All towns · danville

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Video

review from our last meeting take a minute and you continue this hearing until
Tuesday June 30th oh okay is that your memory that's my memory that's why we do
a lot of minutes yeah I'm pretty sure we said 730 so that's one amendment I'd like
to make to the meeting minutes on Road 19 to add at 730 does anyone else have
anything to accept the meeting that says
the same the applicant is not here yet I think we can explain where we are in the
process we've had an initial hearing we got a site walk the applicant was recommended
to meet with conservation but because of the scheduling they weren't able to
meet the conservation until I guess the last week or you wasn't
But he did have that meeting. We have been provided with the meeting minutes from
that meeting and it looks like the applicant Matt submitted some updates to his
plan to the Conservation Commission that he reviewed with them at that
day. So today is the continued the continued hearing
but we honestly would like the applicant here before we get started so we'll give
it a couple minutes at the last meeting to this hearing started at 8 o'clock
the last thing it's got a 730 right away right actually had no reason to think that it's
later and I told us it's done there something I know for the cause for the
consultation I mean technically you don't have to have an applicant here but I mean you know
I think it's good practice to do that.
I want to continue this.
I do too.
Did you get coffee with this new intended?
Yeah, it was in the, so the
the conservation that the commission
that Gail forwarded near correspondence had two attachments.
What was the meeting minutes and one was a PDF with his
up the idea?
Yeah, I read the minute, I must say he
I didn't see the PDF on the plan itself.
I saw his.
His written comments, do we have a PDF of the plan?
No, okay.
Okay, that's here.
No, he really are written comments.
Yeah, it wasn't a, it wasn't a lot of way.
And all of them were, in my opinion, if possible,
if practical, when possible, there was no definitive definition
of this is where it's going to be.
Everything was, if I can.
Go ahead, thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
What's that?
Hold that's close.
I'll see other chat.
Yeah.
It was a purpose that the conservation made about
the line for this reason that
what and subject for it.
It's a reference to 188 lines in a one.
Mm-hmm.
Look, 188.
Right right here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I don't we saw.
Um,
is there any other business
that I want to bring up?
I want to talk about the RSA
for shed in general.
With the long of the
should be done,
and they did tell us all the things we can do,
and we got to stay with them the things we can do.
Is it pertinent to this hearing?
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Matt, thanks for coming.
Good evening.
We've reviewed our meeting minutes.
I give a little preamble about where we are
with having a first hearing, having site visit,
U.S. and a meeting.
conservation commission, they had meeting minutes that they forwarded to us along with,
you know, document that you, I guess, have reviewed the down with.
So I think we are now ready to reopen the hearing, the continuance at this time.
So we still have the same board that was here on the first meeting.
Michelle, you were not here on the first meeting, right?
So for this hearing, we will have
We will have voting members of Walter, Dave, Brenda,
and myself.
So with that, we did something, maybe with some changes to the conservation,
we've read there being minutes, we've got a copy of that.
Would you like to highlight anything or changes since the last time you were here?
Like changes since I was here for conservation?
No, changes since you were here for the last...
Oh, shed, like, dimensions are on that, right?
I think that.
I see that in the top.
It's all right.
Yeah, sorry, it's very neat right then.
Let me just cover something.
When you went at the conservation, you said you moved at 35 feet from the web hands.
Now you're saying, is it from the, uh, whatman's, is that the same?
Yes, 37.
Before you had it here, and then you moved it up to here.
Yeah, before it was like here.
I think it's the control lines.
So this is the control lines that the car still was.
Yeah.
And so one thing that I realized last meeting, right, um, this math
so much inaccurate, the drive, which is unfortunate because it's kind of, you know, it's not a fully accurate point at that point.
So they made a recommendation that instead of putting it here, it would go here, kind of in this note of where the existing driveway was.
That's not where the driveway is now.
The driveway just goes down and turns out.
So the same curve cut to above here, and then it just goes straight up to the side of my nose.
side of my house.
That was the recommendation they made.
Should we decide because of hardship?
We should let you put it somewhere in the seven.
They made a two proper motion in the end.
Is that if, in fact, CBA?
Yeah.
Let me get to read what they said.
Yeah.
At the end of the beginning, Carson made a two-part motion.
The shed should not be placed in the 75-foot wetland buffer.
