Town of Panton
Planning Commission/Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of August 4, 2005 (UNAPPROVED)

Planning Members Present:		Guests:
S. Hofmann	L. Giovanella	Robert Hartenstein	Tom Sievert
D. Marshall	K. Bingham	Deborah Hartenstein	Betsy Sievert
R. Moulton	E. Hanson, Zoning Administrator	Janet Seaburg	Francis Cooke
A. Tisbert	James Carroll, Attorney for Panton	Paulette Bogan	Scott Boyle, Realtor
		Joseph Bogen	D. Boyle

Call to Order:  The meeting was called to order in the Panton Town offices at 7:00 p.m. by S. Hofmann, Chair. A quorum was established.

Minutes:  Motion by R. Moulton, seconded by A. Tisbert to approve the minutes of the June 16th 2005 minutes as presented.  So voted unanimously.  Motion by D. Marshall seconded by L. Giovanella to approve the minutes of the July 8th minutes as corrected.  So voted unanimously.

Warned hearing for the Hartenstein:  S. Hofmann asked if the Hartenstein’s or the Bogan’s had council with them, both stated no.  The town does have J. Carroll.
J. Carroll advised that a sign in sheet was necessary and anyone wishing to speak at the Hartenstein hearing needs to sign it.
J. Carroll swore in anyone wishing to speak in the Hartenstein case.
E. Hanson presented to all members of the board exhibit # 1 a packet consisting of 21 pages of documents and facts as he so found them.  This has to do with the permit issued to Joseph and Paulette Bogan for the construction of a new house replacing an existing camp on their property on Arnold Bay Road.  Ed asked members to turn to Key Issue Sheet (page14)  walking them through the steps as he found them after he was asked by the Planning Commission to review what he thought the status of the case was with respect to the town zoning effort and where the Bogan permit stood in the process. 
E. Hanson stated he found a number of irregularities in the whole process.  The first  and foremost being that he does not understand  how  the request for a variance  got to the Zoning Board in the first place as there was no application for a permit prior to the zoning board hearing, and the appeal was made in the absence  of the denial of a permit. 
He continue on to state that after that it went through a number of steps at the ZBA meeting, this was in October 16 2000 and the actual building permit was submitted by the Bogan’s after this hearing.  At a later meeting on Nov.9th 2000 one of the essential finding of fact after review by the town council (Weihs) at the request of the chair of the ZBA, it was found that the Bogan lot is not one lot but two lots and that the variance was being requested primarily to meet side yard set back encroachments on both sides of the building on the southern most of the two lots.
E.Hanson  went on to state that after this it went through a number of cycles over a period of time and it wound up with a variance being granted at the hearing of  November 9th 2000.
E. Hanson went on to say that even after this no building permit was issued.  The building permit was not issued for almost 2 years later, in April of 2002.  At that time it was presented to the board with a landscaping plan from Green Haven Nursery.  There is no evidence in the ZBA minutes at that time as to what was done with that landscaping plan.  However there was a later meeting of the ZBA in May of 2002 at which time the Bogan’s returned with a revised version of the Green Haven Nursery landscaping plan.  There is no evidence as to what was done with this plan.
On June 2, 2002 building permit # 02-21 was issued by the Zoning Administrator siteing the variance approved in Nov. 2000 and the conditions that were set on May 2002.  These conditions were not specified as to the landscaping.
In Sept. 2002 another submission of landscaping was presented to the board, not a Green Haven Nursery plan but one prepared by Lincoln Gap Farm Landscaping.  There was no evidence as to what decision was made at that hearing with respect to this plan. 
The Bogan’s returned again in Dec. 2002 and was told they needed a more comprehensive landscaping plan. 
There were a number of septic changes on the property which does not directly address what is being done at this meeting but finally a completion report was issue by Steve Revell in June of 2003 on the form of septic system which was finally accepted for the property on the southern most lot.  But no certificate of compliance was issued to the submission of that completion report as required by the Environmental Protection rules.  E. Hanson went on the say he does not understand this either.
There was another landscaping plan made available in June 2003 which was critiqued separately by D.  Raphael who was chairman of the Zoning Board, but this plan was not brought before the zoning board until later at a meeting in July and this landscaping plan was prepared by yet another landscaping firm called Maidenleaf Designs.  Apparently this is the version of the plan that was accepted.  At this point the ZBA discussed the issuing of a certificate of occupancy to the Bogan’s and they instructed the Zoning Administrator to issue one with contiguities on the completion of the landscaping plan.  E. Hanson stressed this was illegal for a number of reasons.  One being the zoning board has no authority to tell the zoning administrator to issue a certificate of occupancy and a certificate of occupancy by definition is a completion document and is not issued on a project not yet concluded.  Never the less the certificate of occupancy was issued on July 12, 2003 by  the Zoning Administrator at that time.
At this point E. Hanson concluded that the town was finished with the permitting process and the property was legally cleared for occupancy.
S. Hofmann asked if there were any question of E. Hanson.  Paulette Bogan did ask for the date that the property was cleared with the certificate of occupancy.  E. Hanson responded with the date as July 12, 2003. 
S. Hofmann asked for anymore questions: J. Seaburg stated she had attended the Dec. 2002 meeting on behalf of the Hartenstein and at that time it was clearly stated that no landscaping plans would be approved officially until the Hartenstein’s were notified and they agreed on it as well as the town. E. Hanson stated he did not find in any of the minutes where this reference was made.  Discussion continued as to what meeting and was this part of the minutes of any meeting. 
K. Bingham read from the Dec 2002 minutes that D. Raphael advised the board that the attorney for the Hartenstein’s stated without an approved landscape plan the Bogans should not continue construction.  D. Raphael did say that before planting season the board will expect to see a plan from the Bogan’s with all the neighbors concerns addressed.
S. Hofmann asked for any more questions to E. Hanson.  Hearing none S. Hofmann recognized R. Hartenstein to speak.
