ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 1, 2006
12/5/06__jrl___________
AGENDA: CONTINUED VARIANCE: LORRAINE M. BOHMILLER, 148 Holiday Hills Drive, #110-017
CONTINUED VARIANCE (FRONTAGE): THOMAS BABCOCK, 65 Summer Street, #114-050
CONTINUED REHEARING: THOMAS BABCOCK, 65 Summer St., #114-050
CONTINUED VARIANCE (AREA): THOMAS BABCOCK, 65 Summer St., #114-050
VARIANCE: JOHN J. SULDENSKI, 8 Central St.,
#114-123
ATTENDING: Sandra Heaney (Acting Chairman), Dan Bouchard, Donna Hardy
Alternates: Susan Colby, Lorraine Oranato-Sullivan
ABSENT: Jay Meegan (Chairman - conflict), Mike Willingham (Vice-Chair conflict), Lloyd Belbin (Alternate – away), Linda Lee (Alternate - conflict).
OTHER: Steve Favorite and Bruce Van Derven (Selectmen), Dan Paradis and Don Martin (Planning Board), Public
The meeting began at 7:00 p.m. with Ms. Heaney officiating. Ms. Oranato-Sullivan and Ms. Colby sat in for the absent members. Ms. Heaney explained to Mr. Suldenski that Ms. Oranato-Sullivan will have to step down when his case comes before the Board so the Board shall leave him the choice of continuing until we have a full Board or to hold it this evening. Mr. Suldenski and his representative, Mr. Johnston, went out into the hall to discuss this.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 2006: D. Bouchard made a motion, second by D. Hardy, to accept the minutes as read. The motion carried.
Ms. Heaney explained the process for hearings.
-2-
Zoning Board Minutes
11/1/06
VARIANCE: LORRAINE M. BOHMILLER
Janice DellaCroce represented Ms. Bohmiller (this had been established at the last meeting). The secretary read the application, referral, abutters notified, where the hearing was published and stated that there had been no phone calls or written responses received.
Ms. DellaCroce presented photos of the lot in question and read a statement sent in by Ms. Bohmiller stating that she has been at this location for 28 years. She has limited use of her backyard due to the downward slope. The house is built on a sloping mound with all the land sloping towards the back making approximately 24’ of the backyard unusable as well as part of the left side yard. A fenced in dog pen (that was in need of repair) was removed from the area of the proposed deck. The fence was a 4’ stockade and wire structure enclosing 3 dog houses, which have gone to the dump. The proposed deck is to be in the same area as the pen was and will have a rail and lattice work. The dogs will now spend their outdoor time on the deck. Ms. Bohmiller also has an 87 yr. old mother with her who is mending from a broken hip. Her mother is afraid to walk in the grass or the uneven sloping ground.
Ms. DellaCroce read that the Anderson garage, on that side, is just over 4 ½’ from her property line. The new deck will not extend out any further than the small porch which already exists there. Ms. Bohmiller, a widow, also included the fact that she has the blessing of her neighbors and abutters.
Ms. Heaney asked which side of the property she is to place the new deck and Ms. DellaCroce pointed out the Anderson property side. Mr. Bouchard asked if the existing porch is 13’ from the property line and was told that it is.
D. Bouchard made a MOTION, second by S. Colby, to ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AS COMPLETE. The motion CARRIED.
Ms. DellaCroce then addressed the six points required for a Variance:
1. Special features peculiar to the lot: It is a 100’ x 100’sloping lot with 28’ in back and 6’ at the side that is unusable.
2. Represents minimum variance: The proposed deck will be no further than what is already there.
3. No diminution of value to other properties: It will not be.
4. Granting would be of benefit to the public interest: The neighbors and abutters are okay with the plan and the yard is visible from the river access road and will greatly improve the esthetics.
5. Substantial justice would be done: It shall look like the surrounding properties.
6. Not contrary to the Ordinance: It will greatly improve the property giving it more use.
Ms. Heaney asked why she couldn’t make the deck 2’ shorter and Ms. DellaCroce
Answered that they want to line it up with what is existing. The dog pen that was there before was this same size. The footings are already in as Ms. Bohmiller did not realize that she was not 15’ from the boundary and thought this to be just a replacement.
-3-
Zoning Board Minutes
11/1/06
BOHMILLER VARIANCE continued:
Ms. Heaney summed up what was presented: The lot has a downward slope, the deck is to line up with the existing porch, it shall not lessen the value as it is much better than the dog pen, it will look better lined up to what is existing, and it will allow more use of the property.