This is due to zoning rules already in place when the property was purchased
and rules are not.
change since the current owner purchased in fall of 2025.
These are intended to protect wetlands.
And then B, if CDA is convinced that a hardship on the property
is used to issue the variance to the owner to place the shed within the wetlands buffer.
Conservation would recommend the shed be placed near the driveway on the eastern side
and near the 188 foot contour line.
It's shown on the March 1.25, September 9th design plan.
the motion was seconded by Ed and passed five and seven.
So that's what they said.
Yes.
And so that spot, or they pointed out of the spot, right?
I'm sorry, I was kind of happening in tension.
But they pointed out a different spot in this, right?
Yeah.
They said on the eastern side of the drive right near the
188 foot contour line.
Yes.
So in the meeting, this fall was pointed out many times.
Yeah, 180 control lines of this one right here.
This fall was pointed out many times.
This corner in here.
Except that corner, it doesn't, it's not a flat area.
It appears to be flat on this plant.
In actuality, it's not flat.
If you got to remember the balance,
If you got to remember the back of my driveway,
which is about right here,
like kind of in line with my house.
And so this whole thing is kind of hill.
So for them to say to put it here,
I didn't really make sense.
The same plan that you presented to the conservation commission
I didn't do that change.
I didn't think I can change it.
Well, I mean, you can,
it's up to you if you want to change it.
What couldn't even know is what is the plan that you
that you want us to make a decision.
I saw in the minutes that Ed and the chairman had done a sidewalk with you.
They had done one previous, yeah.
So they said they had pointed out a couple of other spots they thought the shed could go.
Did you show me where they pointed out on the site block where they thought the shed could go?
I actually don't recall those spots, so I want to say it was in a certain area.
They had said in the minutes that they had pointed out spots during the site.
spots during the site plan review that did not reflect in your plans now.
I just kind of wondered if they were saying the same thing that we was saying and what's happening.
I didn't know that.
Yeah, to be completely honest, I really don't recall that.
Like the spots that they quire out.
Okay.
When they did the site plan walk with you, was your fence up over on the back of the house?
You had to have to see fence up now?
Oh, no, it was not.
That wasn't there.
No.
They didn't before the sidewalk that we did, so.
Okay, we did it before.
I believe so, yeah.
Was it actually?
Carosone was there with us the first time to see it the first time.
And then he did it afterwards when we asked you to see conservation.
They did something else.
Okay.
I could have as far as before.
Maybe wrong.
Makes a difference if we don't remember.
I just kind of want to know what you thought.
It's a better spot.
Right.
I really kind of remember being before as well.
Okay.
Is that possible?
I would say it too?
Yeah, because I have a question why he had gone on the only board that I tell them.
Right.
And I'm sorry I'm on my phone.
I'm just trying to find the picture that kind of shows it.
Up in here?
It was like this corner.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
Right.
Yeah.
And you want it still down here.
Yeah.
For the sole reason.
Is this the wetland?
No.
No, sorry.
This is the wetland right here.
Oh, okay.
And then basically the 75 of the buffer of this line.
And how, what's the distance is here now?
So it's 37.
Oh, yeah.
But 37 is point.
I'm a little confused too about what you asked.
And 15 feet from the rear property line, wouldn't it?
Yes, which is this property line.
And then this is the setback of the 15.
Okay.
Yep.
I forgot it at home.
Yeah, and during the site visit that we had and
and you know the previous hearing we had talked about alternate locations and when we did
the site log we talked about over here or other side of the 75 foot wetlands buffer.
One was up here I think and I think you said there would be excavation that would be required.
Yeah.
And then one was back here that was close to the leach field.
Yeah, so the leach field basically the leach field ran.
the leech field right at the end of it just drops off at the hill on the back.
And then up here, this is basically a hill that goes all the way around the property, so it would be on top of the hill here.
There is somewhat of a landing here where it's like somewhat flatter, but like I said, it's just hill going up to get to it.
So like storing a mower out to basically carve out a section of that hill to be able to get the mower up there.
It's going to be pretty difficult.
and definitely like cost.
Could you point out how far about your patio and your fence is from the house?
Yeah.
The patio goes, I would say, just past this line here.
So it's about 20 feet off the back of those.
Yeah, it's like two and a half three feet and then it's 20 feet from there.
