TOWN OF DERBY
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes 2007 Archives
 

Derby Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes

Meeting Date November 19, 2007

Members present were Zoning Board of Adjustment Chair Joe Profera (JP), Charles Capaldi (CC), Judy Nommik (JN) and Paul Prue (PP); also present was Zoning Administrator JC Brimmer (ZA).

1. JP opened meeting at 6:12 pm.  

2. PP motion to accept minutes of October 22, 2007 as submitted, seconded by CC and approved by acclamation.

3. ZBA entered closed deliberative session at 6:15 pm.

4. ZBA came out of deliberative session at 7:22 pm.  JN motion to approve conditional use application 07-107 with the following conditions: A. applicants shall submit for Zoning Board of Adjustment approval a revised site plan indicating the following amendments 1. Designated public events area and pool shelter location on the north side of the knoll, 2. Specification of a five foot high berm to be planted with coniferous plants no less than five feet in height in such arrangement as to provide continuous screening of trailer sites from Hayward Road and fill the current approximately 20 foot screening gap, 3. Stormwater retention and flow design that will ensure release to the south side of Hayward Rd. will not exceed current conditions, 4. A stop and no left turn sign is to be specified for exiting traffic; B. In the event that Hayward Rd. is upgraded with hard surface pavement east of the entryway, applicants shall install a hard surface apron from the edge of the public pavement to a point no less than 25’ into the site within 90 days; second by CC and approved by yea votes JP, JN and CC with PP voting nay citing that conditions on the applicants are to onerous and costly.  ZA directed to draft a dissenting opinion along with findings as discussed in deliberative session.    

5. JN motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 pm, seconded by CC and approved by acclamation.

Prepared and submitted by JC Brimmer         

Derby Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes

Meeting Date October 22, 2007

Members present were Zoning Board of Adjustment Chair Joe Profera (JP), Charles Capaldi (CC), Norman Gaboriault (NG), Judy Nommik (JN) and Paul Prue (PP); also present was Zoning Administrator JC Brimmer (ZA); representing applicants Todd Willis (TW) and Cindy Willis (CW), Dave Lawes PE (DL); representing interested parties Mitch Wonson (MW), interested parties William Slaiby (WS) and Jackie Slaiby; Planning Commission member Dave LaBelle; public attendee Skip Hastings (SH).

