The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

PRESENT: Chairman Bruce Farr, Thomas Lavigne, Robert Bailey, Nona Holmes, Alternate Jean Lane, Board Administrator Linda Smith, Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver, and Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector David Hickey.

ABSENT: Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Andrea Korson, and Ken Wilkins

MINUTES:
Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to approve the minutes of September 25, 2006, as amended, as follows:
Page 1: Add ? Roy Pender recuses himself. Tom Lavigne is acting chair
Page 3: Add ? Roy Pender returns as chair
Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

APPLICATIONS:
OLD CASE:
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. Continued from 7/24/06. Bruce Farr makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to continue Case 06-14 to November 27, 2006, with the stipulation that a letter be sent to the applicant notifying them that if they are not ready for the November meeting, the board will vote on a motion to deny the variance. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #06-23: Hiu M. Cheung, 211 Long Pond Rd. Map 206; Lot 61. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(B), 3.02(B), and 3.04(B) to construct a replacement residence on a non-conforming lot of 0.28 Ac. where 2 Ac. is required and only 60? of road frontage on a private road where 150? is required; a larger portion of the building is proposed to be extended into the building setback. [Continued from August 28, 2006. > Ms. Smith notes that the applicant called and spoke to the building department and requested a continuance, as they are still working whether they should be asking for a variance. Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to continue Case 06-23 to November 27, 2006, at the applicant?s request. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #06-28: Stephen Conway, Bow Lake Rd./Sherburne Hill Rd. Map 218; Lot 12. Applicant is seeking a special exception under Article 1.04(C)(2), to construct a 28?x44? single family residence. (Property currently owned by Robert Holden.) [Continued from September 25, 2006. >

Mr. Conway is present along with Mr. and Mrs. Holden. Mr. Conway states that he has spoke with Marion Knox regarding Range Road in Northwood. He further explains the information that he received from Ms. Knox. A discussion is held regarding ownership of Range Rd. A survey is presented and reviewed, which identifies the pins and markers. Mr. Conway states that there is a clear deed to the property that abuts the Range Road. Mr. Farr asks if the board is concerned with the separate deeds. Mr. Holden states that this is a separate lot and has been taxed by the town as such. Ms. Smith states that the assessing records are not for ownership purposes. She adds that the applicant has asked for a special exception and the status of Range Road goes beyond the special exception criteria and the applicant may need to apply for a variance if the town owns the road and the land under it. She adds that they are asking for the location of the well radius and the fact that it does go onto the next property, not beyond the Range Road. The status of the Range Road is important for ownership, where it begins and ends. Mr. Conway replies that his interpretation is that Range Road was given to the applicant. Mr. Farr asks if there is any record showing that Range Road was given back. Mr. Bailey states that the court said that the triangle lot went with the Merrill property.

Ms. Smith states that there is no evidence in front of board that there is a deed or information of Range Road, and no information regarding the court case. She suggests that the board have the applicants provide either a stamped LLS or PE document or have an attorney state that they have done the deed research, otherwise the legal issues fall onto the responsibility of the board.

Mr. Farr states that the board needs to know the ownership of Range Road because of the 75? well radius, they cannot be across Range Road. Mr. Farr adds that there is no record of the layout of the road and there needs to be proof that lot 11 does not have ownership of Range Rd. Mr. Lavigne refers to the September 23 minutes and what the board requested for additional information.

The board further reviews the 1990 stamped plan by LLS David Noyes. Jean Lane makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, that the plan provided is an acceptable documentation of ownership of the triangular lot. Ms. Holmes states that she feels that the applicants need to have proof of ownership.
Roll Call Vote:
Jean Lane ~ in favor
Nona Holmes ~ in favor
Robert Bailey ~ opposed
Thomas Lavigne ~ opposed
Bruce Farr ~ opposed
Motion does not prevail; 2/3.
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, for the applicant to obtain written legal determination of ownership of the triangular lot and Range Rd. and if it is a separate lot of record.
Mr. Farr states that the options are as follows:
  If Range Road is owned by the town, the applicant will need to re-apply for a variance
  If the information shows that the applicant does own as a separate lot, the board will proceed to hear the case for a special exception
  If the information shows that the applicant owns the lot; however, it is all a part of a big parcel, then they will need to meet with the planning board for subdivision
Ms. Smith suggests that any information be provided to the board secretary to be forwarded to the board members prior to the November 27 meeting.
Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