So it's like 23 feet from the back of the house.
Okay, and the total house length is what 40?
Total house line.
is 56, I believe.
56, okay.
So half the house.
Yeah, 20 by 56.
So that pretty much eats up everything that's flat behind the house.
A lot of it, yeah.
There's a big rock.
There's a maple on here that was taken out there in construction.
But right around where there's maple sits like on the plant.
That's right, right, the rock.
Yeah, right, the rock.
And so I do have a picture of...
a picture of the area in question that they suggested I put the shed.
This is basically from here looking down, right, into my backyard.
In this place that they put it is approximately...
I can zoom in here and see it backwards.
It's about like this kind of warm here.
Yeah, sorry.
Use the house, and then to the right is the wetlands.
Instead of the left is Main Street.
Yep.
It's basically looking like this.
So to the right is...
Yeah.
And you're pointing out where?
And I was pointing out, sorry,
I should have the situation here, right there, right?
That's like where it kind of went, like, went down.
There was like sort of a ramp going back
when machinery was working on it.
And that's this right here.
And that was their suggestion?
Was it supported that?
It was to put it right next to it,
closer to the house, which, if you remember,
it was kind of my driveway.
So it's like three different slopes and one kind of,
small area within the shed.
30.
I want to say it was like around 30,
so not like a crazy difference,
but it was closer at the end of the
For the board to make a decision on this,
we have to go through the five areas for area.
Right.
And you've responded
to the various criteria.
The conservation has mentioned hardship.
We've talked about hardship
in general, hardship is one of the harder.
one of the harder barriers to meet.
So just so the board knows,
I want to read what you wrote for hardship in this area.
And this will be one of the things that we have to decide
if it meets that criteria.
The purpose of the 75 foot development
to protect sensitive environmental resources
from significant disturbances and development impacts.
In this case, applying the full setback strictly
does not reasonably advance that purpose because the
the proposed structure is a small skid-bounded shed with no permanent foundation,
excavation, and utilities.
Its limited size and minimal distance site disturbance
do not propose a meaningful threat to the wetlands.
Due to the extreme topography of the property,
including a steep hill directly behind the house
and significant slopes along the front and side yards,
there is no reasonably buildable area outside the 75-foot wetland setback.
Additional.
the septic leech field is located beyond the 75-foot buffer,
further restricting usable space.
As a result, most of the land outside the wetlands setback is unusable
for the placement of a standard accessory structure
needing no practical alternative location for the proposed shed.
Given these unique site concerns,
strict enforcement of the setback does not serve
the ordinance is intent in a practical or proportional way.
way. So I think what the board has to decide is
do you agree with that statement
and is there any other reasonable location on the property where the shape to be
and, you know, avoid a hardship claim?
I guess I would be interested in seeing if the board has any other questions for the applicant
before we close the hearing.
close the hearing to get more information before we
close the hearing so we can move to the deliberation face.
I guess one question would be, are you aware that we have
to follow the ZBA definitions and what's a structure and what's not a structure
as far as it comes down in the ordinance, right?
Yeah. Okay, so whether you put it on skids or you put it on a foundation,
you put it on blocks, to us it still has to meet the shed definition
on the accessory dwelling definition, right?
right? We don't have a chance to play with that.
Yeah, I'm hoping if I...
Yeah.
For the definition, if you understand, we have, it's kind of like,
you know, the police turn around and say you're doing 67 and a 65
and the cop give you a warning whatever.
Right. We don't have that luxury.
It's the definition and we have to follow the definition
because that's the expectation.
Yep.
What we have to decide is does the definition
hurt you more as an individual than the benefit of gain by
following the law.
Right.
And so, if my level is like,
here's what I do,
as part of the shed, it's listed in that,
you know, there's a possibility.
Right, right.
Like, at the end of the day, yes, it's a shed
that's going into the wetland buffer,
but I'm trying to take, all means necessary,
you know, to get a shed in the wetland buffer.
You know, vapor barrier.
It's basically like the roofing material,
so there's really anything.
really any fluid ever leaking into it.
Yeah, I thought it was also thoughtful with the two-inch buffer
on the doorway so you could go higher.
Yeah.
Because you can still get a moor in there, which is exactly what I wanted.
It's going to catch it.
Just want to want that out.
Anybody have any other?