1. JP opened meeting at 7:04 pm.  

2. JN motion to accept minutes of September 24, 2007 as submitted, seconded by PP and approved by acclamation.

3. JP reopened public hearing 07-107 at 7:10 pm, conditional use for an expansion of Char-Bo Campground, Todd and Cindy Willis property owners and applicants, application represented by DL.  DL presented updated documents addressing questions posed in the recess memo; status of compliance with the land use permit, application has been made and the extensions are usually routine, some reworking of the existing sewage pipes will be required and an amendment to the WW permit may be required and he discussed clean slate and how it applies to the WW discharge permit but not to the Act 250 land use permit, the modification is that the existing sewer lines will stay in place and intercepted and redirected to the new disposal field avoiding disturbance to the existing camper sites, under new rules the water supply is being reviewed; agreement between the Road Department and the applicants has been reached, paving will not be required but applicants have agreed to a ditching and redirection of stormwater flows to keep the water off the road, rip-rap will be installed and water will be redirected through an existing town culvert to the south side of Hayward Rd.; PP asked about the access, is there any revision required? TW stated that the entrance will be widened by 10’, DL stated opinion that the current works and a revision is not required, most traffic turns to the west upon exiting the property; the updated plan indicates a shelter location outside the Shoreland district and the locations of the dumpsters, dumpsters will not be visible from outside the site; NG asked about the dumpster locations, TW explained that a location on the way out would be to close to the road; site screening from Hayward Rd. and additional sites from Hayward Rd. from the east side of the project, DL explained that screening for sound requires density, the applicants are proposing some screening however screening the shelter building would be difficult.  WS commented that a lot of activity would be centered on the shelter, why not move to a different location over the crest of the hill, TW stated that because of the location of sports facilities and the office/store the location makes sense from a business point of view and the shelter would be located 200’ from Hayward Rd.  WS commented that the rec building should be moved back and then the arguments about screening would go away, WS commented on the evolution of the campground from a transient tenting site to a seasonal RV site, for that reason he wants to see the activity pushed back into the site.  PP asked how often events occur, TW stated aprox four times a year.  WS stated that the visual and noise impact of the activities is too great now and will only increase with the increased capacity.  DL entered some photos of the views from the site to the lines in dispute, WS stated that he should not have to deal with views of the campground or activities that occur there.  NG asked about the driver for the shelter location, CW stated that it is the proximity of the camp store and staff to events at the park.  DL reviewed the photos and acknowledged that there are some gaps in the tree lines and the applicants are willing to fill in the gaps.  WS stated that the expansion is going to change the visual impact and that they cannot retreat from the increased noise and wants screening, DL emphasized that the applicants are willing to screen.  DL reviewed the screening for the backside of the new unit locations, and the previous planting and fencing for screening purposes.  WS objected that the view from outside the campground is what matters.  PP asked if the Sumners have an objection, TW stated that he has spoken to the Sumners and they have no objections.  NG asked what screening was required per the Act 250 permit and was it installed, locations indicated and both TW and WS agreed they were in compliance.  WS repeated that his objection is not to the present campground but to the expansion.  JP asked if the proposed plantings would fill the gap, DL agreed that this is the purpose.  Discussion of the effectiveness of the berm installation of cedar plantings for screening purposes.  WS stated that the current campground has major visual impact from Rte. 105 now and doubling could only increase this.  DL replied that all the new sites are out of site and took issue with the visual impact of the new site locations.  MW stated that if the botchy court were visible now the new units would be visible and that the screening trees were deciduous and would do nothing to screen the RV units left in place in the winter months.  JP asked if the park was open in the winter, TW no, open May 1-Oct 1, CW added that units are left in place through the winter and campers may go to inspect their units but all services are turned off.  WS stated that the campers are there through the year.  CC asked about what is and is not visible, just the narrow viewing angle.  PP stated opinion that the residents are not night owls, he asked WS if he built his house before or after the campground was established, WS stated that he built with the campground in place but at the time it was more of a tent ground and it has transitioned to an RV park with greater impact.  NG asked how often the campground is at full capacity now, CW replied every one occupied on weekends, NG asked if they have heard anything back from Act 250 yet and what happens if it denied, DL replied that extensions are almost always granted.  JP asked if a hearing date for Act 250 has been set, DL replied not yet, he believes the district commission wants this battle fought out here first.  SH asked if it is commercial land, ZA replied that it is zoned rural residential, that it is an established use and that it is in fact a conditional use allowed in the zone; SH stated that as a commercial use more noise should be expected, he see the expansion as a needed addition to the taxbase, that if he had problems he would ask to buy them out.  MW stating the concerns of clients, accessory uses in the shoreland zone, landscaping and screening, would like a more stringent requirement for screening plantings, that the access issues still remain and that a 90 degree should be required, a traffic study should be required, concerned that the drainage plan for stormwater would have a negative impact on his client’s property across the road, how much additional runoff across the road, concerned about the impact of increased density and activity especially with special events; the no adverse impacts requirements of a CU have not been met.  CC motion to close the hearing, second by PP and approved by acclamation at 8:13 pm. 

4. ZBA entered closed deliberative session at 8:15 pm.

5. ZBA came out of deliberative session at 9:53 pm without reaching a decision, discussion of a date to meet for further deliberation.     

6. JN motion to adjourn the meeting until 6:00 pm Monday November 19 to continue closed deliberations at 10:00 pm, seconded by NG and approved by acclamation.

Prepared and submitted by JC Brimmer       

Derby Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes

Meeting Date September 10, 2007

Members present were Zoning Board of Adjustment Chair Joe Profera (JP), Charles Capaldi (CC), Norman Gaboriault (NG) and Paul Prue (PP); also present was Zoning Administrator JC Brimmer (ZA); applicants Theresa Forbes (TF), Todd Willis (TW) and Cindy Willis (CW); representing interested parties Mitch Wonson (MW), interested parties William Slaiby (WS), Jackie Slaiby and Andrew Major (AM); Planning Commission member Dave LaBelle; public attendees Brian McNeal (BM), Mary Nelson (MN), Bev Willis, Diane Parenteau (DP), Marion Stevens, Walter Bouchard, Shirley Bouchard, Bessie Hastings, Skip Hastings (SH), Marilyn & Richard Rhodes, Armand Allard, Clinton Stevens, Paul Doherty (PD), Nancy Fedele, Madeleine Roy (MR), Grace Hiller, John Hiller, Duane Willis, Randall Blaise (RB), Carla Harlow and Bob Harlow (BH); members of the press Robin Smith of the Caledonia Record, Steve Blake of The Newport Daily Express and Joe Gresser of The Barton Chronicle.

