Planning & Zoning Board Notices & Minutes

Jun 13, 2017

Approved Zoning Board Minutes - June 13, 2017

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017
6:00 PM


(Clarification noted in June 27, 2017 minutes)




PRESENT: Chairman Jessica Daine, Vice Chair Eddy Moore, Ralph Hodgman, David Rochefort, Jim McMahon, Guy Harriman, and Joanna Ray (recording secretary)


EXCUSED:   Jerry LeSage


OTHERS PRESENT:  Jeff Cozzens, Roger Emerson


Chairman Daine called the meeting to order at 6:00. Jim McMahon was designated a voting member for this meeting.  


Meeting to discuss the Motion for Rehearing regarding the following case: 


BrauFink LLC, Owner & Applicant – ZBA17-07 – Request for a Variance relating to Article V, Section 5.01 of the Littleton Zoning Ordinance to allow non-conforming setbacks at 26 Mill Street, tax map 84-22, in the C-I zone.


Chairman Daine explained that the Board will review the submitted Motion for Rehearing.  There will be no public input.  The Motion for Rehearing was submitted by Roger Emerson.  Roger owns land and a business at 52 Mill Street.


Vice Chair Moore asked if everyone agreed that Roger has standing to appeal the Board’s decision.  He is not an abutter.  Chairman Daine stated that Roger has standing because the BrauFink project impacts him due to the proximity.


The following were the reasons Roger stated a rehearing must be granted:

a)    Too close to Mill St. and traffic

b)    Too far past allowed setback

c)    No way to remove just the one power pole – major cost to tax payers

d)    Town needs to do a traffic study first

e)    Need to go to the Planning Board also because of the size of this


Vice Chair Moore asked if there was new evidence.  Chairman Daine stated that the Board could grant a rehearing based on a technical error made by the Board or if there is new evidence to be brought before the Board.  Roger has not stated that the Board made a technical error or that he has new evidence.  Vice Chair Moore stated that a portion of the case could be reheard or the entire thing.


The Board addressed “a” and “b” of the submitted motion.  Ralph stated that these items were discussed at the original hearing.  This is not new information.  Everyone knew the building was close to Mill Street.  That was the reason for the hearing.  Chairman Daine replied that it was discussed intensely.  David agreed.   The reason for needing the variance was due to the shape of the property.  Jim added that the sidewalk is on their property.  Chairman Daine stated that the Board felt the variance requirements were met and that hasn’t changed.


Vice Chair Moore addressed “c” of the submitted motion and stated that the cost of relocating the utility pole will be the applicants.   Chairman Daine confirmed that the cost will not affect the taxpayers.  Ralph added that the reason for the pole relocation is because it is in the way for deliveries.  Vice Chair Moore stated he contacted Tom Considine, Littleton Water & Light.  Tom is aware of the pole relocation plan and the cost will be the applicants.  Ralph reminded the Board that during the original hearing, the Town Manager was asked if the taxpayers would be affected by the pole relocation and the response was that they would not.  Chairman Daine stated that Schilling would be responsible for their updates. David concluded that there is nothing new here.


The Board moved on to “d” of the submitted motion.  Ralph stated that there were signs on Mill Street saying “No parking.  Loading zone”.  No one could confirm who put up those signs.  Vice Chair Moore replied that the Town does not have any parking regulations. The Board of Selectmen could control that and not the Zoning Board. 


The Board reviewed “e” of the submitted motion.  The only time the Planning Board reviews a new building is if it is over 25,000 square feet.  This is not the case here.


Jim stated he would like to hear from Littleton Water & Light.  Chairman Daine replied that there is still no new evidence.  Jim asked about a traffic study.  David replied that a traffic study is an opinion and no one at the hearing requested one after thorough discussion.   Everyone is aware the traffic is tight in this location. Ralph added that nothing new is being presented.


Ralph made a motion to deny the Motion for Rehearing based on no new evidence presented.  Ralph amended his motion to “deny the Motion for Rehearing”.  David second the motion.   Jim stated that the information about the power pole and parking is needed.


The motion to deny passed 4-1.


At 6:30, David made a motion to adjourn.  Vice Chair Moore second the motion.  The motion passed.


Submitted by,

Joanna Ray