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 Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver, Building Inspector Dave Hickey. (Board Administrator Linda Smith 8:00).

VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Tom Lavigne, Ken Wilkins, Bob Bailey, and Andrea Korson.

Request to Continue:
Case #06-15: Robert and Gina Brown, 156 Lakeshore Dr. Map 108; Lot 6. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 1.04(C)(5) to construct a deck and porch, within the building setback.

A request to continue was received for Case 06-15 and is read by Mr. Farr. Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Ken Wilkins, to continue Case: 06-15 to July 24, 2006. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0. Mr. Farr notes that he will not be in attendance at the July 24 meeting.

APPLICATIONS:
OLD CASES:
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. Continued from 5/22/06.

Gail Mahon is present along with Donald Demers.

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

Information requested is submitted for the septic design stating that the lot will support a two bedroom septic design. A discussion is held regarding the purpose of the additional information was to make sure that the lot will be able to contain a septic system and well. Mr. Lavigne states that the final determination is up to the building inspector and health officer and they make sure the location of each is placed properly. Mr. Wilkins expresses concern with the fact that the statement on the information could be taken as a vague statement. Mr. Lavigne states that the applicant would need to go through the entire process again if there is a problem with the septic location. He adds that the board does not have any jurisdiction over septic systems. Mr. Bailey states that the town and state will need to approve the septic system. General consensus is that all members are in agreement to move forward with information received.

Area Variance:
1.    The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Ms. Mahon states
that this is a residential home in a residential neighborhood and will conform to the neighborhood. She does not see how it would harm the public interest.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Ms. Mahon replies that she is unable to use the land for anything. She purchased the land prior to the ordinance and she is unable to do anything since the requirement was put in place.

3.    The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Ms. Mahon
states that the home is a one story, single family dwelling and is staying within the same character as the rest of the neighborhood.

4.    By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Ms. Mahon
States that she be able to use the lot as she intended to when she purchased it.

5.    No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Ms.
Mahon states that she feels that this will enhance the neighborhood.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the variance for area and frontage, based on the fact that all 5 conditions have been met. Mr. Lavigne states that he has viewed the area and has seen other homes from the applicants and they are nice, neat, and clean. He feels that the single story is not out of context. This is a reasonable use and they are utilizing the lot as best as it can be used. 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. Continued from 5/22/06. No one is present for this case and no information has been received. The board agrees to move the case to the end of the agenda.

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). Continued from 5/22/06. No one is present for this case and no information has been received. The board agrees to move the case to the end of the agenda.

NEW CASES:
Case #06-14: Lorie Jean, 39 Elm St. Map 123; Lot 23. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(A) and Article 3.02(B) to construct a 28’ x 32’ dwelling on a non-conforming lot of .11 Ac. with no road frontage.
Lorie Jean is present. An outstanding balance is paid in full. Ms. Jean states that she would like to place a 28’ x 32’, one-story, two bedroom ranch on the property. She states that the well is in the front and the septic is in the back of the property.

A discussion is held regarding the application information provided. The application and denial note two different articles; however, the application was noticed properly. Additional discussion is held regarding the application information showing the house proposed is to be a cape. Ms. Jean modifies the request to a 28’ x 32’, two bedroom ranch. The board agrees that lot size and frontage are the issues for this case, as noticed, and discussion continues regarding setbacks and property lines. Mr. Lavigne, for future reference, explains that he would like to see building locations in relation to the lot by providing a sketch. Mr. Bailey states that there appears to be an encroachment of the abutter’s building as well as the driveway. Ms. Jean replies that the only encroachment is a PVC pipe carport. Mr. Hickey adds that he will require a certified plot plan for something this close to the setbacks. He adds that this is a common request when buildings are this close to the setbacks.

Ms. Jean states that a perc test of the land has been completed. At this time there is no septic design. A copy of this will be provided.

The board requests that an accurate sketch be provided delineating the location of the building, well, septic, locations of the abutting wells, and septic systems.

A motion is made by Mr. Lavigne, second by Mr. Bailey, to continue the case to July 24, 2006, pending the request of additional information. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #06-16: Richard and Robin Drown, Green St. Map 231; Lot 14. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.02(B) and Article 3.04(B), to construct a 23’ x 26’ garage, within the building setback and on a non-conforming lot of .60 Ac. Mr. or Mrs. Drown are not present. Mr. Burklund, Ms. Drown’s father is present. No letter of authorization has been submitted. Ken Wilkins makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to continue the case to July 24, 2006. Motion passes; 5/0.

Case #06-17: Ralph and Lillian Staples, Shore Drive. Map 122; Lot 13. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(A) and Article 3.02(B) to construct a residence on a non-conforming lot of 0.23 Ac. with no road frontage.