1. JP opened meeting at 7:00 pm.  

2. CC motion to accept minutes of August 6, 2007 as submitted, seconded by PP and approved by acclamation.

3. Open discussion of variance application 07-101.  JP expressed concern of character of the neighborhood issues.  CC in favor of increasing bandwidth availability and finds the nexus of location factors compelling.  Review and discussion of the five criteria, disagreement continues over character issues.  Discussion of the contradiction between the Bylaw and the telecom section of the Town Plan, the technology changed since 2004 and the Bylaw was designed for large-scale cellular towers.  JP stands firm on the character issue, PP firm on denial and thinks this was a “backdoor” way into permitting.  JP closed discussion with an opinion that a compromise requiring co-location could be worked out.

4. JP opened public hearing 07-112, accessory conditional use for a conditional use, church operated daycare facility, St. Edwards Charitable Trust property owner and applicant, application represented by TF.  TF gave presentation: proposal is for a preschool program, two of six classrooms in the parish hall would be used, building has received approval by state fire marshal and by the licensing agency for childcare and the Village Trustees have approved the use of the playground at Baxter Park and arrangements made for street crossing, tuition is sliding with subsidies making up the difference, supervisory union officials have stated that with the closing of St. Mary’s one fifth of preschool age children have no place to go and this facility will help close the gap.  Staff will be two lead teachers and two part time aides, hours will be 7:30 am-5:30 pm and max capacity will be 16 based on the size of the rooms, adding another room would allow 20.  JP asked about the times for outdoor activity, TF 10am-10:45 am, in good weather, there is space inside and the parking lot if the Park has another event scheduled.  TF stated that other uses could continue in the parish hall.  CC asked about the trip generation number of 25 am and 25 pm, what capacity is that based on, TF a capacity of 20 figuring the staff of four and a drop off and pick up for each child, stated that she felt the number was probably high as some parents will carpool.  NG asked which rooms will be used, TF the two at the end of the corridor will the doors outside at the end and that is the door that will be used.  JP asked if the rooms has doors outside, TF no but each room has a window that meets the requirement as an egress window.  CC asked what the spaces are used for now, TF Sunday school, the rooms are currently not used during the week.  NG stated that he thought they would outgrow the 16 capacity quickly, TF agreed but the need was immediate and so the two approved rooms were applied for and further state permits would be required for more, TF asked if she should go to 20?  NG asked if there would be a fire safety problem if they expanded into two more spaces, TF no it is really a matter of the compatibility of the size of tables and desks.  JP asked if there were any parties seeking status or had comments or questions, MR is an abutter and stated enthusiastic support for the facility.  MN expressed support and the need for daycare and pre-k slots.  NG motion to close the hearing at 7:30 pm, second by PP and approved by acclamation. 