With no comments from the public, Ms. Heaney closed the hearing to the public.
As to hardship, Mr. Bouchard felt that the slope covers this. Ms. Colby added that there is no alternative. Mr. Bouchard stated that he feels that she has met the 6 criteria. Ms. Hardy and Ms. Colby agreed. Ms. Colby added that there is no opposition from the neighbors and Ms. Heaney said that it is better than what was there.
D. Bouchard made a MOTION, second by S.Colby, to APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR LORRAINE M. BOHMILLER TO PLACE A DECK WITHIN 13’ OF THE SIDE BOUNDARY LINE. The motion CARRIED and the approval was signed.
CONTINUED FRONTAGE VARIANCE, CONTINUED AREA VARIANCE AND CONTINUED REHEARING: THOMAS BABCOCK
Ms. Heaney read the e-mail received from Mr. Babcock stating that he wishes to withdraw all three hearings. The Board noted this and the secretary will close these cases.
VARIANCE: JOHN J. SULDENSKI JR./COREY JOHNSTON
Mr. Suldenski has decided to hold his variance this evening. Ms. Oranato-Sullivan stepped down.
The secretary read the application, the abutters notified, where the hearing was publicized, and stated that there were no telephone calls but one written response had been received (referral had come orally from the Code Enforcement Officer).
Ms. Heaney read the letter from Clay Dingman, member of the Planning Board and Chairman of the Historic District, in which he states that Mr. Suldenski came in to the Historic District Committee and they recommended that he apply for registration with the National Historic Commission and that Mr. Dingman is in support of Mr. Suldenski’s plan.
Ms. Heaney questioned why the application asks to count municipal parking for off street parking. She explained that the ZBA has no jurisdiction over municipal parking and felt that this can only be a variance to eliminate the parking requirement. Mr. Johnston stated that the request for the Variance was for the parking requirement. Mr. Johnston presented the plan of the project stating that the building covers most of the entire lot. He then showed a plan where the Downtown Commercial District has been shown. Mr. Johnston stated that the building has been a 2-bedroom residential apartment and light industrial/storage building in the past.
Ms. Heaney asked if he has applied with the National Historic Registry. Mr. Johnston stated that he has not as yet. Ms. Heaney mentioned that, once he is on the Registry, he can get a tax break.
-4-
Zoning Board Minutes
11/1/06
SULDENSKI VARIANCE continued:
Mr. Johnston continued by saying that Mr. Suldenski wishes to have 8 2-bedroom apartments that he may later change to Condominium. This has not been done first as Condominiums are not listed anywhere in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Johnston stated that the applicant purchased the property in 1997. He came in to the Planning Board in August of 2002 for a Preliminary Review. He was advised to get a building permit with the Code Enforcement Officer so that he could refer Mr. Suldenski to the Planning Board for Site Plan. Mr. Suldenski did this and was referred to Fire Chief, Norm Skantze for Life Safety Code issues. Mr. Suldenski worked with Mr. Skantze and got a building permit to repair the roof and other structural needs in Oct. 2002. In the interim, the Planning Board (of which Mr. Johnston was a member at the time) began working on a change to the Zoning Ordinance so as to remove residential parking from being counted in the downtown parking spaces. Mr. Johnston was the originator of this as he thought that, if the mica building or any other the other buildings were torn down and a high-rise built, there would not be enough parking area for all. This amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was approved with a March 2003 vote of the town. The following January (2004), Mr. Suldenski applied for Site Plan and was rejected due to having no off-street parking. In May, 2006, the Board of Selectmen determined to allow permits for residential parking. Mr. Johnston noted that, had Mr. Suldenski gone immediately for Site Plan in Aug. of 2002, he would have been grandfathered. This project requires 12 parking spaces.
Bruce VanDerven asked if the project is to be for 8 apartments or 8 condominiums. Mr. Johnston explained that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow condominiums by definition. Mr. Suldenski is going for 8 apartments and then plans to do a condominium conversion. Ms. Heaney added that he needs this variance before he can go back to the Planning Board for Site Plan.
D. Hardy made a MOTION, second by D. Bouchard, to ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AS COMPLETE. The motion CARRIED.
Mr. Johnston gave the Board copies of his criteria and then addressed them.
