimously
Public Hearing on the variance application for relief of setback requirements in Article III, Section D of the Bradford Zoning Ordinance, property of Richard and Sharon Hudson, Map Lot 23 Lot 20, located at 22 Massasecum Lake Rd., started at 7:05pm.
All notices were posted and all abutters were notified.
Eric Buck from Terrain Planning and Design, representing the applicant, described the proposal to attach a 24’ by 24’ 2 car garage to the existing residence. He stated that the runoff from the new roof would be diverted into an underground drywell, and the new driveway to the garage and the walkway to the front door would be permeable pavement. A building permit that has already been issued to construct a replacement 9’x12’ shed will not be used if the variance is approved for the garage. A shoreland impact permit has already been granted by DES.
Eric Buck addressed the five criteria required to approve a variance:
A. Will this variance be contrary to the public interest? Eric stated it would not be contrary to the public interest. The construction would not alter the neighborhood.
B. Is the spirit of the ordinance being observed? The spirit of the ordinance would be observed and would not affect the health, safety or welfare of the existing neighborhood.
C. Is substantial justice done? If the variance is granted it will allow the owners to store their cars and other belongings and will not diminish the character of the neighborhood.
D. Are the values of surrounding properties diminished? The values of the surrounding residences will not be diminished. It is similar to other homes with garages in the area and will add to the appeal of the surrounding area.
E. Will the literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance result in an unnecessary hardship? Eric Buck said because of the size of the lot that there was no other buildable area for the garage and because it is a grandfathered lot it would cause an unnecessary hardship for the owners who will retire there.
The Conservation Commission sent a letter to the board addressing concerns regarding the impact of additional lakeside development to water quality, but not opposing or in favor of this specific project.
Mr. and Mrs. Fred Moreland, abutters on two sides spoke in favor of the project.
The public hearing was closed at 7:41pm.
A motion to approve the application as it stands was made by Ken Parys and seconded by Beth Downs. Discussion ensued about how the construction and the changes to be made that would to affect the application. The size and tight dimensions of the non-conforming lot concerned members of the board.
The board reviewed the 5 variance criteria. Eric Buck was commended for the job done by Terrain Planning and Design on the proposal for such a small lot. Bill Duffy, Nathaniel Bruss, and Brooks McCandlish expressed concern about the effect that untreated water runoff from impervious surfaces, and the potential increase in everyday household pollutants, might have on the lake. Brooks McCandlish asked the board what special conditions of the lot distinguished it from other properties in the area. Eric Buck was asked by Nathaniel Bruss if gutters would be installed on the existing house, porch, and deck into the dry well. Eric Buck said no gutters on the existing structures were planned.
The vote on the motion to approve the variance as presented: 2 in favor – 3 opposed.
Brooks McCandlish-no, Ken Parys-aye, Nathaniel Bruss-no, Bill Duffy-no, Beth Downs-aye. The motion to approve variance as presented was not approved
Ken Parys reiterated that the board is looking for more guidance from the Select Board and the Planning Board regarding the future of the lakeshore. Brooks McCandlish stated that, at this point, the zoning board needs to make their best decision following state law, based on the information presented, the board member’s observations, and the guidance provided by the current zoning ordinance and master plan.
Beth Downs asked the board to reconsider approving the variance. Nathanial Bruss proposed amending the motion to approve the variance adding the condition requiring that the runoff from the existing house, porch, and deck also be mitigated through infiltration. The board unanimously agreed to consider an amended motion to approve the variance with the added condition.
The vote to approve the variance, as presented, with the additional condition that runoff from the existing house, porch, and deck also be mitigated through infiltration: 4 in favor – 1 opposed.
Beth Downs-aye, Bill Duffy-aye, Nathaniel Bruss-aye, Ken Parys-aye, Brooks McCandlish-no.
The motion passed and the applicant was granted his variance with the condition stated. Approval notices will be sent out.
Upcoming training sessions are being held in April. Brooks forwarded the link to these sessions to the board members
.
The meeting closed at 9:06pm.
Submitted by
Beth Downs 3/19/2021