Mr. Provencher is present representing the Staples. A balance due of $8 is paid in full. No abutters are present and no correspondence has been received. Mr. Provencher states that the proposal is for a 24’ x 36’, 2 bedroom cape with an unfinished upstairs. Mr. Farr asks if the property would become more than 2 bedrooms. Mr. Provencher replies that he would think that the owners would then apply for a variance for the variance. He adds that they are just building a two bedroom cape and not finishing the upstairs. He adds that they could build a two bedroom ranch if it would be more acceptable. Mr. Farr replies that it would make a difference to him if it were a ranch rather than a cape.

A discussion is held regarding the location of the septic system.

Mr. Bailey makes a motion to continue the case to July 27, 2006, and requests that a certified stamped septic design, showing elevations, and setbacks delineated be provided at the next meeting. Mr. Lavigne seconds. Motion passes; 5/0.

Case #06-18: Timothy and Christine Dopson, 160 Lakeshore Drive. Map 108; Lot 5. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(A), 3.02(B), and 3.04(B) to build a 24’ x 26’ garage and deck to existing structure on an undersized lot with no road frontage. A portion of the deck will be within the building setbacks.

Mr. and Mrs. Dopson are present. A balance due of $8 is paid in full. Abutter Clement Hartley, owner of Lake View Antiques, is present.

Mr. Lavigne asks if Lake Shore Dr. is a town or state road. Mr. Hickey replies that it is a state road. Mr. Lavigne asks if the deck is within the setbacks of the state road and asks if someone should be present from the state. Mr. Hickey replies that this proposal is not affecting the state at all; it is impacting the town. He adds that the Dopsons are not proposing to do anything that is any closer than what exists. Additional discussion is held relative to the state right of way and center lines.

Mr. Lavigne states that he viewed the area with Mr. Bailey. He explains that the back of the property is wooded and does not feel that there will be any impact to anyone’s view. There is a considerable distance from the neighbor to the left even with the proposal. He adds that he does not feel that there will be a fire safety air circulation issues.

Mr. Hartley asks if there have been any state or town approvals obtained for fire safety and if a map delineating the septic system location has been provided. He expresses concern with vehicles traveling over the septic system. Mr. Hartley states that the trees in the back area are on his property of Lakeview Antique Center, LLC. Mr. Farr replies that all fire codes, etc. will be met and regarding any state issues, the town is not involved with. An approved septic plan is provided and reviewed. Mr. Dopson that the septic system is in the rear and it will not be driven on.

Mr. Hartley notes that a building was erected on the property and he was not notified. Ms. Smith explains that site plan and subdivision require notification to the abutters, not residential building permits. He adds that he feels that any additional structures will negate his effort for residential purposes and impede the view of the lake. He adds that should he use the property for a residential dwelling, and cut trees, it will expose the abutter to his property. Mr. Farr replies that should he build, he cannot assign the blame to the abutter. Mr. Hartley states that should the abutter expand laterally and vertically, he will not be able to build.

Mr. Hartley also notes that there is overcrowding of the area and the properties cannot support the existing population of Lake Shore Dr. Mr. Hartley expresses concern with the access of emergency vehicles. He states that people are parking on the roads blocking access in an area that was intended to be camps.

Mr. Dopson explains that the house will remain as a 2 bedroom home as the addition will block a window of a bedroom, which they will then turn into an office. Mr. Hickey adds that the subsurface system is only approved for 2 bedrooms. Mr. Hartley asks what the room over the garage will be for. Mr. Dopson replies that it is a great room; a family room. Mr. Farr asks if the proposed deck with square off to the existing deck. Mr. Dopson adds that the reason for the deck is for egress.

Discussion is held regarding how the board would like to proceed with addressing the three variances requested. The board agrees to address all together.

Area Variance:
1.    The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Dopson
replies that this will be an improvement to the property, will enhance the area, and add value to the neighboring properties.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. (for area, frontage, and setbacks) Mr. Dopson states that the ordinance provides the hardship. They intend for this to be their primary residence and all other setbacks have been met.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Dopson
states that there are a number of issues to be addressed. He explains with all of the things that they are proposing to change; there is no change to the spirit of the ordinance. No access is changing nor is the character of the neighborhood. He adds that this is an existing lot.

4.    By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Dopson
states that this will allow them to develop the property in the manner intended when they purchased it.

5.    No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Dopson states that this goes hand in hand with question one and this will enhance the property. The garage will allow storage of boats, trailers, etc. and get these items out of the yard area.
Abutter Mr. Hartley expresses concern with allowing the construction as proposed. He states that the construction would severely hinder any residential building in the area. He has some difficulty as it exists now; however, there are some ways around it. A structure of this size proposed will really inhibit any new residential use and any view of the lake. He adds he has no objection with a single story garage. He has concerns with safety due to the porch proposed, with having barbeques, cigarettes, and the wind off of the lake will carry a spark.