1. Special features peculiar to the lot: It is located in downtown Bristol on a 0.07 acre lot with an existing 4-story building that virtually covers the entire lot without adequate parking on site. It has no grandfathered residential rights and other store front properties utilize the upper floors for residential uses which are grandfathered with respect to off street parking spaces. Without this variance, the property would be 4-stories of commercial use(s). Commercial uses are not typically desirable above the first floor in this size building.
2. Minimum variance for reasonable relief: As has been stated above, commercial uses are not usually found above the first floor and would probably not retain high occupancy rates. Also, the applicant has stated that the lending institutions he is dealing with are willing to lend money for this project if it is a residential property and that a commercial venture in this area is not desirable.
-5-
Zoning Board Minutes
11/1/06
SULDENSKI VARIANCE continued:
3. No diminution in value of surrounding properties: The variance would allow the applicant to begin the process of restoring this historic building and remove what has become an eyesore to the community. By restoring the building it would have a positive effect on the values of the surrounding properties. As Bristol’s Master Plan references, “Improvements to individual buildings goes far beyond its own walls, to the extent that it contributes to the overall image of the area.”
4. Granting would be of benefit to the public interest: Allowing municipal parking to count for off-street parking, through the application of the recently adopted parking ordinance, should be a benefit to the public interest by allowing for the restoration of the Mica building creating tax value as well as to improve the aesthetic appearance of the downtown area. Additionally, the Master Plan depicts this building with residential units above the first floor showing a vision for residential units in this building. Mr. Johnston distributed a drawing copy taken from the Master Plan.
5. Granting would create substantial justice: by allowing a reasonable use for the entire existing structure. The use of the recently adopted parking ordinance enables this development to occur by providing adequate off street parking in municipal parking spaces. Additionally, the Master Plan summarizes a parking study done in 2001 with the fact that 51% on weekdays and 60% on weekends is the average occupancy of the municipal parking spaces. It is considerably lower than the 85% to 90% occupancy which is considered an indication of the need for additional short-term parking. Furthermore, an allowed commercial use would require more parking spaces than the 12 needed for this project. 16 or so spaces would be needed for commercial office space.
6. Not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance: Residential use is allowed in the Downtown Commercial zone and therefore is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Additionally, the Board of Selectmen adopted a parking ordinance allowing for overnight parking in municipal spaces with a parking permit in one of the 300 municipal parking spaces in the downtown area.
Mr. Johnston added that the majority of the Downtown Commercial district allows for residential use but there is not enough parking for this. Mr. Bouchard asked if there is no parking available and was told that there is none. Mr. Bouchard noted that any use in the building would have no parking available and Mr. Johnston stated that this is correct. He added that commercial parking in the municipal areas is allowed.
-6-
Zoning Board Minutes
11/1/06
SULDENSKI VARIANCE continued:
Mr. Paradis, Chairman of the Planning Board, asked to be allowed to clarify a point though he wants to remain neutral as this case shall be coming to the Planning Board for site plan. Mr. Paradis stated that municipal parking is not allowed for either type of parking according to Town Attorney, Adele Fulton, so all parking is to be off-street. The Board of Selectmen has allowed a 1-year permit but, should they wish to make this long-term, a majority vote at town meeting would have to occur.
Ms. Heaney asked why Mr. Suldenski is not considering mixed use. Mr. Johnston answered that it is a financing and insurance issue plus the fact that he wishes to discourage vacancies.
Ms. Colby looked at the Master Plan sketch and pointed out the entry for enclosed parking. Mr. Suldenski stated that he would have to blast to get parking underneath the building as it is all ledge. This would be dangerous to the building itself.
Ms. Heaney asked for speakers in favor of the project. Norm Skantze, Fire Chief, stated that he is neither in favor or against but is speaking from a Fire Dept. perspective. He continued by saying that almost 7 years ago, they wanted to demolish the building due to the fact that it was a fire hazard. The building was a problem being unused as it had no windows, staircase and had shafts. Vandalism has been a problem. When Mr. Suldenski came to him, they were on opposite sides as Mr. Skantze was looking to tear the building down. Mr. Suldenski got his permit and fixed what Mr. Skantze had asked for. Paul Mirsky, architect has drawn up the plan review. There is to be automatic fire sprinklers, a 2-hour separation of the metal stairway with a fire alarm and sprinkler system. There is no access for fire apparatus except for in front, he added.