R. Hartenstein statement: presented exhibit # 2 photo pages 1-12.    Mr. Hartenstein stated that he and his wife feel they should not even be here tonight. Mr. Hartenstein went on to say that the town overlooked a lot of things on this case, as we all have heard from Mr. Hanson.  He asked the board to place themselves in their position as neighbors and have this happen to them and how would they feel.   Mr. Hartenstein asked the board to turn to page 12 Exhibit # 3 (letter to the Bogan’s from L. Giovanella dated 6-26-03) where he pointed out the board had stated the trees will need to be of sufficient size to offer immediate screening.  Also the screening does not go far enough toward the water to address the concerns of the neighbors. 
Mr. Hartenstein questioned all of these steps.  He then asked for everyone to jump back to page 8 a letter to Mr. Hanson, dated 6-6-05.  He went on to point out some highlights of this letter.  He did ask for everyone to look at the pictures as to how the topography had changed due to the tree cutting and construction of the new home.  He stated he feels the character of the surrounding area has been changed with the amount of clearing that the Bogan’s have done.  Exhibit #4 Memo dated 5-15-02 from Addison Gardens to D. Raphael from Bogans where one of their advisors stated we might need to bring in topsoil and create a “berm” in order to plant the trees.  He continued to refer to a number of statements in the memo. In closing he feels that adequate screening has not been provided and the trees that have been planted have been placed right on the property line, and in years to come the branches will be well over the property line, encroaching their property and he feels this should be addressed while the trees are young.
S. Hofmann recognized P. Bogan who discussed the tree requirement and expressed that they did plant according to the plans present to the town.  She went on to say they have not removed any trees except one that did die during construction and the invasive plants that are growing on the property.  The invasive plant is prickly ash and it is chocking out the maples and cedar they would like to see grow and thrive on the property.  Mrs. Bogan went on to state they had not removed any extra trees only what was needed for construction.  The plant medium was recommended by the nursery and the trees are guaranteed.  She feels they have made every effort to comply with the letter of the Zoning Board. 
Mr. Bogan spoke that B. Bristol had been told that he was not to take down any mature trees during construction or to change any setting of the area.  One tree was knocked down by accident during construction.  Exhibit #5 2 photos in black and white was discussed. 
Mrs. Bogan stated they were giving one year to complete the landscaping because we were going into fall and they did get all the landscaping done by May 2005.  Mrs. Bogan handed out exhibit #6 a letter dated 6-20-05 to E. Hanson from the Bogan’s stating they have planted 36 evergreen trees along with some others since then.
Mr. Bogan passed around a photo exhibit # 7 showing the plot before and after from the construction. 
S. Hofmann asked for other questions.  Mr. Hartestein spoke that the case should not be thought of as the before and after but as to if the screening has been achieved at this stage.  That is what he had requested in this process.  A vehicle interfered with hearing the tape.  The tree size appears to be what he was talking about and did they provide proper screening or not.  He stated that he feels the character of the neighborhood has been changed by their actions.
S. Hofmann asked Mr. Hartenstein about an earlier statement he made pertaining to board members were going to confer with him, can he explain this further.   Mr. Hartenstein stated at one point D. Raphael came to their house with landscaping plans that they had not seen.  He felt that this was where the letter that was referred to earlier came from.    D. Raphael saw the amount of trees taking down beforehand and the lack of screening that was there. D. Raphael said at that stage that he felt the trees should be planted all the way from the little house to the ledge before the lake.  Mr. Hartenstein went on to say at another time he had met D. Raphael over at Basin Harbor by the beach and he said then there had been discussions and not to worry that everyone would have their chance to meet with the board and all would have input as to if screening is sufficient.
S. Hofmann stated that there had been a discussion as to requiring trees to be planted taller then 6 feet and it was advised by D. Raphael that their survival rate is difficult.  Mrs. Hartenstein asked for the date of the meeting where this was discussed and no date could be giving. 
Janet Seaburg stated that the town was looking for screening and perhaps the Bogan’s should have gone thicker and deeper with more trees planted to offer the Hartenstein’s more privacy.  Mr. Bogan explained that the landscapers recommended how to plant for best survival rate.  Mrs. Bogan stated that why you could see the house from the lake now was due to going from a one story to a two story home, not from removing trees.  Discussion started between Mrs. Bogan and Mr. Hartenstein that did not really pertain to the issue of the evening and S. Hofmann reminded them of this.
L. Giiovanella asked if another row of trees would be satisfactory for screening.  Mrs. Hartenstein stated that they would have to be considerably taller or placed elsewhere like along the driveway so they could not see the cars coming in and out.  Mr. Hartenstein stated the trees just needed to be placed in other places so all have privacy.  Conversation continued between the Bogan and Hartenstein as to a solution to this issue.   
L. Giovanella asked if the Hartenstein’s did see the final approved plan from the planning board as to the size of the trees.  Mr. Hartenstein stated their thought was that they did not see a final plan, they were faxed a small copy at a later date, along with a memo that was discussed earlier.
J. Carroll advised that the exhibits presented by  E. Hanson, the Hartenstein’s, the Bogan’s, and the conversation of the July plan, that was approved by the ZBA be accepted as evidence in the deliberation process; if so all items need to be voted on.  S. Hofmann was advised to number the items as presented.   J. Carroll stated that all exhibits could be voted on at one time.  Seven items were presented as evidence in the hearing.
S. Hofmann Chair ask for a motion to accept the 7 items
Motion was made by L. Giovanella seconded by A. Tisbert to accept the 7 items as evidence.  So voted unanimously.
Mrs. Hartenstein asked what happens next S. Hofmann stated they would go into deliberations and would have 45 days to make a discussion as to the findings.
S. Hofmann made the motion to close the hearing 
Motion was made by R. Moulton seconded by A. Tisbert So voted unanimously