Abutter, Rob Brown states that he has no objections to the project. He adds that the view that Mr. Hartley is speaking off is not there because of the wooded area between the properties. Mr. Clement replies that the trees have been surveyed and are on Lake View Antiques property.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the variances for area, setback, and frontage, based on the fact that all 5 conditions have been met. Mr. Lavigne states that he has viewed the property. He feels that there are no issues as there are no new bedrooms being created, no additional setback requirements, and the buildings will be no closer to the road than what exists. He adds that there is ample distance and there is no impact to the view. Mr. Bailey states that there are residences to the left and right; however, there is still a clean view of the lake. Mr. Farr states that with the view, everything is subject to degrees of impact. He adds that in this situation he feels the construction is reasonable. The same number of bedrooms is being maintained. 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. Continued from 5/22/06. Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the courtesy to the Lows and continue the case to July 24, 2006. 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). Continued from 5/22/06. Andrea Korson makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the courtesy and continue the case to July 24, 2006. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Farr requests letters be sent to the applicants for case 06-10 and 06-12 or phone calls be made.

Case #06-16: Richard and Robin Drown, Green St. Map 231; Lot 14. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.02(B) and Article 3.04(B), to construct a 23’ x 26’ garage, within the building setback and on a non-conforming lot of .60 Ac.

Mr. Burklund has returned with a letter of authorization. Mr. Farr states that the case had been motioned to be continued until July 27; however, no abutters were present. Andrea Korson makes a motion, second by Ken Wilkins, to hear case 06-16.

VOTING MEMBERS: Andrea Korson, Ken Wilkins, Nona Holmes, Jean Lane and Tom Lavigne.

Bruce Farr and Bob Bailey recuse themselves for this case. Mr. Farr states that he will continue to chair the case and the board agrees.

Mr. Burklund states that the proposal is for a two car garage onto the existing garage. The garage is now used for a bike shop and storage. Mr. Hickey states that
there will be no affect on the proposed building. This is an undersized lot and the request is for substantially less setbacks. He adds that frontage requirements have been met; therefore, the setbacks need to be 20 ft. Mr. Lavigne states that there will be a 13’ encroachment on the back, and the side will be 9’4”. These are the only 2 areas that are encroaching.

Mr. Lavigne states that he viewed the property and noticed how close the antique building is. Ms. Korson asks if there is another location for the garage. Mr. Burklund replies that it is hard due to the driveway and there is a pool adjacent. He adds that they would be driving over their septic tank.

A discussion is held as regarding addressing the variances. The board agrees to address both variances as separate issues. Ms. Holmes expresses concerns with the setbacks and states that the setbacks are established for a reason and this is a congested area.

Setbacks:
1.    The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Burklund
Replies that there is plenty of room on the back side of the property and between both places. There is 15 ft. around the property sides. There is not 20 ft.

2.    Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Burklund replies that this will allow a straight shot into the garage, which was not there before. It is a safety issue when backing in to the garage. The existing garage is currently used for a storage area and as a small business as a bike shop.

3.    The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Burklund
states that no one has complained about the property and the abutters are in favor of the proposal.

4.    By granting of the permit, substantial justice would be done. Mr.
Burklund states that the back area is against a barn and there is no impact to anyone.
5.    No diminution in the value of surrounding properties would be suffered.
Mr. Burklund replies that this will allow access to all of the buildings.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by ken Wilkins, to deny the variance based on the fact that conditions 1, 2, 3, 4 have not been met.
Mr. Lavigne states that this is a lot that is functional with a garage. The setback is less than half of what the town says it should be for a lot this size. There is no hardship to the property now. It is being used, has a garage, and is useful. The proposed size structure would not meet the setbacks; something smaller may meet the setbacks. Mr. Lavigne states that the town’s people took a vote and he is representing the town’s people. He adds that for substantial justice; the property has a garage and is being used. The space is useful and it is a useful lot that something else could be put there. In closing, Mr. Lavigne states that if this were granted, he does not feel that the garage would lower property values of the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Wilkins states that he agrees and adds that there is already a reasonable use of the property. Ms. Lane agrees and adds that she does not feel that this is the best location and suggests something smaller or relocate the garage. Ms. Korson suggests a different location as does Ms. Holmes. Mr. Lavigne adds that having viewed the property, fire fighting would be an issue as there is not a large distance between the property lines. He feels that this is a safety issue.

Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Burklund withdraws the request for an area variance for the Drown’s.

Correspondence:
Mr. Pender previously provided copies of handouts from a power point presentation that he attended. Copies are provided to all members.

Adjournment:
Jean Lane makes a motion, second by Ken Wilkins, to adjourn. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page