Richard Mouser, Hydro-Electric Manager, stated that they own the land behind this building as well as the Central Street parking lot. They granted the town a 50’ x 100’ area for municipal use as a privilege but it is not to be used for designated parking as this is private property. In 1986 the town had to cease putting snow into the river so this area has been used to put the snow.
Bruce VanDerven stated that he hoped the ZBA will go strictly by the standards. It shall mean $30,000 more in property tax for the town. It is now an empty building. Dawn Reynolds would like to see something with windows in it. Sometimes if we change the way to do things is a way to keep from change.
Don Martin stated that he was the former Chairman of the Planning Board and was responsible for the original article and how it reads. In 2000/2001 they looked at the ordinance and found it not legal and that it needed to get in concert with the Master Plan.
The district has mixed use with higher density. In order to preserve the rural nature, we need to use the existing buildings. Mr. Martin questioned when Article H came in and said that he feels this project meets the Zoning Ordinance criteria.
Steve Favorite stated that he is the head of the Downtown Committee and people have been complaining about parking for about 50 years. We have added the library, Masonic hall and front of the bank to be used. We would actually like parking to be crowded as it would show the downtown as more vitalized.
-7-
Zoning Board Minutes
11/1/06
SULDENSKI VARIANCE continued:
Nancy Fitzpatrick, abutter, questioned anyone living there with no back yard. Ms. Heaney stated that the desirability would depend on where you come from. Ms. Fitzpatrick said that she is against the project. Having 8 families with possibly 2 kids each and no yard makes it too crowded.
Dawn Reynolds, abutter, stated that she does not have a yard and has 2 ½ kids. They walk to the park.
Ms. Oranato-Sullivan felt that they need less units. Having commercial on the bottom with residents on top is fine but that 8 apartments is a lot. She used to live near-by and this has been a big problem. Historically it has not been policed or problems addressed. She is confused with condominiums and asked if this is to be owned by an individual. Ms. Colby felt that it is not to be sold.
Mr. Suldenski stated that there are 200 windows in the building. Mr. Johnston stated that they want 8 2-bedroom condominium units. The Zoning Ordinance lacks anything for condominiums. It does allow Multi-family. Later, Mr. Suldenski could go for a condominium conversion.
Ms. Oranato-Sullivan questioned 8 people getting permits. Ms. Heaney stated that the ZBA cannot look at municipal parking.
Ms. Fitzpatrick questioned doing improvements now but then down the road it becomes a slum. Ms. Heaney stated that this could happen to any building in town. Mr. Skantze said that it shall be in the existing building but the interior shall all be redone.
Susan Duncan, resident, stated that she was told that Ms. Oranato-Sullivan could not be on the Board as she spoke about this when it came up before the Planning Board originally. In the interest of the town, she feels it would be wonderful but Mr. Mouser stated that his parking area is private. With 8 apartments, parking is an issue. The voters said that you have to have 1 ½ spaces per apartment. Ms. Heaney stated that you cannot count permit parking. Ms. Duncan felt that this is not in the spirit of the ordinance. We can’t do for one that we cannot do for another.
Ms. Fitzpatrick again stated that it is too crowded.
Mr. VanDerven stated that the Board of Selectmen’s permit process is for on street overnight and for residences. As to children and slums, he feels that the baby boomers are looking for something like this where they have no lawn care, etc. Also, he felt that “snowbirds” would like it. As to deterioration, it is well on its’ way to that now.
Businesses are leaving and empty places bring in bad people. If not this, what can be done. Originally it was a mica facility. As to the many windows, Mr. Dingman suggested that they can make some of them faux windows to keep the outside look.
Tom Fitzpatrick, abutter, stated that he would hate to see it torn down and thought that, with elevators, it would make a good elderly apartment building.
-8-
Zoning Board Minutes
11/1/06
SULDENSKI VARIANCE continued:
Mr. Johnston stated that Section 4.5H came from him as he thought that someone could tear the building down and build a high rise. This is how it came about. As to the spirit of the ordinance, residential use is allowed but there is no parking in most of the zone and the Master Plan prediction if for residents above commercial. The parking is brought up as the Board of Selectmen could give permits for this. The Hydro problem had to do with abandoned vehicles. Mr. Suldenski stated that he is in favor of the project.