NEW CASES:
Case #06-33: David Docko, First NH Tpke. Map 211; Lot 16. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 5.02(C) to develop a quarry for a non residential use where single family residential uses or municipal wells are the permitted uses within this district. (Property currently owned by Paul and John Tudor, and Carol Bernazzani.)

Bob Bailey recuses himself for this case.
Voting Members: Chairman Bruce Farr, Thomas Lavigne, Nona Holmes, Alternate Jean Lane.

The application is deemed complete. No abutters are present. Mr. Docko is present and explains that the property is 119 acres, on Rte. 4, adjacent to Northwood Oil. Mr. Docko explains that the property is zoned for single family residential uses or municipal wells and is in the conservation area overlay district. He is proposing a 3,000 ft. quarry, which would be above sea level. The area is explained as a mountain of ledge, above water line. He will be blasting ledge. Mr. Farr states that the ordinance allows municipal wells and residential houses.

A discussion is held regarding restrictions for this district. Mr. Farr requests a letter of support from the conservation commission (NCC). He also states that he would be curious as to the planning board?s views. Mr. Lavigne explains that there are other restrictions, development pattern, open space design, and density.

Further discussion is held regarding the purpose of the ordinance. Ms. Smith explains that Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) provided the ordinance, in 1999.
Additional discussion is held regarding the process for planning board site plan approval, which Mr. Docko will need to obtain. Ms. Smith explains that the planning board cannot provide opinion as a board, without an application submitted to them. She clarifies that an opinion of the planning board would only be an opinion on the ordinance.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to continue the case to November 27, to allow the applicant time to meet with NCC to show them plans, get ideas, and to invite the NCC to attend the ZBA?s November meeting and render an opinion on the proposal. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Mr. Farr states that he feels a key issue is the actual purpose of the ordinance and why it was created.

Bob Bailey returns as a voting member.

Case #06-34: Stephen Conway, 15 North Ln. Map 108; Lot 45. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.04(B), to construct a 24? x 24? garage, within the building setbacks. (Property currently owned by Robert and Susan Holden.)

Steve Conway is present along with Mr. Holden. Abutters Mr. and Mrs. McKee are present. Correspondence has been received from the Chaputs, which live across the street.

Mr. Conway states that he would like to amend the proposal for the garage with an encroachment of 3 ft. instead of the original 12 ft. encroachment. He states that the property was recently surveyed and will be recorded at the registry of deeds. Pictures of the property are reviewed.

Mr. Holden explains the uniqueness of the property. He states that there is 150? frontage of which 50? is tied up through an easement. There is a 20? right of way for the folks on the peninsula. The next 30? which encompasses the side of the house, the beach, and the whole length of the property, is a right of way for the use of the Chaput family to access the lake. He adds that due to these factors, there is no way to do anything to this portion of the property. Mr. Holden explains that on the other side of the property is a garage, which encroaches 3 ft. onto this property line.

A discussion is held regarding the septic system. Mr. Holden explains that the current leach field is shared with the Chaput family and is located in front of the house. They are concerned with the continued use of this 30 year old system. He adds that they are in the process of having approvals done for a new system. The leach field will remain with the existing modular and the new system will be for this home and will be placed on the road side of house.

Mr. Conway explains that the proposal is a 24?x24? garage, gable end, 16? to the ridge, which is not any higher than the existing house.

