The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

Vice-Chairman Pender calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Robert Bailey, Nona Holmes, Alternate Ken Wilkins, Alternate Jean Lane, Board Administrator Linda Smith, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver.

VOTING MEMBERS: Roy Pender, Bob Bailey, Nona Holmes, Ken Wilkins, and Jean Lane.

ABSENT: Chairman Bruce Farr, Thomas Lavigne, and Alternate Andrea Korson

MINUTES:

May 22, 2006: Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to approve the minutes of May 22, 2006, as written. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

June 26, 2006: Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to approve the minutes of June 26, 2006, as amended as follows:

Page 4: correct date from July 27 to July 24 within Mr. Bailey’s motion.

Page 7: correct date from July 27 to July 24, relative to Drown continuance date.

Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

APPLICATIONS:

OLD CASES:

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. A request to withdraw the application, without prejudice, has been received and is read by Mr. Pender. Mr. Bailey motions to accept the request to withdraw and Mr. Wilkins seconds. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

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. No one is present for this case and no additional information has been received. Ms. Holmes makes a motion, second by Mr. Bailey, to continue the case to August 28, 2006. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

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. The Browns are not present this evening. Ms. Smith provides correspondence from the building inspector, which states that he is still waiting for additional information. Ms. Holmes makes a motion, second by Ms. Lane, to continue the case to August 28, 2006. Motion passes unanimously; 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. (Continued from June 26, 2006.)

Mr. Provencher is present representing the Staples. A letter of authorization from last month from the Staples is read. No abutters are present. Mr. Provencher provides copies of new information. He explains that the original plan was for a two bedroom cape with an unfinished dormer and was changed last month to a 26’ x 36’ three bedroom ranch as the board was concerned with additional living space being created in the unfinished area. Ms. Smith asks about the new information that was submitted. She states that typically there is a deadline given for new information so that abutters and the board can review the information prior to the meeting. She adds that since the board directed Mr. Provencher to bring the materials in for this meeting, she does not see why the board could not proceed further. Ms. Smith notes that if abutters were present, they were noticed at the last meeting that new information would be forth coming. Mr. Pender agrees and discussions proceed.

Mr. Provencher states that this house is 2 ft. larger due to the third bedroom. He adds that the septic system is approved up to a 3 bedroom. Discussion continues regarding the size of the new house and the need to re-notify abutters if the size were to be amended as well as the need for a new building permit. Ms. Smith states that the board needs a building permit for the three bedroom house, as it is a requirement to be turned down. Mr. Pender replies that it is noted as an undersized lot. Mr. Provencher agrees to keep the ranch the same size as the cape; 24’ x 36’ in order to proceed tonight.

Further discussion is held regarding the approved septic system. Ms. Smith asks if there is an approved septic system that would accommodate the three bedroom. She adds that this should be part of the file. Mr. Provencher states that they have applied to the state. He explains that the test pit data was provided to Mr. Hickey by his builder. Mr. Bailey explains that the health officer needs to stamp the septic plans prior to the state doing anything with the plans. Ms. Smith states that the process is to go through the health officer and building inspector first prior than coming to the ZBA.

Mr. Pender states that the board cannot proceed without the information. Ken Wilkins makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to continue the case to August 28, 2006. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

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.

Mr. Pender explains that this case had been postponed to August 28, earlier in the meeting as the applicant was not present. Mr. Bailey makes a motion, second by Ms. Lane to reconsider the case this evening. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0. Public present confirm that there were originally no abutters present and there are no abutters present.

A plan of the property is provided and reviewed. Mr. Brown amends the plan by adding the location of the 8’ x 24’ farmers porch. A discussion is held regarding amending plans without a written letter authorization from that person. The original plan is provided which does not show the farmers porch. Mr. Pender states that the building department has been waiting for the information for a while and now it is presented to the board prior to the building inspector reviewing it. Mr. Pender states that what is being asked for should be noted on the plan done by the engineer. It should not be hand drawn by the applicant without written authorization or a signature from the engineer. Mr. Pender states that the variance is for the land to include the front porch as it is in the setback. Mr. Brown states that he could have the measurements of the porch added to the plans. Ms. Smith states that the board would not be able to sign the plans as they sit, as it is a copyright infringement.