You said the leech field was not okay because you might have to replace it eventually.
And so right.
I don't forget if the hill would be after it was also.
Yeah, there's a line.
It says you need a secondary replace
And to me, that would be, you know, right next to it,
because Everett was significantly moving the leach field,
and then there really isn't that much space for it anyway,
considering you need the inlet from the set, like, clean-out, you know?
So, I guess if I put my shed here, in my eye, I couldn't,
because by why you need a secondary place to put the leech field,
so if I'm up my shed here, I'm taking up that space.
You hope like you're making a skid versus a
submit basis you can move or be added to move.
And once you had a relation to the leach field, the old leech field would then become available for the shed.
I would agree, but we're now defining the shed as a permanent structure, which...
It is a permanent structure.
I mean, you can't move it.
I was a lot of effort, so...
Yeah, you go.
And I'm not, you know, not saying those are good definitions in office, those are the definitions we have to work.
Right.
And the RSA on the dwelling unit, I'm going to use...
building is much more loose than ours is.
And if you build a big dollhouse or a playhouse for your kid
or you're building a tug house,
as far as the RSA is concerned, that's still building that accessory structure.
So it's even...
It's easier and much less of a thing than what you're trying to do and build.
So it's just not an issue for us to be able to find it,
not the way I view the RSA.
Got it.
Okay, any other questions before we close there?
there?
All right.
Great.
Thank you.
Should I go back?
Yeah.
You can go back.
So at this time, I'll...
Any comments in the audience?
May.
Is the structure being inside the wetland buffer?
Are we looking about, are we looking to avoid excess drainage or...
We're not allowed to let anything go in this to the wetland buffer?
Period.
Still is...
Anything that could drain into the wetlands, contaminated, damage it.
With weeks and weeks and weeks, if not months of arguments about should it be 50 feet, 75 feet, 153.
The 75-foot bumper was somewhere around 2002, I think.
Okay, we'll do this.
So if he had some water catching advice from the rainwater off of his roof and that was caught into a cister.
You could put us disturbing in a 75-foot buffer.
Because you'd be disturbing with the wetland buffer.
The natural...
So, I'm going to leave the her and golden for a minute.
You're talking about mitigation.
And mitigation is a viable consideration for the ZBA for variances.
But it's typically when there's an existing structure and the mitigation
minimizes the impact of any changes that they want to make.
In this case, there is no existing structure.
So, I mean, in my opinion, the mitigation,
putting the structure there, even with mitigation, is more risk than not putting the structure.
The deck would extend further into wetlands, but they decide they want to put drainage,
inch and minimize the impact of the already existing structure that's in the West.
If the board held, you know, even with the deck addition, the mitigation would improve the
condition of the property above not doing the plan.
That would be a reason to say, yeah, this is meets the intent and is really improving the protection
of the wetlands.
the deck is going further into the wetlands because of those other mitigations.
And that's all those other focus there.
There's ways around that he can mitigate that at all.
Right. So the board has the way, is the plan better production to the wetlands than without the plan?
And then also does it meet all of the criteria?
Is it a hardship?
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Am I allowed to?
Yeah, you had your last chance.
The shed in terms of like a cutter system or anything like a cutter system or anything like that?
or anything like that because I don't contain any still that may.
Maintain it.
The drainage system breaks down or the protection, the very good barrier rips and, you know, stuff happens.
Land owners, land and property changes ownership.
So as a board, we need to look at the long term.
It's not really you, it's the property and do we think that this plan is, you know, meets the intent
that's kind of what the thought process that we have to go through.
Okay, with that I'll close at public hearing.
We'll move into the deliberation.
No, we have to go through the criteria, and we'll go to each one.
So let me start with the first granting the variance
would or would not be contrary to the public interest.
And just a board on what that means for variance to be contrary to the public interest.
It must be unduly.
be unduly into a marked degree violate the basic sounding objectives,
all to the essential character of the neighborhood or threat and health safety or general welfare
and public.
On that first variance criteria.
It's contrary to public interest because it's a brand new building.
It depends again as we discussed what was in it, and there's a leakage.
In my opinion, because it was set up as a zone not to be used and not to be entered
because the people at the time
I'm the scientists involved at the time.
I thought that anything in a wet zone,
and that buffer zone was a bad thing.
