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, Robert Bailey, Nona Holmes, Alternate Ken Wilkins, Alternate Jean Lane, Board Administrator Linda Smith, Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver, and Assistant Building Inspector Don Gardiner. Thomas Lavigne arrives at 7:05.

ABSENT: Alternate Andrea Korson

VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Roy Pender, Ken Wilkins, Nona Holmes, and Bob Bailey.

MINUTES: Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to approve the minutes of April 24, 2006, as written. Motion passes unanimously, 5/0.

Request to Continue:
Ms. Smith states that a request to continue has been received for case 06-12, New England Design Associates.

APPLICATIONS:
NEW CASE:
Case #06-08: Curt Edsall, Ridge Road. Map 219; Lot 19; Sublot 1. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.02(B) to construct a 40’ x 80’ two-family dwelling on a non-conforming lot of 3.42 Ac. where 4 Ac. is required. (Property currently owned by Richard Wolf, Jr.).

Mr. Pender recuses himself as a voting member.

VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Ken Wilkins, Nona Holmes, Tom Lavigne, and Bob Bailey.

A balance due of $56.00 is paid. The application is deemed complete. Mr. Farr reviews the process of granting a variance.

Curt Edsall is present along with Debra Coronis, potential buyer of the property. Reggie Sweet is also present. Mr. Edsall states that Ms. Coronis would like to purchase the lot and build a duplex on this lot so that her, her children, and grandchildren can have one house and live together on the property yet still have separate structures; however, this proposal is short the acreage. A discussion is held regarding the maximum square footage of the building. Mr. Edsall states that they have not finalized the design. The application states 3200 sq. ft. and Mr. Edsall replies that the maximum request would be 3500 sq. ft. Mr. Farr states that the public notice was posted as 40’ x 80’ and should the design increase, the application would need to be reposted. Mr. Edsall replies that they will maintain the plan for 3200 sq. ft. Mr. Farr notes that the exact configuration of the home has not been determined. Mr. Edsall states that the frontage requirements have been and there will be one septic and one well. Ms. Smith states that the lot has been recently created by a subdivision done by Reggie Sweet. Mr. Sweet states that he had a design for 3.4 acres for a four bedroom house. He adds that he did not know that this would be for a duplex. Mr. Sweet further explains that the lot was created to fit the land the best way it could.

Additional discussion is held regarding a conditional approval for a family duplex. Mr. Edsall states that it is the intentions of Ms. Coronis to occupy the house and keep it for the grandchildren. After discussion, Mr. Edsall states that they are not looking for a conditional approval.

Abutter Eleanor Byrne states that the ordinances are put through to preserve areas and it appears that many lots are being granted variances.

Area Variance:
1.    The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Edsall
states that this will be a family on the land. It will generate revenue for the town. He adds that the space would be occupied rather than used for fill. He states that a duplex is just creating a separate space for two families.

2.    Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Edsall states that there is ample road frontage in comparison for the town’s requirements. The land is wide rather than deep. He adds that the house will fit the landscape.

3.    The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Edsall states that the land is wide with the road frontage. The home is a low profile ranch. The area is a beautiful piece of land and all road frontage requirements have been met. The structure will be 6 bedrooms.

4.    By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr.
Edsall states that they are not trying to generate income. The intention is for the house to be built as a one-family for 3 generations. He feels that it is unfair to lock a conditional variance on the property. They are not going deep into the property. They are taking advantage of the road frontage. The proposal is not unsightly; it is a country style ranch home and not proposed as the normal box type, duplex, or as a rental unit.

5.    No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Edsall states that the home is a family home in a nice setting. He explains that there is one neighbor existing and this lot will eventually be built on. Mr. Farr asks for an updated septic plan. Mr. Edsall replies that it will be finalized upon the determination of the variance. He states that the footprint was changed to a duplex to show that the septic will fit on the space for a 6 bedroom house. The septic is not approved and will go to the state depending on the decision of the board of the variance.

