The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

Chairman Farr calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Chairman Bruce Farr, Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Thomas Lavigne, Robert Bailey, Nona Holmes, Alternate Ken Wilkins, Alternate Jean Lane, Alternate Andrea Korson, Board Administrator Linda Smith, and Assistant Building Inspector Don Gardiner.

ABSENT: Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver

VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Roy Pender, Tom Lavigne, Bob Bailey, and Andrea Korson.

Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to change the agenda order for case 06-06 to be heard as the last case of the night. Mr. Pender states that he would prefer to have the Farr case heard last as Chairman Farr would be stepping down for that case and have the other applications heard first. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

MINUTES: Bob Bailey makes a motion, second by Andrea Korson, to approve the February 27, 2006, and March 27, 2006, minutes, as written. Motion passes unanimously, 5/0.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to maintain the ZBA officers the as is for the upcoming year; Chairman Farr and Vice-Chairman Pender. Motion passes; 3/0/2.

APPLICATIONS:

NEW CASES:

Case #06-05: Diane Gilman and Ernest Davey, Jr., 215 Long Pond Road. Map 206; Lot 63. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(C)(1) and 3.02(B) to construct a new residence on a non conforming lot, less than 2 acres, with no road frontage as this is a private road. Mr. Davey and Ms. Gilman are present.

Mr. Farr explains the process of granting a variance. A balance due of $25. for recording fees is provided and the application is deemed complete.

Ms. Gilman states that the new residence is a two bedroom, prefab home, chalet style. The septic system has been put in by the previous owner. She adds that it will still need to be tested for final approval. The lot is .3 acres. Mr. Gardiner explains RSA 674:41 and the further process with the board of selectmen. Mr. Davey explains that there is no well on the property now; however, they are working with the NHDES. Further discussion is held regarding the property layout.

Area Variance:

1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Ms. Gilman

states that none of what they would be doing would be contrary to the public interest. This would allow them to build a single family residential house. She adds that the house would add revenue for the town.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the

ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Ms. Gilman states that being on a private road in this area; most of the lots are 60’ x 200’. She explains that prior to purchasing the lot she called the town to see if this lot was a buildable lot and she was told that it was. Mr. Farr asks if there is any way to make the lot larger or if there is any way to move the house closer to the lake. Mr. Davey and Ms. Gilman reply no.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Ms.

Gilman states that there was a subdivision done in 1962. She states that they are not doing anything beyond what the surrounding properties have existing.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Ms.

Gilman states that she believes that she is being taxed as a buildable lot. She adds that the rest of the neighborhood is about the same size but may have two or three lots together.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be

suffered. Ms. Gilman states that this will increase the values of the neighborhood and will be within the character of the neighboring homes.

Roy Pender makes a motion to grant the variance based on the fact that all five conditions have been met. Bob Bailey seconds. Mr. Pender states that this fits within the neighborhood and they are not encroaching into the setbacks. Mr. Bailey states that he believes that the previous owner purchased the lot in the rear for the septic system. Mr. Farr notes that the area is a relatively small area and there really are no other options. Mr. Lavigne states that he feels that this is done well to fit in with the rural character. It is only a two bedroom and does not encroach into the setbacks. He feels that this is a reasonable use. He adds that the septic being on the opposite side of the road is a good plan. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

A discussion is held regarding a list of private roads. Mr. Gardiner explains that there is a list of town private roads that the building department has and reviews when applicants request building permits. He adds that the selectmen determine the status of roads in town.

Case #06-07: Community Investment Properties, LLC, Overlook Drive. Map 210; Lot 19. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(B) and 3.02(B), to permit a single family residence on a non conforming lot. (Property currently owned by Marjorie Wiggins).

Mr. Farr notes that there is a letter of authorization in the file granting permission for Shane Carter of Community Investment Properties to speak and represent Ms. Wiggins.

VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Roy Pender, Bob Bailey, Andrea Korson, and Nona Holmes.

A discussion is held regarding the abutters to the property. Mr. Farr states that there appears to be a balance due of $24. After review, Ms. Smith confirms that all abutters and other parties have all been dully notified thus justifying the balance due, which is paid in full.

A discussion is held regarding the cost of the proposed structure. Mr. Carter explains that the proposed structure is a 4 bedroom single family residence and would be appropriate for the lot. Mr. Farr asks if the lot will accommodate this sized house. Mr. Carter replies that when the project was started, it did meet the town regulations, which were 40,000 sq. ft. and 75’ of frontage. No abutters are present and no correspondence has been received. Mr. Carter explains that a culvert will be necessary for the driveway to be constructed. Mr. Pender notes that the lot is steep. Mr. Carter replies that they will be re-grading

the property. He adds that based on test pits, there is no ledge problems so far.