So in my opinion, putting anything new in that zone
is contrary to public interest.
Okay.
Would they have a review?
It's such a, you know.
It's a hardship issue.
A hardship issue.
But I don't, I agree with Brian,
I don't think it's kind of really,
I think it should be okay.
Okay.
Yeah.
And to be clear, we're talking about the latest proposal of 37 feet in the lower
information and...
Actually, I don't think it is the lower.
I think that he's clear that he wants to leave it higher
and then he disagreed with conservation.
Did I miss...
The 37, that's Mark.
Yeah, the 37 is up.
That was originally marked.
In his PDF that we got,
six, 37 feet, that's what he showed here.
It is not what the conservation.
Not what the conservation.
Correct, it's up here.
It's up here.
It's not what the, right, it's up there.
It's not what the conservation recommended.
No.
Right.
Because the original one's right down in.
Correct.
Yeah.
A little bit that that was set for that reason.
Impact on it because it's halfway in to 75.
I think it's important, Mr. Chairman.
I don't think it matters whether I agree with their setback distance or not.
not.
Right.
The deal is that our current zoning says that it's that distance.
So I'm trying to follow the zoning because that's what the town says is the public interest.
That's a very good point.
That's for many of my years, but I think it can agree with doesn't always work well to dampen.
Okay, so I think I have two that
granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest,
and I have two that say would be.
would be contrary to the public interest.
Correct?
That's the way I heard.
Okay.
So I guess I got to be the time breaker.
That's why we have, Jim.
So for various to be contrary to the public interest,
it must be unduly and to a marked degree violate the basic zoning objectives.
It doesn't mean it's an unduly plan,
but it is far from the zoning objectives.
And I guess if I, if I have,
If I look at this, the latest plan is farther away from the zoning,
but it's still 35 feet versus the 75 feet.
It's only a little over half.
So I would say that I'm not sure it does,
I would say that it does violate the basic zoning objectives.
It's not meaning the intent of what the zoning was there.
So I guess I would side with the woodman.
the would be contrary to public interest.
So I think here we have three and two in the first one.
The story of the ordinance would or would not be observed because
Brian, you're going to be first this whole time now.
And I'll read you a little blurb that explains this.
The provisions of the zoning ordinance must promote health, safety,
and general welfare of the public.
The effect of the variance must be weighed in light of the purpose of the ordinance.
However,
However, when the ordinance remains,
contains a restriction against the particular use of the land
as that doesn't apply, it's not the use variance.
So, you know, it's really, is the proposed plan,
does it meet the spirit of the ordinance?
Do you have that thing?
I agree it's unfortunate, but it's exactly contrary to the setback.
Walter?
Because of the...
Because of the...
That's a definition.
The criteria issue.
Right.
I understand that.
So the hardship would provide all the other five questions, but you don't still answer five questions.
Yeah.
In my opinion?
Yeah, I think...
I think if it's granted the spirit of your means...
Yeah, I would say it's contrary, unfortunately.
So that's three, I don't know, one is yes, and I'll say no, so that's four and one.
For it, meaning, would not be observed.
The majority ordinance would not be observed.
Number three, granting the variance would or would not do substantial justice.
And again, this is described as any law to the individual,
which is not outweighed by, again, to the general public, is an injustice.
The injustice must be capable of relief by granting a variance that meets the other four qualifications.
Words, but basically means is it...
Is it...
granting the variance.
I'm struggling with this one a little bit because of the wording reasonable placement.
So as much as, you know, planning out your yard and how you want things set up,
there really are other places that it can go that would be outside of the 75-foot buffer.
I know it's not ideal or what you want to look at, but unfortunately, there is.
There is.
saying would not do substantial justice.
Got it?
I wouldn't want to have to place it in the places where we said you could place it,
but it could be placed there and put up with them.
It's the nature of the property purchase at the time.
Substantial justice, I mean, maybe he could put it to a lot of place.
I don't know, but I don't think it's going to have the impact.
It would be detrimental.
Put it somewhere else.
And I would agree also that granting that the areas could not be subjubjointed.
would not do substantial justice.
So that's four in one.
That it doesn't, that it would not do substantial justice.
Number four is for the reasons,
for the following reasons, the values of surrounding properties
would or would not be diminished.
This is an issue about, you know, property value.