Abutter Ms. Byrne expresses concern about the town in the fact that these lots are undersized. She adds that this property could become a separate duplex that is not all one family. She suggests a condition that the owners not be able to sell or rent and it must stay in the family. She also expresses concern with the septic system as the property drains down hill. She explains that there is a pond, which was affected by animal waste and it took years for the pond to rejuvenate and there is now wildlife in the pond.

Bob Bailey states that the frontage is limited to allowing another driveway. He adds that there are very steep slopes that they are trying to work in. Mr. Edsall states that they changed the plan to center the driveway to make it appear as a single family house. Mr. Bailey adds that when the subdivision was done, the idea was for a single family and he feels that that is the best idea for the lot. Tom Lavigne makes a motion to deny the variance based on the fact that condition 1, 2, 3, and 4 have not been met; condition 5 has been met. Second by Bob Bailey. Mr. Lavigne states that he understands what the applicants would like to do. He has viewed the property and there is a lot of frontage; however, there are steep slopes. The useable space is small and adds to the further congestion. He feels that the lot was designed for a single family home and would be less congested. He adds that he feels that the town was smart with the land regulations and requirements. Mr. Lavigne explains the 4 conditions that he feels have not been met:
1.    The requirement is 4 acres, there is enough frontage. The land is steep and there is not much useable space.
2.    The land is unusual, and there is a very steep area; however the lot can be built on. The lot is missing ¼ of what is required and the requirement was voted in by the town’s people.
3.    The spirit is clear to what the town’s people wanted; enough property to support a type of structure that you want to build.
4.    Substantial justice: whether it is right or wrong, the town’s people voted on and approved.

Mr. Edsall replies that it is steep and not deep. Landscaping could help. He adds that he tried to bring it in 60’-65’ to change the footprint to set up the driveway and keep it away from the duplex nature of the house so it was narrowed and made into one driveway. He continues and explains that the sloping grade, they centered it in the frontage and tried to fit the house on the useable areas. Bob Bailey agrees with Mr. Lavigne and adds that there are two ponds nearby so the land cannot be filled out anymore. Mr. Farr states that he feels that this is a good idea but it does not qualify. The lot was established by a subdivision for a single family home and the ordinance requires 4 acres. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Farr explains the process of an appeal.
Case #06-09: LIMU, LLC., Elm Street. Map 123; Lot 20. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(C)(1) and 3.02(B) to construct a 26’ x 42’ single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot of 0.11 Ac. with no road frontage.

Gail Mahon is present along with Donald Demers.

No are abutters are present and no correspondence has been received.

Ms. Mahon explains that the proposal is to create a 26’ x 42’ single family, 2 bedroom, one story home. The well is proposed to be in the front of the house and the septic is proposed to be in the rear. The well has not been approved to date.

A discussion is held regarding the setbacks. Mr. Farr states that the 20’ setback does not apply and adds that there is no encroachment of the setbacks. Ms. Mahon agrees. Additional discussion is held regarding the abutting wells and septic system of the neighbors. Mr. Demers explains that the septic system abuts the septic of property in the rear. The board discusses the current septic design policy in which the board must see a designed system for the property. Mr. Bailey adds that this benefits the applicant and the board. He notes that this area was designed for camps. Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Ken Wilkins, to condition this case until June 26, 2006, based on the fact that the applicant in good faith applied to the board and the board has requested additional information; specifically a septic design. Mr. Wilkins notes that there may be an issue with the well protection radius, Section 1.04 (C)(2)(b). Mr. Farr explains that the applicant would be required to submit a separate application. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #06-10: Sarah and Emily Low, First NH Turnpike. Map 221; Lot 40. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(C)(1), to create a new lot with no road frontage where 150’ if required. Emily Low is present. Authorization has not been received by Sarah Low allowing Emily Low to represent both parties. Ms. Lane states that she has spoken to Sarah Low who explained that she would not be able to attend the meeting tonight do to flooding of her property. Mr. Bailey makes a motion, second by Mr. Lavigne, to proceed with the case without the authorization of Sarah Low. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Abutters present are John Jacobsmeyer who is also a member of the Northwood Water District, which is an abutter, and Al Roberge who manages the NH Diocese property.