Area Variance:

1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Carter

states that granting the variance will not affect the views, air flows, or density or vehicle traffic for this area.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the

ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Carter replies that the lot was created in 1968 and approved by the Northwood Planning Board. These are the dimensions of the lot that he has to work with. There is no way to acquire additional land. The house and design do not infringe on the property setbacks and is a good use of the property.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.

Carter states that he believes that with the purpose of the Northwood Development Ordinances this lot is not contrary to the goals of the ordinance.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Carter believes that the house and the lot based on the plan provided, will not adversely affect any neighboring properties and this is a reasonable use of the property. He adds that this is not diminishing the use of the property and will not impact the neighbor’s lots.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be

suffered. Mr. Carter states that this construction will increase the property values and improve the value of the surrounding properties.

Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the variances for 3.01 B and 3.02 B based on the fact that all 5 conditions have been met. Ms. Holmes feels that this is a reasonable use of the land. Mr. Bailey states that this subdivision was created for houses not camps. Ms. Korson states that this conforms to the area and is a reasonable use. Mr. Pender states that this is a private road and that this will need to go before the selectmen before building. He adds that Bennett’s Bridge Road is only a one lane bridge that does get closed periodically. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Farr calls for a 5 minute recess.

Mr. Farr recuses himself as chairman. Mr. Pender will chair this case.

VOTING MEMBERS: Roy Pender, Bob Bailey, Andrea Korson, Tom Lavigne, and Ken Wilkins.

Case #06-06: Bruce Farr, 51 Catamount Road. Map 212; Lot 22. Applicant is seeking a special exception to Article 1.04(C)(2) for an undersized lot of .33 Ac., or .40 Ac. after adjustment, where 2 Ac. is required and a variance to Article 3.04(B) for 10’ side and rear setback where 20’ is required.

Mr. Farr presents a letter of authorization allowing him to represent Judith Sanderson.

Mr. Farr explains that the lot is undersized and he is asking for a special exception and a variance for setbacks on two sides.

Variance:

Mr. Farr states that the lot will be continued for agricultural uses. He adds that the building will fit on the lot; however, he feels that it is not in the best interest of the abutters for aesthetics and long term of the lot. The building as shown on the proposed plans is 45’ x 64’. Mr. Farr requests to amend the building size to increase it to 45’ x 78’. He states that this will not further encroach into the setback. He adds that this will allow for storage for all farm equipment. Mr. Farr states that he would like to center the building in the lot along with the existing barn. This encroaches into the setback. Mr. Farr speaks to the footage formula recently in the ordinances. He states that he has a 19’ setback. He further explains the property layouts and the abutters’ lots. He adds that there will be a boundary line adjustment with his back lot, lot 212/21. Mr. Lavigne states that the lots could be combined and therefore there would be no need for a special exception. Ms. Smith states that the boundary line adjustment has not been approved at this time. Mr. Farr further explains that there is a stonewall lining the property line and a driveway of an abutter.

No abutters are present and there has been no communications received.

Area Variance:

1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Farr

states that granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest because there is a stonewall on one side and up to a private road on the back side. There is no affect on the abutters or impact to the boundary line. He adds that the barn will be metal sided for fire safety. He adds that the barn will be centered for aesthetic purposes and is not a public building in terms of access for the general public.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the

ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Farr states that the lot is an undersized lot and in order to make use of the lot it needs to have a significant sized building on it. This building will be good use of the property.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.

Farr states that the building will not affect fire safety, air flow, and there will be no visual impact. He adds that the building will be steel sided and will have no negative affect to the neighbors. There will be no crowding to abutters.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Farr

states that substantial justice would be done in several ways. This is an agricultural building. The town has been very adamant on keeping the rural character of this land going and maintaining open space. Someone needs to keep doing agricultural work in town and the building is for agricultural purposes. He adds that this is a taxable lot and it must have a value. He feels that this is a reasonable use and to center the building on the lot will have minimal impact to the town.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be

suffered. Mr. Farr states that the neighbors are very much in favor of the farming operation. This will not have any negative affect on the surrounding properties and will get the equipment under cover.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Andrea Korson, to grant the variance for the 2 setbacks for a 40’ x 78’ barn, based on the fact that all 5 conditions have been met. Mr. Lavigne amends the motion to include the condition that the boundary line adjustment must be approved by the Northwood Planning Board, as presented. Mr. Lavigne states that he feels that aesthetics are very important and can understand the need to maintain the property lines. He adds that this would be different if there was a structure existing nearby rather than the stonewall and the driveway. He feels that this is a reasonable use. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Special Exception 3 Conditions:

