Laserfiche WebLink
2. <br />• than Board of Appeals procedures. Ms. Lane said there was some <br />merit in a Plan Review process but it may need some refining. <br />Mr. Govoni said the Board should decide what problem areas should <br />be addressed. Mr. Friel said they would develop a letter to <br />Ms. Lane on the problem areas to be reviewed. Ms. Lane asked <br />for the biggest problem and Mr. Friel said the expansion of <br />non -conforming structures. Ms. Lane stated that state law gives <br />a guarantee to non -conforming uses to residences allowing them <br />to expand as long as they do not increase the non -conforming <br />nature or are a detriment. There was discussion of allowing <br />the Building Inspector to make some of these decisions and if <br />people object they can appeal the decision of the building <br />inspector instead of going to court. Mr. Hauck said he has <br />been using 208 lot coverage as a criteria and if anything exceeds <br />this he is requiring a Special Permit. <br />Legal advertising - Ms. Lane said to encourage applicants to <br />apply under several by-laws if necessary. If advertising <br />mentions one by-law and Board determines another was necessary <br />it should be readvertised. <br />Jurisdiction - there was discussion on modifications of existing <br />Special Permits. Ms. Lane said the Building Inspector has to <br />make the decisions and then the applicants can file an Appeal <br />which comes to the Board of Appeals. Ms. Lane said State law <br />does not handle abandonments within a Special Permit. <br />• Tapes - It was discussed that the tapes are used for the <br />secretary's own use. Ms. Lane said that the Secretary of State <br />has said that whether they be preliminary notes or tapes until <br />those are destroyed in the normal course anyone who asks for <br />them can have them. It was discussed that the Board of Health <br />puts in the minutes that the tapes are not the official records <br />of the Board. Mr. Makunas said that tapes can be reused after <br />the secretary gets all of the information from them. <br />Mr. Makunas asked if Ms. Lane had any generic letter that would <br />inform Department heads of their limitations in giving legal <br />opinions to applicants before the Board of Appeals. Mr. Makunas <br />said it would be similar to a conflict of interest letter. <br />Ms. Lane reviewed the by-laws on non -conforming expansions and <br />noted that the special exceptions term was not properly <br />referenced. It was agreed that the language should read that <br />a Special Permit is required to modify any pre-existing non- <br />conforming use. Mr. Hauck said that everything would have to <br />come to the Board of Appeals. <br />Mr. Makunas asked if an owner has certain rights on a lot without <br />a building why do you have less rights because there is a <br />structure on the lot which owner might want to abolish and <br />• replace. Ms. Lane said by-law could be expanded to allow <br />demolition and rebuilding but that Section 6 is not clear. Ms. <br />Lane said local Board could give more protection. Mr. Govoni <br />