Minutes--19 July 2006.

Present: E. Vose, M. Mansouri, B. Webb (alt), L. LaClair (alt), L.Weber

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING MINUTES WILL BE REVIEWED ON 16 AUGUST,  2006.

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM.  Because only four members were present at the start of the meeting, the Pinnacleview Public Hearing was tabled and New Business was brought forward.

New Business:  Billy Jo Sullivan is getting a State license to care for up to three children in state foster care in her home. The house is the second on the left on Blackjack Crossing coming from Route 12.  The State requires notice from the Zoning Board as to whether the proposed operation requires a zoning permit.  Other than family members, Ms. Sullivan proposes only one other employee to provide care in her home, to cover vacation periods.  The home is located in the Rural/Agricultural District.  In the Residential District, a home business is a permitted use, but similar language does not appear in the permitted uses in the Rural/Agricultural District.

Mr. LaClair and Mr. Webb were appointed as voting members for this meeting.  The Board determined that the proposed use would require a special exception as a commercial operation.  Ms. Mansouri moved that the matter be set for hearing at the August meeting pending receipt of a completed application. Mr. Webb seconded, and all voted in favor.  Ms Sullivan expressed her concern that Alicia Keller of Drewsville had not been required to go through this process for her State license.  Mr. Vose said his understanding was that Ms. Keller was caring only for her own foster child and not for others.  Ms. Sullivan said this was not the case.

PUBLIC HEARING: Pinnacleview Equipment Sign Variance.  Timely notice of the public hearing was posted and published, and abutters were notified by mail.

Mike Snide represented Pinnacleview.  A variance was granted by the Board in January for two new signs, one 3’ x 12’ for Kubota and one 4’ x 8’ for Polaris.  The variance was for the signs to be separately mounted on individual posts.  When they looked at the installation process, they decided that it might be better to install both signs on one post, to be located at the corner of Route 12 and Pinnacle Drive.  All setback requirements and distances between sign posts will be met, but the resultant single sign will have a total area of 68 square feet.  Mr. Snide stated he would surrender the original variance if this new proposal was approved.

Mr. LaClair said he was in favor of the proposal, and asked about the mechanics of getting rid of the old variance.  It was decided that the surrender of the old variance would be a condition of the grant of the new variance. 

Mr. Vose read through the criteria for a variance:

No decrease in value to surrounding property.  All voted in agreement.

Not contrary to the public interest.  Mr. Webb said he thought this was an improvement over the original  proposal.  All voted in agreement.

Hardship.  The hardship on the business due to economic pressures from suppliers was again noted.  All voted in agreement.

Substantial justice.  Ms. Weber said that many businesses in that and other parts of town have multiple signs.  All voted in agreement.

Not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.  Mr. Webb stated his agreement with this criterion.  All were in agreement.  Mr. Webb moved that the variance be granted as presented subject to the revocation of the previous variance granted 18  January, 2006.  Ms. Mansouri seconded.  All voted in favor, and the variance was approved.

New Business:  Robert Watson, Drewsville Store.  The Selectmen have received a complaint about the ice cream stand recently installed outside the Drewsville Store.  Mr. Watson was asked to come in and explain the operation.  The ice cream stand is a 10 foot by 12 foot shed on a trailer.  It is fully licensed by the state and has eight student employees, all with proper working papers.  Mr. Vose said the problem with the operation is the stand appears to be sited directly on the property line, and therefore the 20 foot setback requirement is an issue.  Mr. Watson stated that because the shed is mobile, it is not a building.  The stand will be in operation until October, with a projected opening in May next year.  In the winter, it will be moved from its present location to an area behind the store over the septic tank once the ground is frozen.

Mr. Webb asked if the stand could be moved closer to the building.  Mr. Watson said there is no place on the property that will not fall into the 20 foot setback zone.  The dumpster is fenced and requires adequate access for the truck.  Ms. Weber read the definition of a building from the ordinance, and said the ice cream stand seems to fall within the definition of a building unless the fact of its having wheels takes it out of the ordinance.  Mr. Watson stated his understanding that the hot dog stand in the Ocean State lot has no permit because it is mobile.  Ms. Mansouri said that each case must be decided on its own merits.  Mr. LaClair stated that for taxation purposes, it would not be a building, but that these are two different issues.  Ms. Weber said that the purpose of the setback is to protect neighboring property owners.  Mr. Watson said the space is used all the time for parking and access.  He would think stand would be quieter and less offensive to the neighbors than the cars parking in that spot. Mr. LaClair said it looked to him as if the stand were located within 2 to 3 feet of the property line.  Mr. Watson said it was more like 4 to 5 feet from the line.  When he purchased the store he was told the hedge was entirely on the store’s lot.