Mr. Farr states that the town under special exception requires that there be a state approved septic system. Mr. Farr explains that he is proposing no septic system and requests that the board find that he meets the conditions of a special exception. There is no septic, no well, and no well radius. He adds that there will be no water coming onto the property or going off the property. Mr. Lavigne asks if there is a need for another variance as the lot configuration has changed and has become bigger. A discussion is held regarding the lot being more conforming now and this is better for the town; however there is a change of lot size. Mr. Farr states that he would like to meet the current standards as he has not done a boundary line adjustment. He states that the property, 212/22 is currently .4 acres. Mr. Pender states that the special exception is being discussed on an existing lot. He adds that the ZBA does not know if the lot line adjustment will take place. Ms. Smith states that the purpose for Mr. Farr meeting with the board is to place the building on the lot to develop it. The board must take into consideration that the applicant is showing a building going over a lot line, which the board granted based on the BLA. Mr. Farr states that the requirement for a special exception is a more restrictive standard. Mr. Lavigne states that he does not have a problem moving forward with the special exception process as this will make the lot more conforming. Mr. Pender feels that this should proceed as a special exception because it will require planning board approval for the boundary line adjustment. He adds that the lot was created prior to December 1, 2005. Mr. Pender states that this building is for agricultural purposes and there is no need for a septic system. Mr. Bailey notes that should the lot change to a buildable lot, septic would be required. Mr. Farr adds that the outcome is the same. Ms. Smith agrees. The board agrees that they are helping to create a lot that is more conforming.

Special Exception:

Mr. Farr states that in his opinion, the special exception was created to be sure that the undersized lots had a sufficient septic system. He adds that he feels that there was an oversight in which the planning board did not include an escape clause that says that you either meet the conditions or you will not be able to have a septic system at all. Mr. Farr explains that years from now and someone would want to put in a septic system, then the process would begin all over again for the lot.

(a) septic systems shall be located 75 feet or greater from open drainage or surface water, 50 feet or greater from hydric B soils, 75 feet or greater from existing wells; and septic systems must meet all other setback requirements set by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, unless a waiver has been granted by the appropriate state regulatory agency. Mr. Farr replies that the septic system does not exist; therefore all conditions for this section have been met.

(b) the well protection radius shall be 75’ or greater and may not extend beyond the building setback on an adjoining lot. Mr. Farr states that the septic system does not exist.

Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Ken Wilkins, to grant the special exception to construct a 40’ x 78’ agricultural barn, having all criteria been met. Discussion is held regarding proper wording so to not infer that this is a non-residential use as that would be subject to a site plan. Mr. Lavigne withdraws his motion. Mr. Wilkins withdraws his second. Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Ken Wilkins, to grant the special exception to construct a 40’ x 78’ agricultural equipment barn, having all criteria been met. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

CORRESPONDENCE:

Materials have been provided by Ms. Holmes relative to training sessions that she and Ms. Korson attended. Mr. Farr requests that all materials be copied and provided to the board members at the next meeting.

Ms. Smith states that it has been brought to her attention by Ms. Holmes that with conflict of interest it is not necessary to disclose the actual reason for stepping down for a case. Mr. Pender states that he attended a presentation by the attorney generals office who stated the same; however, sometimes there are times that the recusal could be deemed necessary by the board on a per case basis. He adds that the member should always tell the board when there has been any pre-involvement. Further discussion continues regarding examples for recusing themselves. Mr. Farr states that he appreciates when members recuse themselves to allow alternates some experience. Ms. Smith asks about alternates being involved with discussions but not the actual votes. Mr. Farr states that the chair did stop doing that as it was involving questions and opinions by people that were not able to be a part of the decision. Mr. Pender states that he will copy some information he received and bring it to the next meeting.

INTERNAL BUSINESS

Fee Schedule: Ms. Smith states that the selectmen will be reviewing the fee schedule within the next few months. She asks if the board would like to propose any changes to the application fees. Ms. Smith that the board has always charged one initial fee for many requests of variances or special exceptions. She asks if the board would like to consider charging additional fees for additional requests. Additional discussion is held regarding the board being self funded. Mr. Farr states that the board has always been self funding except for legal fees.

ADJOURNMENT

A motion to adjourn passes unanimously at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

Town of Northwood
Zoning Board of Adjustment
April 24, 2006

[ Back ]

top of page