5. JP opened public hearing 07-107 at 7:31 pm conditional use for an expansion of Char-Bo Campground, TW & CW property owners, applicants and presenting the application. TW expansion of conditional use permit from 72 to 105 camping sites, current permitting allows 55.  ZA stated that this is technically an amendment to conditional use permitting done in the past and the question is did the past CU run with the land or expire after two years, which is one of the issues for the ZBA to consider and is the board willing to extend that permit to cover 105 sites.  CC asked if the applicants had met and made an agreement with the road commissioner, TW not at this time, they have not spoken since the site visit, stated that he wants them to pave the town road and that they will not agree to that, it is the town’s road and that they are not responsible for that.  CC asked about landscaping, TW stated that he doesn’t feel that the existing needs upgrade, he provided photos of the existing tree line between the site and WS’s property, CC followed up asking if these are deciduous trees, TW stated yeas but the park closes Oct 1, CW added that the park operates from May 1-Oct 1.  NG asked if the photo was from the park site to WS property, TW stated that this is from the area that they want to expand, he detailed the areas on the site map, new sites not visible from the road or from the camps on the lake.  CC asked if they accept pets, CW yes.  NG asked about the geometry of the driveway, TW stated that the road commissioner did mention that, but they have no plans for a revised access.  JP discussed the paved apron, Planning Commission has been requiring as a matter of site plan review that where private gravel meets public pavement that a 25’ paved apron is required, and this requirement would only be applied to this application if the public road were paved.  CC asked about water runoff on the driveway, TW stated that it is a pre-existing condition and he has no responsibility for it.  PP asked about the e-mail from the district coordinator, has the applicant seen it yet, TW stated that he had and not all the questions have been answered yet, but they are in the process.  CC asked if they check campers in, CW yes, CC asked if they had data on the numbers of campers for the 2007 season, CW three spots are open the rest are seasonal, so 43 are seasonal.  CC asked about the size of the RVs, double axle mostly, some lighter pop-ups.  PP commented that he wished the Road Commissioner were here at the hearing, he would like details but he understands that the commissioner wants the road blacktopped to the entrance and the drive blacktopped 25’.  JP stated that the Road Commissioner wants the road blacktopped, it’s the Planning Commission that would require the drive to be blacktopped if the road was.  TW restated that he should not be held account for the road and would not agree to such a condition,  PP expressed sympathy for that point of view.  NG asked how they control attendance at events and the use of the proposed shelter, do the guests check in?  CW no not for events, the shelter would be used for camp sponsored events or wedding bookings and the like, NG asked if they get a head count, CW yes, NG is there anything that restricts access, CW no, TW added that they had to go by the office to get into the site, there is only one drive.  CC asked if the shelter building would be visible from adjacent properties, CW yes from Hayward Road, CC asked if there were any plans to screen it, TW no, CC asked how many people would the shelter handle, TW 35-40, the rec room can handle 80 people, big events run from 120-200 people and the shelter is for bad weather.  PP asked how far the shelter was from the road, 300’.  JP opened the floor.  MW representing the Slaibys and the Cornoyers asserting party status on the basis of character of the area, traffic on the roads, the bylaw provisions, and the general health safety and welfare; stated that the majority of campers use the site as a seasonal residence of a semi-permanent nature, the area by nature lends itself to outdoor activity and a doubling of the density, traffic and noise; has a number of questions, the use of the shelter building, outdoor events visitor parking where located and how screened, lighting, will there be new dumpsters, where located and screened, most of the treeline is in the town ROW and subject to removal, most of the RVs are there all year long and visible from the Slaiby residence which suggests screening, what kind of grading and tree removal might occur, access geometry does not meet safety standards, what are the trip generation numbers, what noise abatement is planned, where will the activity areas move to; as relates to the bylaws, does not feel the existing CUP is pertinent to the current proposal, 89 full service sites, 12 part service and 4 tent sites, the 1998 permit allowed 18 full service sites, 32 part service and 21 tent sites; accessory uses should be limited to the rural residential zone and out of the shoreland district including the proposed wastewater system; trip generation by the book is 5 trip ends a day as a mobile home park, 9.5 trip ends as single family dwellings, a range of 500 to 1000 trip ends a day from the project a traffic study should be prepared and the drive geometry should be revised to 90 degrees; character of area issues concern density of 105 units in an 8 acre area; parties believe there will be adverse impacts and the application should be denied.  BM stated that he is a camper at the site, compared the area to condos, every park is designed with spaces close together, the access is easier for campers because most are turning in to the left and out at the right, VT is hostile to business but Derby is not and the park brings in money, the park was there when parties bought property and the park can’t be responsible for their problems, business must expand.  SH can’t understand why parties don’t have to screen, it’s the parks land and people should park where ever they want and if there’s a mess they’ll clean it up.  RB seasonal camper, change will occur whether you want it or not, character is not an issue, traffic doesn’t go by the parties house, not an issue.  WS, knew campground was there 25 years ago, but it was small and there were more tenters, the campground is place where people get together for a good time and that creates noise and traffic, this is a commercial expansion, they have no problem with the campground as it is now, but the expansion changes the character of the neighborhood. DP commented that the parcel is 144 acres, density is not an issue, where are the other neighbors complaints.  MR is an abutter and she finds the noise is not an issue or offensive, the noise issue is the racetrack, campground noise always stops at 11 pm.  PD, seasonal renter, most park residents are 50+ years old, how much noise is created, why were the Willis’ required to put in fencing and landscaping?  BM we need economic development.  PP clarified the location of the parties with WS.  WS restated that his objection is to the expansion not the present campground.  NG asked about quiet hours, CW 11 pm, NG have you a history of police calls on noise, CW no, it just hasn’t happened.  WS unless its something really outrageous I don’t call because the Sheriffs Dept doesn’t respond anyway, NG is there noise after 11 pm? WS no, not generally.  CW stated that twice a year they have live music and at 10 pm they shut down.  AM is representing the Lake Salem Association, his concern is the water quality, not stating objections yet but the association is concerned about the community system proposed.  MW restated that a 90-degree is not a problem with sufficient width and turn radii.  BH is an abutter, has no problem with the noise.  CC asked generally how many campers per RV, CW two adults and two kids, CC asked how many sites would be seasonal, CW 40 to 60%.  PP asked how heavy the RV’s run, TW between 2 and 3 tons.  JP asked about the septic issues, can we ask for studies, ZA opined that this really goes to ANR jurisdiction but AM must assert party status here to have appeal rights before Act 250.   NG motion to recess the hearing at 8:35 pm until September 24, 2007 to obtain further information from the Road Commissioner, seconded by CC and approved by acclamation.     

