The audience members were Susan and Peter Korbet, Joan Mulleuer Perkins, Christopher Perkins, Daniel Perkins, Deborah Perkins, Keith Graham, Brian Szad, Linda Diak, Wayne Beliveau, Diane Regnink, Alfred Smith, and Anne Smith.
David Gulbrandsen called the meeting to order at 7:00.
II. Additions & Corrections
There were none.

III. Approval of Minutes: November 17, 2010
Graham Hunter made a motion to approve the minutes of November 17, 2010 after the public comments. Debbie Graham seconded it. All were unanimous.
Graham Hunter made a motion to approve the minutes of November 17, 2010 with corrections. Debbie Graham seconded it. All were unanimous.
IV. Public Hearings
A. #11.0310 by Peter John Korbet appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve zoning application #09.2010 for re-opening of the Perkinsville Store
David Gulbrandsen opened the hearing at 7:02. There were no exparte communications or conflict of interest. Graham Hunter had disclosed in the past that he knows Wayne Beliveau from previous projects. He has no interest in this project. deForest Bearse, Susan and Peter Korbet, Brian Szad, Joan Mulleuer Perkins, Christopher Perkins, Daniels Perkins, Deborah Perkins, and Linda Diak affirmed.
Peter Korbet stated that he is a southern abutter and participated in the site plan review. His property will be adversely affected. He is concerned with the peace and quiet of the neighborhood and the contamination of the water supply. He stated that this is a permitted use in village districts. It was previously identified as a small existing lot (.89 acres). Gary Rapanotti did a survey on the .89 acre.
Peter Korbet read section 6.2.1. He felt that the ZBA administrator failed to adhere to the Zoning Bylaws. Brian Szad still lives at the site. Since it was bought it has been a single family residence. The Zoning Bylaws say that it is a permitted principal use and a small enterprise is a permitted principal use. Under village district it needs to be one acre minimum. Under land use it states that only one principal use is allowed for the parcel of land. He felt that this establishment requires a PUD permit which would go through the Planning Commission. It would work if it were two acres. The ZBA administrator failed in her duties by not advising the people of this or forwarding it to the Planning Commission.
Peter Korbet questioned what was happening to it. This past winter he asked the ZBA administrator if there were any permits issued for that property. She said none had been issued. It is an existing family single family, but a permitable accessory dwelling without a permit. The ZBA administrator should have checked on that. He went to the listers on September 30, 2010. According to Peter Korbet, the listers said that they were going by what the ZBA administrator said. He gave the Board a copy of what the listers said. He and his wife asked the ZBA administrator if Brian Szak was staying there. She said he was.
Peter Korbet told deForest Bearse that it should be a PUD. She said that she considered it an accessory use to the building. The ZBA decides that and not the ZBA administrator. He said that deForest Bearse stepped out of her scope of her duties. There is no residential in small enterprise in a village zone, nor in definition of small enterprise. The Zoning Bylaws makes residential versus other uses. The owner use is residential.
Peter and Susan Korbet spoke to the ZBA administrator before the site plan review with their concerns and at the hearing. They wrote two letters and were surprised at the site plan hearing conditioned by the site plan. The site plan review did not relieve the ZBA administrator by following the Zoning Bylaws. There currently is an uproar about 6.11. He read 6.11. Peter Korbet pointed that Hawks Mountain Grange is a historic structure in his letters. The ZBA administrator needs to follow 6.11. She knew that this was there since there was an e-mail sent out that day in regards to 6.11. This issue of historic structures has been brought up at a School Board meeting because of the school in Perkinsville. The second e-mail pertained to what will happen to the school site when the school has vacated that property. The historic preservation section is well known to the ZBA administrator. At the Stover property a comment was made on the site plan about that lot. The revisions go back to '92. Whatever reason, the site plan review did not want to hear bout 1/8 of a mile.
Peter Korbet stated that the Board did not take testimony nor take into account the water systems. There is a discrepancy in the application and what was submitted in regards to their well and the square footage in the store. He wanted to know if the Board could address that. The listers have from 71 square footage of the store. The Rapanotti survey shows the square footage. The Board said that they could address that concern. The Board asked for clarification, it says 50 feet and you say 25 feet. Peter Korbet said that is correct. They removed the whole front which was 25 feet by 48 feet. The building was 50 feet wide at the street. Their application had a fee of $35. He read the fee schedule and said it does not appear that the correct amount was collected. It should have been $200. deForest Bearse said that the demolition of the site is not the subject of this appeal.
Peter Korbet compared these drawings with the ones submitted which showed 25 feet by 78 feet. He read the definition of development. When the demolition was taking place, he went in and talked with the ZBA administrator. No action was taken. He read the responsibilities of the ZBA administrator. David Gulbrandsen said that we are only here for the appeal. Peter Korbet suggested that she did not do a site plan or look at the things provided to her. There is a difference between a site plan and what the listers have. The ZBA administrator immediately issued the permit even when issues had not been resolved. According to the listers, the existing entire structure is 5200 square feet. The proposed development is 1200 square feet. The ZBA administrator made a determination that an apartment is an accessory use. He has a written statement that covers what he has said and wanted to know if he could submit it. David Gulbrandsen took the statement, a copy of the deed for their well, a survey from the southern abutter, and Vermont water rules (A11-1 and A11-2).
