Welcome to Leicester, VT

 KC was introduced to the board.   KC testified that has over 20 years of experience in the steel building construction business as well as building construction, alterations, and exterior maintenance. 

JMM introduced letter dated August 29, 2023, Appeal of Zoning Permit #21-23 ZA that was distributed to the board. 

Churchill photographs numbers 1,2, and 3 were entered into evidence. 

KC testified that in his experience he will need at least 15 feet of clearance to maintain the north side of the boathouse building.  This work will require the use of staging that is 5’ by 8’ in size (Churchill photograph #1).  There is a 2 ½ to 3 ft overhang on the roof over the north side of the boathouse.  He will need at least 2 ½ to 3’ of clearance around the staging for the of a ladder to climb onto the staging.  The total clearance required could be up to 15’ feet depending on the orientation of the staging to the building wall.  He is concerned that the fence will obstruct his view of the lake from the two windows on the north side of the boathouse (Churchill photograph #2).  The location of the fence approximately 4’ north of the property line will not allow the use of staging and ladders as described above. 

In response to a question by JMM as to how the property boundary was established, it was stated that boundary line between the Churchill and Malloy property was moved by a prior resolution of the parties.  The boundary line as agreed to runs close to, and partially inside, the north wall of the boathouse. 

JMM attempted to introduce an undated, unwitnessed Declaration of Daniel Bugnacki (Exhibit 2).  The Chair of the DRB rejected the admission of the Declaration. 

Benjamin Deppman, Esq., attorney for Molloy, objected to the discussion of how the boundary was established and characterized the subject as a “rabbit hole” that is not the subject of this hearing.  The Chair sustained the objection. 

KC restated his opinion that maintenance of the north side of the boathouse cannot be completed with the fence only 4’ from the building. 

Molloy photographs Numbers 1 and 2 were entered into evidence. 

The minimum clearance of up to 15’ is not necessary for the maintenance of the north side of the boathouse.  The use of a ladder, rather than staging, is more appropriate for this work.  It was noted that the boathouse is vinyl sided and does not require as much maintenance as other surfaces.   

BD further stated that the fence is reasonable, permitted use and will not prevent Churchill from maintaining the boathouse wall. 

CM testified that she lowered the height of fence to 4’ to lessen the impact and provide adequate viewing from the Churchill property.  The dark chain link fence was chosen so that it blends in with the wooded area between the properties.  She will plant conifer shrubbery to the south of the fence to shield the view of the fence. 

CM testified that to her knowledge the area north of the boathouse has never been used as a “viewing area.”  The wooden steps and the lower windows of the boathouse in Molloy photograph #2 were just recently installed.  She has never observed anyone sitting in the boathouse. 

CM testified that a 3’ right-of-way from the north wall was granted by a previous agreement for wooden steps and access.  The location of the fence 4’ from the north wall accommodates this agreement.  The step and access are shown in Molloy photographs #1 and #2. 

The Chair asked all parties to if there was any way to resolve this dispute. There was no agreement between the parties for a resolution of the dispute. 

Sarah Von Trapp suggested there might be a different kind of paneled fence that could be installed that would allow sections to be temporarily removed for ladder and staging clearance.  KC responded that the fence posts could not be removed and will impact the clearance like the fence itself.  She finished her comments by asking again if there was any compromise between the parties to resolve this issue. 

The was no response from either of the parties. 

The Chair asked for any final comments or testimony.  

There being none, the Chair accepted a motion by Michael, seconded by Shouldice to close the hearing and enter deliberative session.  

The DRB entered deliberative session at 6:35 PM. 

 The DRB ended the deliberative session at 7:10 PM and re-entered the hearing. 

On motion by Shouldice, seconded by Michael the DRB vote unanimously to deny the Appeal of Town of Leicester Zoning Permit #21-23 ZA.