The well is on the opposite side of the house and is also shared with the neighbors. The distance of the well to the septic is less than 75 ft.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Conway
states that even though there are issues regarding the view, the residents across the street that are most affected, will be given a more acceptable view to the left side of the property versus the right side of the property and through the trees. If the applicants give up one half of the property for views and right of ways, they are left very little on the opposite side of the property to do anything with. Granting the variance will be due justice and the applicants can still provide view and access.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Conway states that the property is unique in size and they are limited to what can be done. There are septic issues in the front of the house. The existing septic and well are shared with the house across street. They are trying to eliminate a worn out, 30 year old system and are trying to put in a new septic system in front of the house. Mr. Conway explains that there is only one spot for the garage and to still try to stay within the ordinances. The elevation will not be higher than the existing house. Mr. Farr asks why they need to encroach into the setbacks and why not change the size of the garage. Mr. Conway states that the proposed garage is a 2 car garage and with today?s size of vehicles, anything smaller would make the area tight. He adds that it is unfair to penalize the homeowners for 3 ft for a two car garage when they are giving up an encroachment onto their property line with the shed from a neighbor.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Conway explains that the garage will increase this property value as well as the surrounding properties. It will keep up with the current renovations and upgrades being done within the area.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr.
Conway states that this is beneficial to the neighborhood and surrounding properties. He adds that even though there are view issues, the substantial view is from the left side of the property. He has tried to maintain the elevation to not encroach over the existing structure.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Conway states that he believes that the values of applicants and abutters properties will be increased as well at the appearances on the street side and the lake side.

Mr. Farr reads the comments received from 14 North Lane, Chaput. Mr. Chaput expresses concern with the view and that his view will be reduced by 70%. He suggests another size for the garage and a hip roof to limit the impact to the view.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to deny the variance based on the fact that criteria #5 has not been met. Mr. Lavigne states that he has visited the site and feels that there will be an impact with the view. This will lesson the value of the property. Mr. Farr states that the board is only addressing 3 ft. of the value of that area; the impact is only 3 ft. He adds that he does not know if it is significant.

Mr. Holden states that one of the reasons to keep the garage as far back as proposed is that it would be lower into the line of site. They are trying to keep the elevation as low as possible. This is also the same line of the existing house. Mr. Conway explains that the lot comes across and angles in to the lake.

Roll Call Vote:
Jean Lane ~ opposed
Nona Holmes ~ opposed
Robert Bailey ~ opposed
Thomas Lavigne ~ in favor
Bruce Farr ~ opposed
Motion does not prevail; 1/4.

Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to grant the area variance based on the fact that all criteria have been met. Ms. Holmes states that she understands that the people across the street do not want anything to obstruct their view; however, that goes with owning property. The applicants have a right to use their property. Mr. Bailey states that the garage could be turned and still would be in compliance; however, it would not fit well and not line up. Mr. Farr states that the garage could still be done and it would still block views if it were moved; nothing would be gained. He feels that this is a reasonable use and is not any more of an impact.

Roll Call Vote:
Jean Lane ~ in favor
Nona Holmes ~ in favor
Robert Bailey ~ in favor
Thomas Lavigne ~ opposed
Bruce Farr ~ in favor
Motion prevails; 4/1.

Case #06-35: Jeremy Robilaille, T.C.M. Building, 8 North Ln. Map 108; Lot 89. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.02(B) to construct a 16? x 16?, 2 story addition to existing dwelling on a non-conforming lot of 0.74 acres where 2 Ac. is required. (Property currently owned by Russell McKee.)

Abutters Bob and Sue Holden are present. A balance due of $16.00 is paid in full. Mr. McKee explains that the proposal is for a two story addition, 16? x 16?, with a full basement, for a family room. There will be a bedroom upstairs with a ? bath. Mr. McKee states that the tracts have all been merged.