I think that this has no impact on property value,
whether it's granted or not.
So I would say,
they would not be diminished by putting a shed.
I agree.
In any area.
Obviously, if there was a spill in the dams and wetlands,
that could be in the future for just the shed itself,
I don't think it has an impact.
I agree.
Yeah.
I agree.
Walter?
So that's five zero.
Substantial relationship between the general public purchase
of the ordinance of the organization
provision and the specific provision of that to the property.
And this has to do with this.
Is there something unique about the property?
I think the applicant has highlighted that this lot
is a lot of contour to it.
We've talked about various locations.
And I guess in my opinion,
I think Dave said it well, maybe
Maybe some of the other locations we've discussed are not ideal on this plan.
But they could satisfy the need for a shed.
And with that option, I'm not sure my opinion that this needs a hardship criteria.
There's a lot of contour, but there's still some options.
And even near, though, least a hardship criteria.
near the leach field.
If the worst case is the leech field failed,
then you had to replace it.
Maybe you can move the shed.
It's pretty easy.
Then you've got to find another place for it.
Maybe that's the time for a variance.
But I think right now there are options
or in that upper northeast corner.
So I don't see the hardship that would prevent
that would prevent the use of a shed someplace.
Smile.
Here.
I agree.
Let that say you.
Agreed.
You know, after doing this for a long time,
13 years almost.
I've never seen a lot
that looks at this before, so
I'm going to have to say,
you're saying that isn't a hardship
based on his lot.
Yeah, I'm going to say.
I know that's just because of what you had said before,
too, because there's a couple of places
where it could be placed.
So that's four to one,
that it's not a hardship.
This isn't a use variance,
so the next one isn't really
with that, then I think the board has
by majority vote
deny the variance.
for the various reasons we just discussed.
All right.
Let's make a motion to the design.
I'd like to make a motion based on the result of this
deliberation and vote to deny the variance
because we've had a majority vote that it doesn't meet the variance criteria.
Can I have a second?
I would give you a second.
I wonder if we should make a note that
participation felt that this was also a known issue
and did not
like it going into the wetline.
And that's weighing a big back from me.
If they'd have turned around and said,
yeah, put it at 37 feet,
slant the roof away from it, put this pipe up,
whatever along that line, litigation, that kind of thing,
then it might have been easier to go along with Walton's position.
But no one I can go up there in the backyard
and moving and with the conservation of steel.
I just feel we have to make the decision this way
to follow the others.
But I think conservation has the idea
and I read the comments from the comments
on their motion.
So with that motion, if you need a second,
whole second. Okay, motion second.
All in favor?
We have four in favor.
You have both in favor of the
denying the motion.
No. Oh, you're opposed.
Four to one.
Four to one. Okay. Then with that,
the variance that I will have a decision out by
in five business days, which should be next Tuesday.
next Tuesday. So you can get a copy of that if you want.
Oh, like a paper copy?
We'll write a formal decision.
And the paper copy will show you your appeal rights and your appeal
the next step?
Yeah, 38 still appeal.
Okay. Interesting.
Do the Board of the Institute.
Okay.
Am I good?
Yep.
Okay.
Okay.
So.
Sorry, is the question.
That is what it is.
Maybe next time.
All right.
Thank you.
Nice.
All right, Matt, I think we don't have any other agenda, any other business.
I want to talk about the RSA or the shit.
Okay.
Good issues.
We all thank you for doing research and coming up with that.
What company is most important for our situation is that
we say we do a building permit.
And the RSA does not allow a building permit
The structures under 200 feet.
However, it does allow you to have use permits, land use permits,
siting permits,
you know, everything about a building permit
can we put into the ordinance to be made
necessary before someone can put up any size shed.
I mean, if you want to put up a container to put your shovel in,
technically by the RSA, the town could say you can't put it there or anywhere.
there or anywhere. If you want to put up a dollhouse, like you see all these plastic dollhouses right now that are around and stuff,
you could force someone today to have to come for a permit from the building inspector
to see if you're within the wetlands or if you're in the right side of you or in the restaurant,
which is something that people are not hearing.
Looking at the IRS and saying, why don't need a building permit if it's under two or the square feet?
Well, you know, we even see them just talk to them.
Yet if I talk to this building inspector, if I talk to Gail,
Any size shed has to have a permit.
