|
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes August 28, 2006 Official as of September 25, 2006
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, Alternates Jean Lane and Andrea Korson, Board Administrator Linda Smith, Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver, and Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector David Hickey.
VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Roy Pender, Bob Bailey, Tom Lavigne, and Andrea Korson.
ABSENT: Alternate Ken Wilkins
MINUTES:
Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to postpone the minutes of July 24, 2006. 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.
Emily and Sarah Low are present along with Chairman Stephen Roy, and Vice-chairman Jim Ryan, of the Northwood Conservation Commission.
Emily Low explains that they would like to do a subdivision of approximately 80 acres. This will be sold to the Northwood Conservation Commission (NCC) and there is no frontage on the road. The area is for conservation use only.
A discussion is held regarding a written agreement between the NCC and the Lows. Mr. Roy explains that the agreement is to state the Lows will allow the water district to place piping in the portion of land that is being discussed for future wells. Mr. Bailey states that the water district has a gate across the property. He suggests that it be moved up further and there needs to be a diagram of where the parking is proposed. Mr. Roy explains that the water district voted to allow the parking area on their land and that the gate would be moved. Mr. Bailey asks if the driveway will need to be continued. Mr. Roy replies that the parking lot would be for 3-5 cars and it would be cut in with mulch put down. He adds that there currently is a lot of motorized traffic.
Minutes from NCC are distributed and reviewed. Mr. Lavigne asks if the total acreage of the lot is 100 acres and the NCC will have 78 acres of the back land and the Lows will be retaining the 22 acres upfront. Ms. Korson asks why the agreement is not signed by the Lows and the NCC. Mr. Roy replies that the selectmen have received a copy of the agreement and were going to forward it to town counsel for review. He adds that there was some public input and discussion at a selectmen’s meeting and they did support the idea. He adds that to date, no input has been received from the selectmen. Mr. Lavigne asks if the project is something that should come before the voters at town meeting. Mr. Roy explains RSA 36:A and that money is coming from the land conservation fund for the purchase. The RSA allows the commission a quicker avenue to purchase land rather than a town meeting process. This avoids losing an opportunity to purchase land to development.
No abutters are present.
Mr. Farr asks if the applicants would consider a conditional variance based upon the property being purchased by the NCC. Ms. Low agrees as does Mr. Roy.
Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Ms. Low
states that this is leaving the land the way it is. Nothing will be built on the land. It will be used for hiking, skiing, and trails. This does not affect the property at all.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Ms. Low replies that there really is no need for frontage. The real purpose is to make a conservation area out back. It will be such a low impact as there will be nothing there.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. The
potential is for trails and a small parking area. Mr. Roy adds that the RSA does not allow the construction of structures on the land.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Ms. Low
states that this is in the best interest of the town and this is a perfect location. The land will be in conservation. There is nothing to protect it better than to have the land in conservation.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Ms. Low replies no, that has already happened.
There are no comments from the public. Mr. Bailey suggests that the items
agreed upon between the parties be included in the deed when recorded.
Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Mr. Pender, to grant the variance
based on the fact that all five standards for an area variance have been
met, to be a conditional variance based on the understanding between the
Low’s and the Northwood Conservation Commission to convey the rear
parcel of land, (when subdivision is approved) to the town of Northwood as
noted at the August 1, 2006 conservation meeting. Mr. Lavigne states that
this will benefit the town. Mr. Pender states that this is a wonderful thing and
it helps protect the aquifers. He adds that it is an asset to the town. Mr. Bailey
thanks the Lows for their contribution and feels that the money is well spent.
Motion passes unanimously; 5/0. Mr. Ryan thanks the ZBA for their time
and states that this is a good thing for the town.
Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to not open any new cases after 10 p.m. this evening and to postpone those cases left over to another date. 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. Continued from 7/24/06. Ms. Jean is not present. She has called in and requested to be continued to the next meeting due to the completion of septic plans. Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Andrea Korson, to continue the case to the regular monthly meeting in September. 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. Continued from 7/24/06.
Mr. Brown is present. Additional information was provided prior to the meeting.
Mr. Farr states that this is for two variances. Mr. Hickey states that the deck was constructed without a building permit being issued. It was discovered that something had been added when the building department had been in the area. He adds that during the deliberations of the board, he would like to advise the board of ramifications, should this be approved as is, since this is an after the fact request. Mr. Hickey explains that there are currently a lot of these issues that the building department is pursuing.