Mr. Lavigne states that this is a very large lot for the area. He adds that the back area is abutting Rte 4 and there is no issue with blocking of views. Setbacks are not an issue. He feels that the proposal is an improvement.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. McKee
states that this will not affect any views, it will block views of Rte. 4 and help with noise.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. McKee states that the house is only 900 sq. ft., two bedroom and one bathroom. The standard house size is 1200-1600 sq. ft.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
McKee states that the addition will increase their property values as well as the neighbors. They are increasing the house by adding one bedroom; however, the septic is designed for a 3 bedroom and two bath home. He adds that they do have a stamped septic design.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. McKee
states that this addition will block sound and views of Rte 4 for the entire neighborhood.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. McKee states that this will not devalue the surrounding properties. He feels that this will be much better for the overall appearance.

Mr. Mckee states that the property has been a year round house for over 10 years. He explains that the proposed foundation will be added only under the addition. The existing house is on sauna tubes.

Abutter Bob Holden welcomes the proposed addition to the neighborhood. He feels that the addition will block views and noise coming off from Rte 4.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the area variance be granted based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met. Mr. Lavigne states that he has viewed the property and feels that this will be safer and aesthetically pleasing than what exists. All codes would be better and there are no impacts to the neighbors. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #06-36: George Jackman, 7 Davlynn Dr. Map 234; Lot 41.13. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.04(B) to erect prefabricated sheds for display purposes, within the building setbacks.

A balance due of $16 is due. A discussion is held regarding the state right of way and the footage to the edge of property. Mr. Jackman explains that he has measured from the edge of Rte. 4, 20? plus 1?. The encroachment is deemed to be 19? off of the state right of way.

Mr. Jackman explains that the sheds are factory displays and would be sitting on 4?x4? runners and cement blocks. The sheds are determined to be a structure for display purposes only. Mr. Lavigne expresses concern of pulling out onto Rte. 4 and the site distance. He adds that he viewed the area and drivers leaving Davlynn Dr. are still able to see as the sheds are back far enough to not block the site distances. Mr. Jackman explains that passer-bys would stop and view the sheds and he is a dealer of the company. Mr. Bailey asks where the customers would park. Mr. Jackman replies in his driveway and adds that most sales are through the internet. Mr. Lavigne asks if there are any covenants in the estate or if an association exists. Mr. Jackman replies no.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Jackman
states that he feels that there are many different types of businesses on Rte. 4 and he feels that he should be able to utilize his property on Rte. 4.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Jackman states that the location of Rte 4 is a good location to establish. He feels that it makes sense to make a living and take advantage of the Rte. 4 location. He adds that there are many businesses up and down Rte. 4 and adds that if the house were further down in the development he would not be proposing the business.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Jackman replies that he does not feel that these sheds are a high volume type of traffic generator and will not be a bother to the area or be an impact.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr.
Jackman states that these sheds are a professional structure and will not take away from the value of the neighborhood. He adds that his house location is the least desirable location on the street and this will not be an impact to the abutters.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Jackman states that this will not affect the property values.

Additional discussion is held regarding the distance between the house and Rte. 4. Mr. Jackman estimates 75?-80?. Mr. Lavigne asks the building inspector if there is anything preventing him from putting the sheds up if the applicant were outside the setbacks? Mr. Hickey replies no.

Ms. Smith explains that Mr. Jackman is meeting with the planning board for a non-residential use of the property.

A motion is made by Bob Bailey to deny the variance based on the fact that criteria 4 and 5 have not been met. Tom Lavigne seconds. Mr. Bailey states that the setbacks could be met and it would not be necessary to meet with the ZBA. He feels that the proposed sheds are to close to the highway. He adds that this is a full size, new lot and a new subdivision. Mr. Lavigne states that this is a 19? encroachment. He feels that the use of the property can be still used in the same manner if the sheds were moved outside the setbacks. He understands that it is a sales perspective to be close to the highway; however, in this case, an encroachment of that magnitude, there must be compelling reasons to approve the variance. He feels that the conditions have not been met. Ms. Lane adds that it is too close to the road and there is so much traffic in the area. She feels that there needs to be more of a setback. She expresses concern with safety with people stopping to look at the sheds. Ms. Holmes feels that the setbacks were put in for a reason and should be honored. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Farr explains the options for appealing the board?s decision.

Adjournment:
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to adjourn. Motion passes unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page