Mr. Vose asked if the stand could be located closer to the store, and Mr. Watson said no because of the issue of dumpster access.  Ms. Mansouri inquired about the other side of the store building, and Mr. Watson said the same setback issues existed without the protection of the hedge.  Both Mr. Webb and Mr. LaClair were of the opinion that the other side of the store might pose more traffic and safety issues.  Ms. Mansouri said that if a temporary storage container is a building so is this stand.  Mr. Vose said that the wheels do not disqualify the stand as a building, and a variance might be required.  Ms. Mansouri asked about a time frame for determining if the operation will be profitable and will continue.  Mr. Watson stated that if the operation is not profitable, he will liquidate it.  Mr. Webb stated that the Board’s only option is to ask him to apply for a variance and leave it up to him to comply or not.  The stand needs either to conform to the ordinance or to obtain a variance.  Mr. LaClair again suggested that other placements on the property might conform to the ordinance, and Mr. Watson stated categorically not.  Ms. Mansouri agreed with Mr. Webb a variance is needed.  Mr. Webb asked about the cease and desist order issued by the selectmen.  Mr. Watson said he had no intention of complying with it.  Mr. Vose explained this Board has no enforcement powers.  Those lie with the selectmen.  Mr. Vose said that we have stated our opinion in response to a question by the selectmen that the operation needs a variance.  A variance application was given to Mr. Watson, and a motion made and seconded to set the matter for public hearing next month if a completed application is received in a timely manner.  All voted in favor.

Trailer on County Road.  James P. Johnson read a letter to Mr. Vose and the Selectmen regarding a trailer located on County Road on land formerly owned by John Graves and now owned by a Mr. Lafayette.  Mr. Johnson is concerned about the apparent installation of a double-wide trailer on a lot once deemed to be too small for a single-wide.  There are now two doublewides on the property. He stated that a variance had been granted when he was on the Board, and that he regretted the decision to grant the variance.  Mr. Vose said that a trailer is allowed in the Rural/Agricultural District.  The issue is whether a variance exists or if a new one would be required for this installation.  He said that what Mr. Johnson needs to do is to ask the Selectmen, on Thursday, to deny the building permit.  Ms. Weber was directed to research the past permit history on the property, and to share her results with the Selectmen.  Mr. Reginald Mack stated he had not been allowed to measure for setback purposes, and that a no trespass order had been issued by the local police, even though he believes the property in question belongs to him.  Mrs. Mack stated there are issues of the use of her well and septic system, as well as boundary issues, as the two properties were once one. Mr. Vose said that the unauthorized use of the well was a civil matter, and Ms. Mansouri urged the Macks to go to the Selectmens meeting to express their concerns there.  It was confirmed that the setback requirements are 65 feet from the center line of the highway and 20 feet from the side lines of the property.

Vehicles for sale next door to the Walpole Animal Clinic.  Mr. Vose and Ms. Weber have both received calls in the nature of complaints regarding the eight or so vehicles for sale and attendant signs.  Does this constitute unpermitted commercial activity in the Rural/Agricultural zone?  It is believed that Neal Levesque owns the property and that the items for sale are his own personal property that he is trying to sell.  Ms. Mansouri said the sale of personal property from one’s home had been found not to be commercial activity, but was unable to recall the specific case.  Jeff Miller talked to Mr. Vose about the matter and it is believed Mr. Miller will take the matter up with the Selectmen, and they could get the owner to come in and explain the operation.  Mr. Webb asked if the definition of a junkyard applied here.  Mr. Vose said the selectmen are familiar with the definition of a junkyard. 

Old Business:

Mr. Webb moved the approval of the minutes of the June 21 meeting as written.  Ms. Mansouri seconded, and all voted in favor.

Ms. Weber said that following a request by Mr. Webb, she had researched the actual date of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.  It appears from the files that the Ordinance was adopted on 12 March 1968, not in 1966 as stated on the current version of the ordinance.  Ms. Weber will let Ms. Aslinger know of the correction for subsequent printings.

Meeting adjourned at 8:55.  The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 16th, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

Lucy McVitty Weber