The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

PRESENT: Chairman Bruce Farr, Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Tom Lavigne, Nona Holmes, Alternates Jean Lane and Doug Pollock, Board Administrator Linda Smith, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver.

VOTING MEMBERS: Chairman Bruce Farr, Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Tom Lavigne, Doug Pollock, and Nona Holmes.

ABSENT: Robert Bailey

Case #09-06: Ryan Lamey, 7 Cove Way. Map 108; Lot 72. Applicant is seeking an appeal to an administrative decision of the building inspector relative to Section X, Article A from the Building Officials and Code Administrators Builders Code (B.O.C.A.) as amended in the Northwood General Ordinances to permit a 20’x40’ metal framed carport which the ICC Code Chapter 4 Section R403 requires frost protection of freestanding accessory structures with an area of 600 q. ft. or less of light framed construction.

Mr. Farr explains that this case was continued from September 28, and is for an appeal to the BOCA code. David Copeland is present from the building department. Ryan Lamey is also present.

Mr. Copeland refers to the IRC Code 2006, 1 and 2 family dwellings, under “frost protection”. Mr. Copeland reads that protection of a free standing or an accessory structure, with an area of 600 sq. ft. or less of light framed construction, shall require frost protection, section R403.1.4.1. Mr. Pender reads exception #1 noting that protection of freestanding accessory structures with an area of 600 sq. ft. or less, of light-framed construction, with an eave height of 10 ft. or less shall not be required. Mr. Copeland states that the applicant is requesting 800 sq. ft. and the code does not allow that.

Mr. Lamey states that he has not reviewed this information. He provides copies of the plan and states that he has received a PE stamp. He states that the proposal is a temporary structure and this is being mis-categorized. Mr. Lamey states that it has been noted (by the building inspector) that this is a permanent structure and he believes it is a temporary structure that would not require a frost wall. Mr. Lamey states that there are water line limitations on the lot and it would be unfeasible to have a 4 ft. frost wall.

Mr. Pender states that the drawing provided has an engineers seal on it and there is a section in this code that allows for alternative engineered design. The definition of temporary structure is read by Mr. Pender, Section R107.2, which states that temporary structures and uses shall conform to the structural strength, fire safety, means of egress, light, ventilation and sanitary requirements of this code as necessary to ensure the public health safety and general welfare. Mr. Pender continues and states that section R107.1 states that the building official is authorized to issue a permit for temporary structures and temporary uses. Such permits shall be limited as to time of service, but shall not be permitted for more than 180 days. The building official is authorized to grant extension for demonstrated causes. Mr. Pender asks if the proposed structure will be around for more than 180 days and Mr. Lamey replies yes.

Mr. Pender refers to Section R104.11 and explains that this allows an approved design, approved by an engineer, to be used; however, this is up to the discretion of the building inspector. Mr. Lamey states that this sounds reasonable.

Mr. Farr states that he feels that this is not a temporary structure as it will be erected for more than 180 days. Mr. Lamey states that a temporary structure means that it does not violate the land. He adds that the 180 day permit could be continued with the discretion of the building official. Mr. Lamey states that the original building permit was for a temporary structure. He adds that he always falls under the temporary building permit category. Mr. Farr states that he sees a request for a carport; nothing is noted for a temporary 180 day permit. Mr. Lamey explains the form he fills out is for temporary structures so that it can be removed so that it is not permanent, in the best interest of the land due to ledge and conditions of the property, with having a water well line and a financial impact. He adds that it would be a disgrace to the property to build a $40,000 permanent structure. He states that he is just asking for relief of the permanent code, which he does not believe he falls into.

A discussion is held regarding building permit fees. Mr. Copeland states that at the most the cost would be 0.10 per sq. ft. He adds that a similar structure, canvas garages, the cost would be a minimum of $50.

Mr. Copeland states that the code allows for 600 ft. and the integrity of the building is how it is pinned to the ground. Further discussion is held regarding the process of deciding a temporary structure which Mr. Copeland explains that any issues would be with the setbacks.

Additional discussion is held regarding R104.10 relative to modifications. Mr. Pender states that this section explains that where there are practical difficulties, the building officials have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases if reasons found makes the strict letter of this code impractical and modification are in compliance with the intent and purpose of the code and the modification does not lessen help, life and safety requirements or structural. Mr. Pender states that this is at the discretion of the building official and could be appealed.

Mr. Pender asks what the mitigating circumstances are and notes that the plan submitted is page 2 of 8. Mr. Lamey explains that this diagram shows the closest information for the product he is proposing. Mr. Pender requests the other 7 pages. Mr. Lamey states that he is trying to do the right thing and could build two 20x30 structures up against each other. Mr. Pender states that he understands the applicants concerns and adds that there are still other options and it would be under the direction of the building inspector.