At this time, Ms. Heaney summed up the points: 1. There is no space at all for parking on the lot. 2. It is reasonable relief as you would need a Variance for any use parking. 3. Any improvement is better. 4. The Master Plan shows a desire for residences in the building. 5. A variance is needed for whatever use and municipal parking is available. 6. The Master Plan allows for mixed use and multi-family is an allowed use. Mr. Johnston added that, for #1, this is an existing 4-story building.
The public portion of the hearing was then closed.
#1. Special features peculiar to the lot: Ms. Colby felt that this has been met as the building takes up the whole lot. Everyone agreed. Ms. Heaney added that it is like all the buildings downtown.
#2. Minimum variance: Ms. Colby felt that this falls under the same reasoning as #1. They cannot blast the rock. There is a question of the possible use of the first floor. Ms. Heaney felt that this would change the look of the building and Mr. Suldenski might abandon the plan if it were required.
#3. No diminution of value: Ms. Colby thought that, after seeing the plans, it would bring value to the town but she questions if it will diminish the parking for dinner guests of the restaurant. Ms. Heaney felt that having crowded parking would be good for the town. Mr. Bouchard felt that they could park a little further and walk. He did not see it as a diminution of value to the downtown.
Ms. Heaney asked if the Board might consider a condition to allow the Historic District Commission oversight of the exterior appearance of the building. Ms. Colby stated that it is to look like the picture that Mr. Johnston has presented. Mr. Bouchard stated that, in cities, they usually renovate old mill buildings. Ms. Heaney stated that the Historic District only look at the façade of the building.
#4. Benefit the public interest: Ms. Colby felt that this was no question. Ms. Hardy, Mr. Bouchard and Ms. Heaney agreed.
#5. Substantial justice: Ms. Heaney stated that they would need a variance regardless of the use. Mr. Bouchard agreed and said that they have no other choice. It is either this or to tear it down.
-9-
Zoning Board Minutes
11/1/06
SULDENSKI VARIANCE continued:
#6. Spirit of the Ordinance: Mr. Bouchard felt this to be the toughest criteria. Ms. Colby brought up a good point when she said to look at the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance together. The voters would want to grant this rather than keep what is there now, he thought. Ms. Heaney stated that if the town didn’t want variances, they wouldn’t have a Zoning Board.
Ms. Colby asked if there is a time-line. Mr. Suldenski answered that it will take months with the Planning Board and then will be prohibitive to do during the winter. He expects probably in the Spring.
Mr. Bouchard asked how much Mr. Suldenski has in the project already. Mr. Suldenski answered about $40,000 to put in the temporary roof. Mr. Bouchard asked if he is able to get out there and address the problems that arise now. Mr. Suldenski stated that the plastic over the windows was temporary. It costs $10.00 a sheet for 200 sheets of plywood. Ms. Colby felt that good faith has been shown. Ms. Heaney stated that she wants the Historic District condition. A discussion was held as to whether this is just for the front or all sides. Mr. Suldenski felt that he would keep the building as it is pictured on the plans; there may be more windows, he added.
D. Bouchard made a MOTION, second by D. Hardy, to APPROVE THE VARIANCE FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR JOHN J. SULDENSKI WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION HAS OVERSIGHT ON THE EXTERIOR APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING. The motion CARRIED and the approval with condition signed.
COMMUNICATIONS:
The 31st Municipal Law Lecture Series has gone by.
LGC Fall 2006 Publications catalog ad is to be given to the Chairman.
Bob McCormick’s answer to the Upper Birch Drive complaint was read. Mr. Bouchard expressed that we shouldn’t act on an unsigned complaint. The ZBA only had a copy as the original went to the Code Enforcement Officer.
The Quinlan Publishing ad is to be thrown away (from a Ma. firm)
The Interoffice memo from the Selectmen to curb spending and to get prior permission was read.
The Local Government Center 2006 Annual Conference of Nov. 15-17 was read and felt that we have no money for.
The Town & City magazine will be held in the Zoning Office.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
The Board discussed the new law about advertising for hearings and felt that we should talk about this at the next meeting.
-10-
Zoning Board Minutes
11/1/06
NEW BUSINESS:
Fall Conference materials were handed out to everyone. It was recommended that all go to the Spring Conference.
NEXT MEETING: The first Tuesday of the month meetings shall begin Dec. 5, 2006 at 7:00 pm.
With no other business, D. Bouchard made a motion, second by D. Hardy, to adjourn at 9:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Laferriere, secretary