Patrick Cooke attendance (a separate sign in sheet was passed around)

Planning Members Present:                Guests               
S. Hofmann                                            D. Boyle
D. Marshall                                            S. Boyle – Realtor
R. Moulton                                            Francis Cooke
A. Tisbert
L. Giovanella
K. Bingham
J. Carroll, Attorney for Panton

S. Hofmann stated that he had received a phone call from S. Boyle realtor for the Cooke’s indicating that they wanted to ask about having zoning changed to include an antique shop on the Cooke property, as the Cooke’s are trying to sell their property located on Route 22A.  He told them they should come before the board for discussion.
For clarification chair Hofmann stated this was strictly a discussion and no decisions will be made tonight.
D. Boyle realtor spoke of the property and stated they recently had an inquiry from someone that would like to purchase the property if it could get a conditional use permit to be an antique shop/auction house and still use the land for farm purposes.  Under zoning bylaws at present this does not fit under conditional use. It is only zoned now as residential/agriculture.  They are requesting changes be made to zoning of the property or that there are changes to the conditional use as described in our town.
E. Hanson stated that bylaws can’t be changed for one property; it would have to be a district change.  R. Moulton asked how difficult it would be to change the bylaws.  Ed stated you would have to change the list of allowed conditional uses for a RA-10 district.  R. Moulton asked if this is for all RA-10 in town or just RA-10 on 22A.  E. Hanson stated it would have to be done for more then one property.  E. Hanson stated that zoning would be defining a new zone.  R. Moulton asked how difficult this was.  E. Hanson stated it would be revising the zoning regulations.  Further discussion continued as to location of property and the house proximity to the road.  . 
J. Carroll stated the Planning Commission could come up with a recommendation for amendments and forward them to the Selectboard to hold public meetings for input.  After which the Selectboard can adopt this new plan and make it part of zoning.  J. Carroll did state this could be a long cumbersome process.  This process could take up to 5 month minimum.
Discussion as to the process continued and the steps necessary for this change to happen. The decision was made to go forward with their request. 

Suggested names to Regional Planning the Selectboard has asked for input as to appointments to the Regional Planning Board.  Mike is presently the alternate S. Hofmann stated.   L.Giovanella made the motion to forward the names of David Raphael as regular and Mike Hermann as alternate.  Hearing no more nominations S. Hofmann made the motion to forward to the Selectboard the names of David as regular and Mike as alternate for Regional Planning.  Motion is closed.  All in favor - L. Giovanella, K. Bingham, A. Tisbert, D. Marshall.  R. Moulton went on record as abstaining from the vote.  Chair Hofmann did not vote.

Sept. Meeting - Chair Hofmann stated he would be out of town on Sept. 1st.  R. Moulton will not be able to attend either.  Motion was made by L. Giovanella to move the next regular scheduled meeting to Sept. 8th as 7:00 P.M.  Seconded by A. Tisbert   so voted unanimously. 

Motion to adjourn at 9:15 by D. Marshall seconded by A. Tisbert.  So voted.

Deliberation Session Followed

Board Members Present: S. Hofmann, D. Marshall, R. Moulton, A. Tisbert, L. Giovanella, Kim Gingham
James Carroll-Attorney for Panton

Deliberations recessed at 10:15 P. M.  To continue on Tuesday August 9th 2005 at 5:30 P.M.

Deliberation reconvened on Tuesday August 9th 2005 at 5:35 P.M. adjourned at 6:20 P.M.