MINUTES
September 12, 2011
#1 Public
Hearing – Variance request: Joan Huddleston / Mark Huddleston 354 Olde Pine
Lane,
Wallingford,
Vermont. Existing garage built in 1985 was built about 10 feet from property line. Set
backs are 30 feet. Neighbors had a recent survey done that showed the property
line only 10 feet from existing garage. In order to sell property owner needs a
variance.
Present:
DRB Members:
John West
Ann Tiplady
Hans Huessy
Carol Ann
Martin
Others
Present:
Peter Hathaway –
Wallingford
Zoning Administrator
Citizens:
Nancy Eddy, Realtor for Huddleston
John and Cecilia Jancola – abutting property owners at 368 Olde Pine Lane
Meeting
opened at 7:03 p.m.:
John West
heard testimony from John and Cecilia Jancola and Nancy Eddy. The Town
Wallingford property file was reviewed.
- The
abutting owners (John and Cecilia) request a fence is installed as condition
of granting the variance.
- Discussion
about clearing trees on John and Cecilia’s property a few years ago.
- Hans
read the variance requirement from statute
- Hans
recommends that the matter get tabled until the parties can work out a
mutually agreeable deal.
- Both
applicant and abutting owners consent to tabling. They will re-schedule when
they get an agreement.
Meeting was adjourned at about 7:20 p.m.
#2 Public Hearing –Rodney Conrad 995 Centerville
Road requests a variance so that he can build an addition 35 feet from the road
where the setback is 50 feet from the road. This is from Article IV section 2(b)
of Wallingford
zoning regulations.
DRB:
John West
Ann Tiplady
Hans Huessy
Carol Ann
Martin
Others Present:
Peter Hathaway –
Wallingford
Zoning Administrator
Citizens:
Rodney and Theresa Conrad
Meeting opened at 7:20 p.m.:
John West
heard testimony from Rodney and Theresa Conrad. The Wallingford
property file was reviewed.
- Hans explains variance proceedings
- Owner explained why he wants a variance
- Hans suggests boundary adjustment – Purchase land
from abutting property owners and move road.
- Applicant explains hardship.
- Applicant shows pictures
- Applicant referred to variance regulations.
Applicant asked to come up with an argument as to hardship that meets the
statute definition.
Hearing closed at 7:34 p.m. and
DRB members go into deliberative session.
Members came out of Deliberative
session at 7:40 p.m. Stated the following:
- Variance request denied. Vote was 3 in favor of
denial. The applicants had not exhausted other avenues such as:
- Move the road
- Change configuration of the addition
- Statute is clear as to what a hardship is.
Applicant did not meet the statute requirements.
Meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m. |