ZBA Hearing Minutes - 448 Main Rd - 6/15/2020

Meeting date: 
Monday, June 15, 2020

ZBA Hearing Minutes

Address:  448 Main Rd

Date:  6/15/20

Hearing began at: 1:30pm, continued with applicant’s permission to 3:15pm, the hearing reopened at 3:36pm

Members Present:  Jonathan Levin, Chair, Gary Shaw, Clerk, Scott Jenssen and Susan Cooper

Also present: Chapin Fish, Zack Colbreath

The hearing began with Jonathan Levin, Chair, explaining the hearing process and then Gary Shaw, Clerk, read the letters from the various boards.

Jonathan Levin explained that one of the members was unable to make it today due to illness which means that a unanimous vote would be required to approve the permit.  In addition one member forgot about today’s hearing and could not make it back until later.  The applicant assented to continuing the hearing to 3:15pm this afternoon.

At 3:36pm the hearing was reopened and the applicant presented the details of their proposed project.  Chapin Fish stated that the Building Inspector cautioned him that out of an abundance of caution and to protect the project a special permit should be requested however he did not formally deny the building permit.

The Board had questions about the location of the septic tank, required maintenance and monitoring and how the deck might impact that.  Chapin explained that the deck is being designed to accommodate the continued monitoring necessary.

After the applicant completed their presentation the Board closed the public portion of the hearing and began their deliberations.

Jon Levin explained that slightly different standards (section 5.1.4 of the zoning bylaws) will need to be applied to this applicant since it is not a single family dwelling.  It was noted for the record that no abutters were present to object to the application. 

A motion was made to approve the project as submitted.  The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.

Following documents were submitted to the Board:

  1. Application dated March 18, 2020;
  2. Building Permit Site Plan dated March 5, 2020;
  3. Application Addendum dated April 2, 2020
  4. Site Plans dated June 12, 2019;
  5. Publication, Letters and Comments read into the public record

The Board made the following findings:

  1. The property is in the Business District.
  2. The property has been historically used as a general store, restaurant and related uses. All such uses are permitted as a matter of right in the Business District.  Applicant also intends to use the property for office use, which use is also permitted as a matter of right in the Business District.
  3. At the rear of the building on the Property is an open air deck, attached to and accessed from the interior of the first floor of the Property.  The rear deck has been historically used as outside seating for the restaurant and retail use of the Property.
  4. Applicant seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 5.1.4 of the By-Law to enclose the rear deck into a screened porch (with seasonal glass inserts), with the use of the screened porch to continue to be as outside seating for the restaurant and retail use of the Property.
  5. The propose area to be converted from an outside deck to a screened porch is 337 sq. feet.  The current habitable space within the Property (exclusive of the unfinished basement) is 2,332 sq. ft on the first floor, and 1,182 sq. feet on the second floor, for a total of 3,514.  The additional area of the screened porch would increase the habitable area by approximately 9.6%.
  6. The proposed conversion of the deck to a screened porch would be an alteration under Section 5.1.4 of the By-Law.
  7. The proposed alteration is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use;
  8. The proposed alteration will not significantly increase the incidence of any factors set forth in Section 5.1.4(2) of the By-Law;
  9. The proposed alteration would not result in a structure of more than 25% greater habitable square footage then the current structure;
  10. There do not appear to be any possible adverse impacts on adjacent properties and the general neighborhood, and therefore the Board need not impose conditions, safeguards or limitations on the Special Permit.

The hearing concluded at 3:50pm

Submitted by

Melissa Noe, Administrative Assistant