Ms. Low states that the Village of Northwood Water District was originally part of the property. She explains that she and her sister were approached by the conservation commission to purchase all or some of the remaining lot to the NCC. She adds that there is an existing easement that the NCC would share with the water district and PSNH. This easement along the westerly boundary of the property has also been passed on to the cell tower company. There would be an additional easement in front of the well district lot for the NCC to reach the back lot. Steve Roy, NCC Chairman, states that he is in agreement with Ms. Low’s explanation.

Mr. Farr asks if the process is proposed to be an unrestricted sale; the Lows are selling the property; not the conservation rights. Ms. Low replies that that is the plan at this time. Mr. Roy explains that the conservation commission felt that this property would fit into the town’s goals of the master plan. He explains that the land is in the Acorn Woods conservation district and the Wellhead Protection Overlay District. He adds that the conservation commission did have an appraisal done on the property. Mr. Roy explains that there is a 50’ right of access from Rte. 4 to allow access to the current water district property. Any right of way (ROW) access would be given with the sale. Ms. Low adds that there would be an additional easement necessary to travel across in front of the well district lot. Water District Commissioner, John Jacobsmeyer, states that the deed states that the ROW is 30’. 16’ is passable as a travel way. He explains that the deed calls for the water district to maintain the area. Mr. Jacobsmeyer expresses concern with additional traffic being on the road as the increase will create more maintenance costs for the water district. The cell tower is now on land leased from the water district. He adds that with this expanded usage and the maintenance costs, the water district may contest. Mr. Jacobsmeyer states that the water district owns an easement to use the road; the Lows give permission to the water district to travel the road. Mr. Roy notes that the conservation commission has met relative to this issue in non-public session only twice. All other discussions were regular public meetings. He adds that although public access is preferable in a town acquisition for conservation land as it is for the public, it is not a requirement of the funding source, which is the conservation land fund under RSA 36(A)(4). Mr. Farr asks what the purpose is for the land. He adds that the purpose of the land and the impacts affect the outcome of the variance. Mr. Roy replies that the NCC is still in the preliminary process and access has not been covered. Mr. Roy explains that the NCC land fund restricts any structures being placed on the property. The conservation land fund is used for conserving land and water resources. He adds that there is language that allows fixtures for water supply as those would not have structural impacts.

Mr. Bailey suggests a site walk of property. A discussion is held regarding the right of a use easement to access the back area and a parking area. Mr. Bailey suggests the location of a parking area be greatly considered. Mr. Roy assures that board that all steps for water protection will be taken relative to the location of a parking area. Mr. Farr states that he feels that there are too many unknowns as the variance goes with the property and notes that there needs to be greater detail provided with the water district and deeds for conditions of the property and the intentions. Mr. Roy states that the NCC has not asked for a commitment of the owners. Bruce Farr makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to continue the case until the Lows notify the board with their intentions, within 6 months, due to the need for more details. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Case #06-11: David Allain, Rochester Road. Map 232; Lot 32. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(C)(1) and 3.02(B) to construct a residence on a non-conforming lot of 1.2 Ac. where 2 Ac. is required; and 100’ of frontage where 150’ is required. (Property currently owned by Frederick and Maryclare Koenig).

Mr. Allain is present representing the Koenigs. Abutters present are the Menards. Mr. Allain states that he has received a state approval, conditional on obtaining a wetlands permit for the driveway. He adds that he also has state septic approval. Mr. Allain notes that there are separate driveways for the Menards and Koenigs. The wetlands impact is less than 2000 sq. ft. for the driveway on the Koenig’s property. Mr. Allain states that the 1.2 acre lot was created in the 1940’s with 100 ft. frontage. At that time it was a large lot. This is a non-conforming lot. All setbacks have been met except for the well radius, which extends onto the Herd’s first, less than 20’ and it extends onto the Menard’s property by 40’. A discussion is held regarding requesting a special exception for the well radius. Ms. Smith explains that they do not have the criteria for the special exception, which is a lesser form of relief. The applicants agreed that they cannot meet the special exception criteria and the next form of relief would be the variance for lot size and frontage requirements. She adds that the non-conforming lot special exception exempts lot size and frontage. Ms. Smith further explains that a variance criteria is more difficult to meet than the special exception. Mr. Allain states that he originally applied for the special exception and was advised otherwise by staff. Ms. Smith adds that the only input she had was when she saw the application and it said a special exception and a variance. She explains that there was a mutual discussion with the building inspector regarding the special exception. She adds that staff does not tell applicants what to place on the application.