Mr. Brown states that there was a small deck existing and he added to it; however, he constructed this deck over the driveway for a yard. He explains that this is a tight lot and the deck was constructed to better the living quarters. He adds that he feels that they are just living within means, bettering their property and the use of it. Mr. Brown states that there is still plenty of parking. He explains that on one side of the house he is 4 ft. from the boundary and his back door is 8” from the neighbor’s fence.
A discussion is held regarding separating the two variance requests; deck and farmers porch. The application is reviewed. The requests were advertised as one and only one application. Ms. Smith states that the notice is correct and the items could be discussed separately. She adds that this is a non- conforming lot and an accessory use is exempt. Lengthy discussion is held regarding the applicant needing relief from a non-conforming lot. Ms. Smith states that the applicant needs to have both the variance for a non conforming lot or a special exception. She adds that the applicant could go the extent of a variance for the lack of road frontage and lack of lot size, and a variance for encroachment. Such a choice would need to re-post. Ms. Smith further explains that it was the planning board’s intent that a special exception is supposed would be an easier process for a lot that had not been developed yet. Mr. Farr reiterates that accessory structures are permitted on a non-conforming lot if all other ordinance requirements are met with the exception of lot area and road frontage. Ms. Smith replies that that is correct if they meet all other zoning requirements. She adds that once the encroachment exists or any other non-compliance of zoning ordinance, there would need to be relief from the zoning ordinance. Under the non-conforming section, the special exception does not apply so there needs to be a variance from road frontage and lot size.
Further discussion ensues regarding the denial letter completed by the building department. Ms. Korson states that the denial did not respond to what is now needed. Ms. Smith replies that it is solely the responsibility of the property owner to ask for whatever relief they want from the town’s ordinances. The responsibility does not rely within the town hall staff. Ms. Smith adds that the denial letter is done for the board based on the building application that the applicant has filled out. Ms. Smith also explains that the development ordinances are written in order of importance, from the top down. Additional discussion and explanations are provided.
Mr. Hickey explains that the applicants come in looking for guidance; people are depending on him for assistance. Mr. Farr replies that legally Mr. Hickey is not responsible, it is not his job, and he appreciates the courtesy.
After lengthy discussions, the consensus of the board is that this is a setback variance request relative to encroachment on the lot. Ms. Smith states that this applies to accessory structures only. Mr. Pender notes that each case that the board reviews does not set a precedent.
Additional discussion is held whether the board will hear the two matters separately. Mr. Lavigne states that he would prefer to hear the issues separately. The applicant agrees.
Deck:
Mr. Brown states that the deck is on the left side of the house. It was a small deck. The house is 24’ x 48’. He is moving further away from the boundaries.
The septic system is in the front of the house. The deck will not have a roof and will not be screened in. No abutters are present. Ms. Smith states that there is an error on the plans provided, as the lot numbers are incorrect.
Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Brown
states that the deck is not going to be a nuisance or an eye sore. He explains that the house does not meet any setbacks on any corner. This will better the area. He adds that the front portion of the lot is the septic system and this is a small area.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Brown states that this is a reasonable use for a year round home. The ordinances limit the use of the property. He adds that they can not walk around their house as there is a fence 6” off the side. He adds that this is more pleasing to the neighbors than having cars parked in the driveway.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Brown states that the proposal is not unreasonable for his area. He adds that there is nothing normal about his property. He explains that he is asking to add on to an existing structure.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Brown
replies that his neighbor came in last month and everyone has reasons for what they are doing as long as the town allows it.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Brown states that this will increase the values of surrounding properties.