6. ZBA entered open deliberation of 07-101, after debate no decision was reached.

7. ZBA entered open deliberative session on application 07-112, no major objections but NG thought that 16 capacity would hamstring expansion as needed.  NG motion to approve conditional use application 07-112 with standard conditions for a daycare facility with a capacity of 20 children, further expansion requiring further permitting, seconded by CC and approved by acclamation.

8. Further discussion of application 07-101, concern over more towers in the area and the manner that the deal was done.  Compromise reached that the tower should be open to co-location at minimal cost since lease for tower is paid in kind.  PP motion to approve 07-101 on condition that applicant shall allow co-location at a prorated fee not to exceed the stated cost of the tower, seconded by CC and approved by acclamation of qualified members.

9. NG motion to close the meeting at 9:43 pm, seconded by PP and approved by acclamation.

Prepared and submitted by JC Brimmer     

Derby Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes

Meeting Date August 6, 2007

Members present were Zoning Board of Adjustment Chair Joe Profera (JP), Charles Capaldi (CC) and Paul Prue (PP); also present was Zoning Administrator JC Brimmer (ZA).

1. JP opened meeting at 6:30 pm.  

2. PP motion to accept minutes of July 30, 2007 as submitted, seconded by CC and approved by acclamation.

3. ZBA entered closed deliberative session on variance application 07-101 at 6:33 pm.

4. ZBA came out of deliberative session at 7:00 pm with no decision on application 07-101. 

5. ZA directed to get a date for ZBA member Judy Nommik’s arrival back in town and report to the chair on possible qualification to deliberate on application 07-101 via review of audio recording of the hearing.

6. Motion by PP to adjourn meeting at 7:01 pm, second by CC and approved by acclamation.

Prepared and submitted by JC Brimmer              

Derby Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes

Meeting Date July 30, 2007

Members present were Zoning Board of Adjustment Chair Joe Profera (JP), Charles Capaldi (CC), Paul Prue (PP) and Norman Gaboriault (NG); also present was Zoning Administrator JC Brimmer (ZA), representing applicant David Jefferson (DJ) and Jake Marsh (JM) and member of the press Chris Roy (CR) of the Newport Daily Express.