Mr. Allain explains that the proposal is for a dome type house. All town and shoreline setbacks will be met. There is plenty of building area despite the size of the lot. 1/3 acre is buildable area. This home will be a 3 bedroom home. The septic design is a pump system and is approximately 120’ away from the lake.

Area Variance:
1.    The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Allain
states that the lot was created in the 1940’s as a building lot. The lots on either side have been residentially developed. Building a new home to current building codes, which meets or exceeds all local and NHDES Subsurface System Bureau and Shoreland Protection setbacks is not contrary to the public interest.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Allain states that a variance to the 150 ft. frontage requirement and to the 2 acre lot size is needed to enable the Koenigs to build a home on a lot that provides special conditions, which allow all building setbacks to be met while being non-conforming. He adds that this lot was created in the 1940’s as a building lot but now requires variances because of more restrictive changes in zoning setback requirements. He adds that the benefits sought cannot be reasonably achieved by some method other than with the requested variances. Adjoining lots are developed and also have area issues making the acquisition of addition land impractical.

3.    The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Allain states that the Koenigs are requesting to be allowed to build a home on this lot created in the 1940’s. This lot provides for the location of a home meeting all local building setbacks, all state requirements (see NHDES CA # 2006080227) and meets the spirit of the ordinances. The Koenigs are requesting to be able to build on their lot and enjoy the same uses as the neighbors lots. He adds that the well radius does extend more than 20’ onto the Mennard’s lot; however, the placement of the proposed well is in an area that will not restrict the Menards from fully using their property. He adds that the septic system for the Menards was designed by his office and shows a well extending more than 20’ onto the Koenig’s lot without restricting any use.

4.    By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Allain
states that even though the lot has not changed since the 1940’s and all building setbacks can be met, changes in zoning have created a non-conforming lot. Granting the variances will provide for substantial justice by allowing them to build.

5.    No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Allain states that the construction of a new home meeting all life safety codes will add value to the neighborhood. The single family construction will also be in character with other homes in the area.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to approve the variance based on the fact that all 5 conditions have been met. Mr. Lavigne states that he and Mr. Bailey have walked the property. He has seen the test pits. He feels that the wetlands permit will be a task as it is wet getting to the area of construction. He adds that it is a reasonable use of the property and he appreciates the fact that the house will be kept back from lake. Mr. Bailey adds that the lot is actually a nice building lot. Mr. Farr states that the testimony stands for itself. It is a buildable lot and this is a reasonable use.
Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #06-12: New England Design Assoc., 144 First NH Turnpike. Map 234; Lots 9 & 10. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.02(B) to develop a non-conforming lot of 1.71 Ac. for non-residential use where 2 Ac. is required. (Property currently owned by Robert Grano).

A request to continue has been received. Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Ken Wilkins, to continue the case to June 26, 2006. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Case #06-13: Frank and Barbara Hopkins, Gulf Road. Map 120; Lot 14. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(B)(2) to create a building lot with no frontage where 150’ is required.

VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Roy Pender, Ken Wilkins, Nona Holmes, and Bob Bailey.

Jeff Green of JLG Enterprises is present representing the Hopkins. Abutter Michael Warren is present.

A discussion is held regarding authorization for the applicant to represent both Frank and Barbara Hopkins. Written authorization has been received for Mr. Green to represent Ms. Hopkins. A brief recess is taken. Mr. Farr states that he has verbal confirmation for Mr. Green to represent Frank Hopkins. Notification in writing will be provided. Board agrees to accept this as authorization and proceed with the case.