Mr. Pender states that he is not comfortable proceeding and refers to a memo from the building department requesting plans. He adds that he has reservations regarding altering a plan. Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to postpone the case to August 28 to allow the applicant time to comply with all of the regulations. Ms. Holmes amends the motion to add that the building inspector will receive the information within the next five days. Mr. Bailey seconds the amendment. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0. Any additional information for this case to be mailed to ZBA members in their packets.

NEW CASES:

None

OTHER:

Ken Peters, an abutter to case 06-14~Jean, states that there is a caveat in Ms. Jean’s deed that states that there cannot be any buildings put up over 320 sq. ft. Mr. Pender states that the jurisdiction of the ZBA is to address town ordinances as presented. Mr. Bailey suggests that Mr. Peters speak to the building inspector about his findings. Mr. Bailey notes that the planning board can approve subdivisions with covenants.

Letter Requesting Rehearing:

Case #06-16: Richard and Robin Drown, Green St. Map 231; Lot 14.

Mr. Pender reads a request for rehearing received from Mr. and Mrs. Drown, based on new information. The case was denied June 26, 2006. Ms. Drown is present.

Mr. Pender states that the rear setback has been changed from 7 ft. to 13 ft. and the side setback has changed from 10.8 ft. to 13 ft. Ms. Smith states that the board’s options to rehear a case are either there was an error in law during the course of deliberations or if new information is now available that was not presented to the board at the original time hearing. She adds that it is the board’s decision to decide if the applicant choosing to make a change is actually new information. She adds that if it is a voluntary choice to change the dimensional requirement then it could be re-noticed noting that there is new information. Further discussion is held regarding new information. Ms. Smith states that addressing the case as a rehearing is that it has to meet the requirements of the law as far as what comes under the rehearing statutes.

Ms. Drown states that the contractor has stated that he could have a 13 ft. setback instead of 7 ft. to the property line and still conform to the existing house. She adds that the 10.8 ft. measurement provided was incorrect information. She adds that the contractor was at the last meeting and the board could not hear the case so he left. She feels that he could have suggested that it could be relocated at the first meeting.

Ms. Smith notes that Mr. Bailey had recused himself from the case and should not participate in any discussion tonight. He agrees.

Mr. Pender explains the process of the board granting a rehearing and asks if Ms. Drown has a problem with a four member board. Ms. Smith states that the board has 30 days to decide to rehear a case or not and would need to vote tonight. Ken Wilkins makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to rehear the case based on new information. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0. Mr. Bailey abstains. The board agrees that this case will be heard August 28, 2006. Fees for re-hearings are to be reviewed.

Memo from Conservation Commission:

A memo has been received from the conservation commission and is read by Mr. Pender regarding the Koenig variances granted June 26, 2006. Ms. Smith states that as a result of written concern from an abutter of the Koenigs, the conservation commission has determined that the wetlands are prime wetlands not standard jurisdictional wetlands. Wetlands Scientist David Allain represented the applicants and flagged the wetlands. Ms. Smith states that the town has not received any information regarding receiving a permit. She adds that the state may pick up on the area being a prime wetland. Ms. Smith states that Mr. Hickey tried to call Mr. Allain who is on vacation. Mr. Pender states that the ZBA is aware of the situation.

Letter from Kim Shaffer:

Ms. Smith states that she found a letter from Kim Shaffer in an internal box and the letter is a request for information regarding the Masten subdivision. She adds that the planning board received a similar letter.

Mr. Pender read Ms. Shaffer’s letter and also read the response letter from Ms. Smith to Ms. Shaffer, which she sent per direction of the planning board. Ms. Smith cautions the board, regarding discussion of the matter, as it creates a public record and there is no application before the board. She adds that the board is under no obligation to reply to these questions. Mr. Pender states that currently there is no case before the board and there is nothing to be decided by the board. He adds that until a case is brought to the board by the proper channels, the board does not have any comments. Mr. Pender states that the board is under no obligation to rehear the board’s decision and will take no action. Ken Wilkins makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, the board received and read a letter from Kim Shaffer, and no action is being taken. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Correspondence:

All other correspondence is reviewed.

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