Well, it does have to have a permit, but not a building permit.
And the town can set up anything it wants to in its ordinances to say where it can go and where it can't go.
And we have done that.
Especially mentions setbacks and wetland buffers.
That is the key items that they say the town can always say for.
So anyone putting up a shed of any size technically has to come down and talk to the building inspector
about where it's going on the property.
And whether it's going to be a wetland issue or a setback issue for the rest of it.
issue for the rest of it.
But they don't have to have a building permit per se.
And that's your speaking in relation to this last instance, yes?
It's just said it's here, but the key points was whether you had to do it at all.
Yeah, that's like that in our stage.
Right here.
Shaves do not require a building permit if more area does not exceed 200 square feet.
You can govern as far as wetland distances and where it goes.
And you can even say how it can be used.
How can you use?
The town could turn around and say, well, we don't want any.
We go to all houses in the back area.
I don't know how you never get that passed.
It gives us permission to do that.
And as you know in New Hampshire, if the RSA doesn't say you can do it,
you can't.
So if it says you can't have a building permit for anything on the term,
we're not allowed to add to that and make it.
But we can have location permits, distance permits, whatever.
And I don't know what should you call it.
practitioner, but people are making phone calls, not just to us, but other resources,
and they're being told they don't even need a permit.
I got a permit built in the neighborhood just now that I bet you breaks almost every rule we have.
Right?
But we told they didn't have to have a permit.
So we know.
Never came to talk to Gil, never came to talk to anybody else.
Talk to all the neighbors.
You know, it was a perfect neighbor type of thing.
But we seem to be inconsistent with what the ordinance says.
The ordinance says what Gail has to tell people and what our building inspector says.
And maybe what other inspectors are telling the plummy or electrical inspectors who are used to be RSA.
But we don't have a three-way match.
And I think that gives some of the peace the appeal thing in its own right.
I think the fact that all of our stuff isn't in line tell some judges you lose if it gets taken to court.
So we hire a lawyer for nothing.
That's just my opinion.
Having watched the judge still things out because I'm asking for things, we're all in two sentences.
Are you suggesting any changes to the zoning?
Well, I don't know why our building inspector in the field says building permanent
when the RSA says we can't.
Maybe it's just a matter of changing the name, right?
And then I wanted to go to planning board and just say, so what do you think?
What's it said?
You know, what does this mean to you?
What does the ordinance?
How does the ordinance be more clear?
I mean somebody pulled us out to us because we clearly said something wrong to the RSAs.
In my experience, the three times that's been in court, the judges are that picking.
The town will always lose.
I mean, I think if there is either contradictory or unclear or inconsistent verbiage in any of the documents of the permanent process,
you know, some challenge point to bring up with planning or with the building inspector.
So, I mean, do you have something you like to write up or?
First, I maybe sit with Gail and the building inspector and see what he's saying.
He's got lots of experience.
He's got more experience that most of us have, and just see why and how he says it,
show him the RSA, and then see where he thinks there's a problem with what we're saying,
whether it's just my interpretation, what he's saying.
Or if it's really the audience needs to be.
the ordinance needs to be making more clear.
Because the state clearly uses the right to make the judge
and to make it on setbacks.
I was kind of surprised on use.
I mean, I can't imagine it.
To go to somebody say, can I use my shed for this versus this.
But even there, you know, this last African
talked about putting a punching bag or something in half the shed.
He wanted to be able to use it for exercise because he didn't have a spot in the house.
Right.
But then in the write-up, he said,
I'm not going to use it for anything but tools and shed.
I was like, that was constantly.
contrary when he said the first time of what he told is a testament.
So little things like that have an impact,
and I don't think people realize it, what the judges do.
So maybe sit with you with the building inspector next time they're going to come
and start from there.
It's not that urgent about it, but I'm going to make any changes to the next fall.
Right.
It seems to me to be missing it.
My guess is this kid would have his shed already.
If he had listened to somebody else in the town and says,
well, you've got an 180-foot square piece,
you don't even have a building permit.
he never even would have asked about setbacks.
He just came through building for him.
So, I think that's a, you should investigate that,
make sure it's clear.
I think I'm fine when you're doing it,
and you have the invitation at the time and the interest.
I think you have resigned, right?
Nope.