Mr. Lavigne states that the board is here to determine if the building inspector made an error or not with his decision, then it goes back to the building inspector and is out of the jurisdiction of the ZBA. Mr. Farr states that the board needs to determine if the code applies or was there an error made with the building inspector’s decision. Mr. Lamey replies that the building inspector is sighting a permanent structure and the proposal is for a temporary structure. Mr. Lavigne asks the reason for footings and frost walls. Mr. Copeland replies that the integrity of the building is based on how it is secured to the foundation.

Mr. Copeland states that he agrees that there is a need for the rest of the plans and details as to how this structure would be attached to the soil. Mr. Copeland adds that there is nothing noted on the permit that mentions that this is not a permanent structure.

Mr. Lavigne states that if this was 20’ x 20’ would there be any restrictions as to how the structure sits on the ground. Mr. Copeland states that the structure would definitely need to be installed to the manufacturer’s specs. He adds that the details are needed as how it would be secured. He notes that this is a new type of building to the department. Mr. Copeland states that if the structure was hooked to a slab it would keep the integrity of the building.

Mr. Farr asks if the board feels if the code applies to this case. Mr. Pender further notes R403.3 regarding frost protections and requiring to be heated to 64°. He reads that these shall not be used for carports garages, not used as unheated space. Mr. Copeland states that this will not apply as this is an unheated space and therefore, would need frost protection since it is not heated to a minimum mean temperature maintained at 64°.

Additional discussion is held regarding temporary or permanent structures. Mr. Farr states that the board needs to make a ruling on the temporary structure matter. Mr. Lamey states this needs to be resolved. Mr. Copeland notes that this building could be a permanent structure for many years and nothing has been noted as to time limitations on the application. He states that the permit was submitted as a permanent structure even though the structure can be taken apart and moved; the issue is the structure is over 600 sq. ft. and a permit cannot be issued for this size of a structure on a slab. Mr. Lamey states that this is temporary because it does not meet building codes and is why the structure is classified as a carport, which is an open building engineered for temporary shelter of vehicles, equipment. He adds that this is non-invading and non-taxable. It is not invading ground surface in any manner that makes it permanent in terms of definitions. He states that this is a floating structure; a metal building that can be recycled.

Roy Pender makes a motion to support the decision of the building inspector that this structure is not a temporary structure. He states that the reason being is that there is no time limitation noted on the building permit and the fact that this can be dissembled and re-assemble can be said for any structure that is built. Tom Lavigne seconds. Mr. Farr states that he disagrees with the fact that the town taxes these as structures and they have a value. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Farr states that the next issue to discuss is whether or not the decision is correct that this permanent structure does not meet the code. Mr. Pender notes the exception possibilities in which allows for modifications or for an alternative engineered design. He requests comments from the building inspector. Mr. Pender refers to the print presented tonight with a NH engineered stamp on it from June 2006 and is still viable. Mr. Pender notes that this is only page 2 of 8 and some information is not visible. Mr. Copeland states that he has not seen this information before and has not been involved with this permit for this case. Mr. Lamey states that this is not the first time that these types of buildings have been built in town.

A discussion is held regarding the process for Mr. Lamey to continue with the building department. Mr. Copeland states that once the details were provided it would not take long, no more than 2 weeks, to complete the processing time. He adds that he would like to have the option to review and consider. He adds that he hopes that the engineer would have considered the specification as the company is in NC where there is less frost issues. Mr. Copeland states that he has not inspected these buildings and has no experience with these buildings.

Mr. Pender states that once there is pertinent and complete information provided and it is signed by an engineer, it is removing the liability from the town and in doing that, generally the authorities having the jurisdiction will go with the engineered design. He suggests that perhaps the case be continued, all information be gathered, and presented to the building inspector, and start over, which would allow Mr. Lamey to deal directly with the building inspector.
Mr. Pender makes a motion that the decision of the building inspector is correct; his interpretation of R403.1.4.1 is a correct interpretation. He explains that the applicant may meet with the building inspector with all completed information, all 8 pages of the plans, and show the building inspector Section R104.11 that it is an alternative design. Specifications must be provided for the job as well as the manufacturer of the unit. He adds that a new building permit may be required. Mr. Lavigne seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0. The building inspector’s decision stands.

Mr. Lamey asks if a temporary structure permit exists, will it expire. Mr. Pender states it is his understanding that a temporary building permit is only good for 180 days and if at the end of that time the use of the structure is still necessary, the permit would need to be renewed or reapplied for.

Adjournment
Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Mr. Pollock, to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page