1. JP opened meeting at 7:10 pm.  

2. PP motion to accept minutes of April 23, 2007, seconded by NG and approved by acclamation.

3. CC welcomed to his first ZBA meeting as a member.

4. JP opened hearing 07-101; use variance for a 49’ wireless internet tower, Community National Bank property owner and Great Auk Wireless applicant.  Application represented by DJ and JM.  NG recused himself as a deliberating and voting member in the application due to an employment relationship with a competitor and participated as a member of the public.  DJ stated that the facility would provide redundant services to the bank provide wireless bandwidth and expand wireless coverage in the NEK.  JP asked about operational range, JM stated that immediately it would provide about 1000’ radii, better laptops aprox 1 mile, the plan is to expand coverage from this node.  JP asked about current coverage, is this the start, JM replied that some nodes operational in Coventry and Nelson Hill, the signal would be relayed but the service would provide further bandwidth.  JP asked if this was free of charge, no it is a service for fee, self-service log in.  ZA asked what an incidental use charge would be, DJ aprox $2 an hour, charges for longer service periods would be less per hour and customers could set up an account for varying time periods.  JP asked about coverage and time frames, JM stated looking at full coverage in 18 months or so, current project could be executed in 6-8 weeks.  PP is going to feed fiber?  JM this is going to feed optical fiber at a piece of equipment located in the basement of the bank directly on a Level 3 installation done by Adelphia Business Systems, allows a bypass around the Verizon copper wire which is a major limitation at the moment due to lack of bandwidth.  PP asked about the fiber installations in front of the bank, JM stated that yes there is Verizon fiber in the area but access costs are too high, and network not reliable enough.  The Level 3 network is in a ring where the Verizon network is branched, a break in the line on the ring results in data routed the other direction, a break in the branch network results in service outage down the length of the branch.  PP followed up with a question about the upgrade to the current Verizon network, JM confirmed that the hardware is current state of the art, the problem is configuration.  PP expressed doubts about the 99.8% reliability claimed for the system.  CR asked if the connector is a landline system, JM yes but not the phone landline system but a fiber system, CR followed up with a question about above or below ground, JM stated both but downed lines would route services around the ring, if the system were cut in two places there are other redundancies that provide backup and continued service.  CR asked about speeds, JM 512k up to 2mg most speeds will double or triple in the next few months.  CR asked if the speeds and service degrades in inclement weather, JM typically no.  JP asked about further towers, JM stated that this would be the source and main feed with further line of sight to Nelson Hill and Jay Peak, further antennas would be small.  NG asked about why a variance?  ZA stated that the use does not appear on either use list for the commercial zone, that when the bylaw was written this sort of system was not envisioned; saw 100’ cell towers located in rural areas. NG asked how this benefits the bank, and is this driving the location?  JM stated that it is the confluence of major user, good topography and a fiber node in the same location.  CC asked about location, going on the out building in the parking lot.  PP why not on the Kelley tower?  DJ we are a competitor.  Discussion of lack of FTC regulation and licensing, JM operating in the same bands as baby monitors and garage door openers, set aside specifically for non-licensed uses, no interference should result with licensed bands.  CC asked about bandwidth limitations, JM stated that the fiber is almost unlimited in capacity, the limitation is in the sending and receiving electronics and those are improving monthly, upgrades are scheduled continuously.  CC motion to close hearing at 7:38, second by PP and approved by acclamation. 

5. ZBA entered deliberative session at 7:40 pm; NG excused himself from the meeting and left the building.

6. ZBA recessed deliberative session at 8:08 pm.  JP announced agreement to meet at 6:30 pm Monday on 8/6/2007 for further deliberation to facilitate further fact finding.

7. Motion by PP to adjourn meeting at 8:10 pm, second by CC and approved by acclamation.

Prepared and submitted by JC Brimmer              

Derby Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes

Meeting Date April 23, 2007

Members present were Zoning Board of Adjustment Chair Joe Profera (JP), Judy Nommik (JN), Paul Prue (PP) and Norman Gaboriault (NG); also present was Zoning Administrator JC Brimmer (ZA), representing applicant architect Mark Stewart (MW).

1. JP opened meeting at 7:05 pm.  

2. JN motion to accept minutes of July 31, 2006, seconded by NG and approved by acclamation.

3. JP opened hearing 07-023 at 7:15 pm, MS presenting for the applicants Harold and Susan Sandals, application for conditional use per Section 302.5 reconstruction of a compliant non-conforming structure within original envelope.  MS presented project, existing camp lot with small seasonal camp, applicants would like to replace current small structure; a survey was run to establish property lines and one corner on westside does not meet the 25’ setback.  The proposal is to expand the building without increasing the non-conformity; additional 2^nd floor will meet the required setback.  JP asked about the size of the lot, ZA stated .59 acre.  PP asked if the footprint was the same as the original, MS replied that the non-conformity was in the same footprint, additional construction would meet the setback requirement; this will be a larger home.  ZA stated project was designed around section 302.5.  JP asked about the septic, MS replaced about a year ago.  JP verified the setbacks.  PP asked about existing structure, MS client wanted 2^nd floor but existing not suited to addition.  MS stated that this is one of the few conforming lots.  JP asked about the ROW, located off the lot along west property line.  JN motion to close hearing at 7:25 pm, second by PP and approved by acclamation.

4. ZBA entered deliberative session at 7:28 pm.

5. ZBA came out of deliberative session 7:30 pm.  NG motion to grant CU permit 07-023 as submitted with standard conditions, seconded by JN and approved by acclamation.

6. Motion by JN to close at 7:32 pm, seconded by PP and approved by acclamation.

Prepared and submitted by JC Brimmer