Oh, did you read?
I'm in here.
Oh, okay.
All right.
Perfect.
Perfect.
Yeah.
You can sign office to do things.
Yep.
Absolutely.
So let's do that, and then our next meeting, whenever it is, I don't think you have any other applications
submitted, right?
Who is responsible for writing?
Does this come from the Board of Solentstein?
Some lawyer?
It's from the...
No, we've done this over the years.
You know, there was a baseline and then we've added to it over the time.
Take the wording on those questions.
Oh, were you talking about the questions?
Are our rules of procedure?
Oh, the rules of procedure.
We modify periodically, but it's been built up over the years.
Are you making changes?
If you're something that isn't clear and you think we should make a change to the rules of procedure,
we can review it, we can vote on it, and then it becomes official, then, well,
actually the way it works is you review it, you make a recommendation,
you make a motion, and make the change, and then at the next meeting,
you can agree to implement that change.
This is why we make new vice chairments.
They look at those things, wondering up together right,
that they ask the equipment.
I'm reading word for word.
And I don't see, so it says, you know,
2024, so I mean, it's somewhat recent.
I just don't know, last time, it's really more about being up-to-date
and being consistent across all different resources that are up there.
So that's why I wondered,
when the signal came from from this point.
Yeah, this is from the ZBA.
Okay.
So it's our own document and we can change it if we feel we need to
add to it if we feel, yeah, something is missing.
Okay.
An interesting note, according to a lawyer back a few years ago,
most ZBA cases are overthrown because they did not
follow their own procedures, not because of RSA a law,
but because the ZBA didn't publish the procedure.
That's how those appeals are made.
Successfully.
What did you want to do with the definition of the shed,
that you want to make a motion to add that to the zoning or to the...
To add the definition of the zoning ordinance of the shed?
Carson found a pretty definition pretty quickly, I thought.
It was attached to his minutes.
He found that kind of, that was in the zoning, wasn't it?
The other one that gave up, but...
Well, he's kind of just the other one that gave up, but...
The D has the definition of permanent structure, which is...
No, we're talking about a shit, yeah.
We're talking about your email.
The RSA defines the situation.
Right, right.
Maybe permanent structure?
Yeah, well, you weren't here, but we were talking about adding the definition of the shit
to the zoning ordinance.
Should we do that after your conversation?
Do it at the same time?
We can update both at the same time?
Just against opinion.
It has to be to detect that group before the tablet.
before the town?
You're gonna go to the zoning ordinance, yeah.
You won't change your form.
It's a go before the cell.
So it's time.
Yeah, no, it's not.
You have time.
So maybe, I don't know if you want to go together
and it would be good to have that discussion
with the building inspector and make sure everyone's on the same page,
because he may have gotten other questions
that would help if we're going to recommend putting
the definition of a shit,
then the zoning ordinance.
to clarify the language.
And I don't know if the management of a shed or not,
because our ordinance is clear it's any structure.
So, in fact, the way they defined it was, you know,
assembling up things.
I think there's a few mean twos of things that I put against my house
that probably qualified as buildings according to these things.
Well, shed is mentioned in zoning a couple times,
and I don't know how if we put a definition in there,
how it would.
within the zoning ordinance, if any, I don't know.
Yeah, I mean, you have to look through,
see how many times Shett was mentioned,
and then see if the proposed definition would affect
the meaning of those other parts of the zone.
So, yeah.
You got to do the due diligence, right?
I'll only try it three times, actually.
You might have to work Shet three times in order.
Is it three times?
Yeah.
It's only not.
I'm only thought three times in there.
Once, once, there's something.
confusion language, a part of the playing board
to me, he just saw that too,
because I posted something back to cars,
like, hey, can you look at this,
I have a section five of it.
And I'm like, okay, it made sense.
But he did say at last week's
planning board meeting that he was
going to take a look at that again
to maybe
a lot better.
But there was not a definition.
So the definition of the ship is going to
that's great.
You want to have a real fun to find a commercial vehicle
that comes to something.
Right.
Yeah, because everyone's coming in there.
Their vehicles registered for their business at home.
Yeah.
You know?
The Dutch, Derbyan.
Yeah.
She's my driving the damn really good.
Okay.
I said no to you last.
I said no to you last.
Pretty good.
Can you come?
Can you go?