deForest Bearse stated that the written documents were presented prior to this meeting. She addressed each of the appellants' arguments as they pertained to the issues. She presented the Board with a copy of what she was presenting. She stated that this is a principal use and the occupancy is on the second floor. The store has been vacant for some time and will be on the first floor. There is no accessory dwelling unit, nor is a certificate of occupancy required. This is a customary use. There was a permit issued for the apartment in 1988. This was used before as a store and has been unoccupied. Since it has been unoccupied, it does not change its use. The store dominates the building use of the land. The store becomes the principal use of the property. The apartment becomes an accessory use. There is a primary use and an accessory use, not a multiple use, so a PUD is not required.
deForest Bearse stated that the Hawks Mountain Grange was an oversight on my part. It was not a problem in the last one, but now it is. The Planning Commission is in the process of repealing 6.11 with the support of the Town's people. She has no authority to ask for a wastewater permit. The State issues those. In 6.2.1, it guarantees the right to develop small lots. Whether it is a permitted or conditional use, the applicant needs site plan approval. Once that is granted, she can issue a permit. They will need a certificate of occupancy before the store opens up. The conditions need to be met before the certificate of occupancy can be issued. In 1988 the ZBA ruled that a variance could not be issued for an existing small lot. This decision was rendered in regards to the application for the second apartment at the Perkinsville Store.
Graham Hunter said that said that there was a permit granted for a second apartment, a residence, a post office, and a store which preexisted to zoning. Peter Korbet said that in his notes #12, there was a post office in 1971. The post office was in that section that was torn down (490 sq ft). Graham Hunter stated that this building has had multiple tenants and uses. Susan Korbet stated that when they moved in they were not aware of the permitted apartments. deForest Bearse said that according to the record, the Korbet's were notified on March 15, 1988 when the decision was made.
Linda Diak stated that she bought her property in 1994 due to the store and post office. The loss of the store and post office has had a negative impact on the village. It has not been the same and she would like the store back. deForest Bearse presented the Board with two letters that she had received. David Gulbrandsen read the letters which were in support of the store.
Graham Hunter stated that he has a hard time understanding 6.11. The store is not development since it has existed in the present location. The proposed work is more in keeping what was previously there compared to a vacant building. It is in the center of the town and has been for over 15 years. There has been other development near the garage without looking at the Bylaw. Linda Diak said that the reinstallation of the store is not development but restoring.
Graham Hunter said that in 1976 there were 25 buildings or structures, and districts identified. deForest Bearse said in 1992 the Town came up with 250 sites in Weathersfield which is currently at the State to be reviewed. The State list is not on the internet, but the National one is. Peter Korbet stated how other historic structures in Weathersfield have not been mentioned. Susan Korbet said that the library has a copy of the Historic Sites and Structures in Weathersfield.
Peter Korbet stated that it was nice to hear emotional testimony. He had previously submitted pictures of the store, his side yard when it was a private yard, the business and parking out front, and parking around the common. He said that there are other places for parking besides behind the building. There is parking around the common, the paved area between the front of the building and the street. Parking on the common would be closer to the store than parking behind the building. There are no provisions for hours of operation. The impact on our property is going to be severe. We are only 11 to 12 feet away. Susan Korbet stated that it could be diminished if parking was out front. Peter Korbet said that deliveries are going to be out front. The parking plan put a burden on their property. The dumpster was originally on their property line. He is not a supporter of 6.11. The Town does not want to go through Historic Districts. There is a well in the parking lot. There was no request for a variance or any issued.
Exhibit 2 is the application. Exhibit 3 is the Historic Preservation Zoning Bylaw. Exhibit 4 is the Sketch Plan Decision. Exhibit 5 is the Site Plan dated 1971. Exhibit 6 is the Site Plan dated June 2001. Exhibit 7 is Gary Rapanotti's survey dated 1/9/02. Exhibit 8 is the Zoning Permit Fee Schedule. Exhibit 9 is the Deed for the Korbet's dated 9/5/87. Exhibit 10 is John and Marilyn Klob's survey. Exhibit 11 is the appeal dated December 1, 2010. Exhibit 12 is the Vermont Water Supply Ruler. Exhibit 13 is deForest Bearse's testimony. Exhibit 14 is the letter from Mr. Stover. Exhibit 15 is the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Richardson.
Graham Hunter made a motion to close the hearing at 8:40. Barbara Ingalls seconded it. All were unanimous to close the hearing.

V. Public Comment
There was none.

VI. Other Business
There was none.

VII. Adjournment
Graham Hunter made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:40. Barbara Ingalls seconded it. All were unanimous to adjourn.

Respectfully submitted,

Diana Day