Mr. Green explains that the property is on Gulf Road. The parcel is 10 acres with two existing residences, two existing wells, two existing leach fields, and two existing driveways. The second house was put in, in 1982 and there was one previous. There is a state approved septic and a town approved building permit. The proposal is to subdivide the lot so the two residents have their own existing lot. One is currently being taxed as a mobile home only. The other house is being taxed for the entire 10 acres. They are proposing to subdivide the lot; already built on. No new construction is proposed. He adds that frontage has not been met and a variance is necessary.

Abutter Mr. Warrant states that he has the same situation and has no comments regarding the proposal.

Mr. Lavigne asks how many tax bills there are for this property. Mr. Green replies that there is one tax bill for the land including one residence, and the other residence is being billed as a separate house only. Ms. Smith confirms this and adds that she has researched the material, which began in 1982. She adds that there is nothing to tell how this came to be other than the fact that it appears to be a mobile home similar to one in a mobile home park being taxed as a building on someone else’s lot. Mr. Farr asks if the owners have been paying taxes on this mobile home. Ms. Smith replies yes. Mr. Farr asks if the town has ever taken any action against the mobile home and Ms. Smith replies, not to date. Ms. Smith adds that the board is approving, giving the right to proceed with a subdivision with the planning board, with less than the necessary Class V frontage to create the lot. Mr. Farr states that if the proposal was to add additional houses, then he would have a concern. Ms. Smith states that there is now a non-conforming situation with two residences on one lot and by the applicant pursuing this process; they are actually bringing it into a more conforming status.

Area Variance:
1. No diminution of the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Green states that there is no change to the existing conditions at this time. There will be no change or loss in value to the existing area.

2. Granting the permit would be a benefit to the public interest. Mr.
Green states that the benefit would be that this is a non-conforming status and this process will be making the lot more conforming to the town’s specification for today.

    3. Denial of the permit would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it. Mr. Green states that the owners are currently in a physical condition where they can do something for a mortgage on the property. Denying this will not allow them to pursue that mortgage. The hardship of the land is that the existing buildings have been there for 24 years on the existing road.

4. By granting the permit, substantial justice would be done. Mr. Green
states that substantial justice of both owners of the property would be able to separate the properties and allow them to have their own ownership. This would be beneficial to the public as it would be creating a conforming lot. He adds that there would be an additional tax base. The use already exists and this would allow the lot to be taxed for a year round house and make the values of both properties increase.

5.    The use must not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Green states that his understanding of the spirit of the ordinance is that you do not want to create new congestion on the roads and new buildings. By allowing the variance for the frontage would not be changing any of the matters. The frontage already exists and the two buildings are already there.

Mr. Farr asks if the houses are year round homes and Mr. Green replies yes.

Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to grant the variance for frontage based on the fact that all 5 conditions have been met. Ms. Holmes states that this is an improvement to the town’s taxes to have the lots separated. This will not affect the neighboring properties as the residences have been there, as well as the road. She adds that this will make this more conforming and would be serving justice. Mr. Pender agrees and adds that should the road be upgraded the houses are there and meet conformity. He adds that this is something that the owners can use at the bank and may improve their property. Mr. Farr adds that if this were seasonal camps, he would feel differently. He adds that he feels that there are no changes being made. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Applications:
A brief discussion is held regarding why there appears to be old applications still coming before the board. Staff explains that there is a transition with the website occurring and that could be where the old applications are coming from. The board requests that the applications either be updated or removed.

Well Head Protection:
A discussion is held regarding the LIMU application as Mr. Wilkins feels that he misinformed the applicant regarding the well radius information and they were continued and advised to reapply for well head protection. Mr. Farr offers to contact the applicant. Ms. Smith refers to last month’s minutes where there were 2 cases with the well head protection as issues.

Correspondence:
Copies of handouts from recent conferences is provided to all members.

Adjournment:
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to adjourn. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page