Mr. Pender asks why the deck could not be placed in the rear of the property. Mr. Brown replies that there is door blocking the area. Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Mr. Bailey, to deny the variance based on the fact that conditions 1,2,3, and 4 have not been met. Mr. Lavigne states that he has seen the property and the deck would not depreciate the values. As far as public interest the request is for less than half of what the town says there should be. He adds that there is no unnecessary hardship as there can still be a deck there, just smaller. With the spirit of the ordinance, the town was very clear with their votes. He adds that with substantial justice, the board has never granted such a large encroachment. Mr. Bailey agrees and adds that the deck can be changed. Mr. Brown notes that the way the deck is constructed is exposing 7 ft. of asphalt. In the spirit he adds that he could meet the setbacks; however, it would be oddly shaped and would not be useful. He adds that there is a bulk head to contend with too. Mr. Farr agrees with Mr. Lavigne in that to go to 3 ft. from the property line is a huge impact and there is use of the property. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Farmers Porch:
Mr. Brown explains that the porch will be 7 ft. deep. There will be steps but they will not be in the setbacks. The right hand corner of the porch is the only encroachment of 4’. The porch will not be for all seasons. Mr. Brown states that he is not planning to screen the porch. It will have rails. He adds that the porch would be aesthetically pleasing. It would not be any closer than what the house is, in fact, the porch will be further away. Further discussion held regarding the size of the porch, which is proposed to be no larger than 7 ft. The applicant agrees to have the porch not exceed 8 ft. Mr. Farr suggests that the board should view this as a screened in porch for the option to be there.
Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Brown
states that the porch would not impose on anyone. The neighbor’s house is between 20’ – 25’ to the fence, which is the boundary.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Brown replies that the porch goes further out than the house. The appearance of the house will be nicer with the porch and a transition roof.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Brown states that in this circumstance, the porch fits better than the house. The porch fits the spirit of the ordinance. He feels that the spirit was written to comply with based on normal conditions.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Brown states that the substantial justice has been achieved as the goal is to improve the property.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Brown states that this will improve the surrounding properties and make it more appealing to the area.
Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Andrea Korson, to grant the variance for a 24’ x 8’ screened in farmer’s porch, based on the fact that all conditions have been met with the following conditions: the porch will follow the line of the house toward the front of the property, and the applicant must supply a plan noting the corrected map and lot numbers.
Mr. Pender states that there is not much use of the property as there is a fence existing and they cannot walk around the house. Mr. Pender states that there is already a hardship existing as the house sits very close to the property line and this will allow the property to be enhanced. Ms. Korson states that a porch falls into the lines of house and will add a unique quality to the lot. She feels that this is a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Bailey adds that these lots were all created for camps. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Roy Pender, Bob Bailey, Tom Lavigne, and Nona Holmes.
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 and no road frontage. Continued from 7/24/06. Mr. Provencher is present representing the Staples.
Mr. Provencher provides copies of updated septic designs. He explains the Harvey Lake area and this parcel has a water view on Shore Dr. Mr. Provencher states that he would like to build a 24’ x 36’, 2 bedroom, ranch. The septic is in front of the house. There will not be any encroachment into the setbacks. The well is located in the opposite corner of the septic system. Mr. Provencher adds that he first came in proposing a cape and now is proposing a ranch, per discussions with the board.
Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr.
Provencher states that there are no abutters present opposing the project so he does not see a problem with adding a home on the lot.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Provencher states that this proposal will add value to neighboring properties. It is a small 2 bedroom house.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Provencher states that this is an existing lot of record.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr.
Provencher states that neighbors would be in favor of the home and it will increase the property values too. He adds that there is a vacant lot there now and it would be better with a home.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Provencher states that he thinks that every one is in favor of the home and it will increase the property values.
Tom Lavigne makes a motion to grant the variance having all five conditions been met. Bob Bailey seconds. Mr. Lavigne feels that this is a reasonable use of the property. He adds that a two bedroom home makes sense today. He adds that he feels that the home is in keeping within the surrounding areas. Mr. Bailey adds that septic systems are now created for 2 bedroom houses. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Chairman Farr states that all cases not covered this evening will be continued to Wednesday, September 6, at 7:00 p.m.
NEW CASES:
Case #06-19: Kenneth and Doreen Bisson, 35 Bass Rd. Map 123; Lot 40. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(A), and 3.02(B) to construct a 16’ x 18’ addition on a non-conforming lot of 0.64 acres, with no road frontage, as it is a private road.
Mr. Bisson is present. A balance due of $16. is received. Abutter Ken Peters is present. Mr. Bisson explains that the proposal is for a 16’ x 18’ addition in the rear of the house. He states that this is in the Harvey Lake Road area. He has just completed a voluntary merger, which was approved by the planning board 8/24/06. Mr. Bisson states that he meets all setbacks. The additional room is proposed as a kid’s game room and is not going to be a bedroom. This room will also combine all of the roof lines throughout the house. Additional discussion is held regarding the fireplace. Mr. Bisson adds that he will be enclosing the fireplace and reflashing it. Mr. Peters states that he is okay with the project.
Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Bisson
states that the addition will beautify the neighbors views and has nothing to do with outside public.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Bisson states that this is a reasonable use of the property. It is adding more square footage. They have 1300’-1400’ now and this is not a reasonably sized house today.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Bisson states that the addition will be an aesthetic improvement and will make the neighbors views better. He adds that he combined the 5 separate lots into one lot for the addition, as his choice, for a nicer family house
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr.
Bisson states that besides the benefit to himself and the family, the property is not encroaching onto the neighbor’s properties.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Bisson states that there will be no loss of value onto any neighbors property. This is a unique house as the neighbor’s views are all the back of the property.
Roy Pender makes a motion to grant the variance based on the fact that all 5 conditions have been met. Nona Holmes seconds. Mr. Pender states that he thinks this is a wonderful idea and is appropriate for the house. The addition is near the back so there is no intrusion onto the neighbors. Ms. Holmes states that this is an excellent position as far as the house plan goes. Mr. Lavigne states that he viewed the property and the proposal is to not go any higher. There is no impact to the neighbors or to the views. Mr. Farr states that it is a reasonable use and the lots were combined in good faith. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Case #06-16R: Richard and Robin Drown, 31 Green St. Map 231; Lot 14. Applicant is seeking a rehearing for 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. and Mrs. Drown are present.
VOTING MEMBERS: Roy Pender, Tom Lavigne, Nona Holmes, Jean Lane, and Andrea Korson.
Linda Smith states that based on the interpretation in a previous case, the Drown’s would not need a variance for a non conforming lot as this is an accessory use. Mr. Hickey notes that the setbacks were increased. A discussion is held regarding the variance for a non conforming lot; section 1.04(C) and this is for a garage, which is an accessory use. Ms. Smith states that accessory uses are exempt from non conforming lot requirements. Lot size is also discussed regarding setbacks. Mr. Drown explains that they would like to attach a 2 car garage to the existing building. They have amended the setbacks. Mr. Pender asks why the garage needs to be 26’ x 23’. Mr. Drown replies he needs the room for the existing vehicles. He explains that the existing garage is not intended to be used as such. There is 13’ on the side setback. After discussion, the board’s interpretation has changed and 3.02 (B) does not apply so the variance request is for 3.04(B).
Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Drown
states that this proposal will not change any views and does not change anything as far as the existing buildings or area.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Drown states that this proposal is not changing any views for neighbors and is taking up a section of the driveway. He adds that the house was built in the 1920’s. They are not increasing the height of the structure and the house cannot be moved over.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Drown states that he understood the denial of their previous request. He feels that this is not out of line and they have come to the conclusion to come closer to the setbacks and have attempted to do so. Ms. Drown adds that the opinions of the neighbors have not changed.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr.
Drown states that he will achieve what he is trying to do. He will be able to put two cars in his garage during the winter and make use of the area.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Drown states that this is an old house. The house next door has since been rebuilt and looks much better. He adds that value will increase and they will pay more taxes.
Jean Lane makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to grant the variance based on the fact that all 5 conditions have been met. Ms. Lane states that it is always best to comply with the town’s ordinances. Mr. Lavigne states that this is a reasonable use for the lot. There is enough room and it will look nicer. He adds that the building will have new codes and be safer. This is a minimum size for a two car garage and he appreciates the attempt for increasing the setback area. Motion passes; 5/0.
Case #06-20: Millstone Brook Developers, 52 Mountain Ave. Map 234; Lot 68. Applicant is seeking a special exception under Article 1.04(C)(2)(a), to construct a 4 bedroom modular home on a non-conforming lot of 1.28 Ac.; all necessary conditions to grant a special exception will be met. (Property currently owned by David and Carla Neal).
VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Roy Pender, Tom Lavigne, Nona Holmes, and Andrea Korson.
David Ward is present representing the Neals. A letter of authorization is reviewed. The abutter’s list is reviewed and deemed that one abutter has not been notified; Harding. A motion to continue the case to September 6, is made by Roy Pender and second is offered by Tom Lavigne. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Case #06-21: Donald Demers Revocable Trust, Donald Demers Trustee, Elm St. Map 123; Lot 19. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(C)(1), and 3.02(B) to construct a 28’ x 52’ single family dwelling a non-conforming lot of 0.22 acres, with no road frontage, as it is a private road.
Mr. Demers is present. A discussion is held regarding a merger of lots 18 and 19. Documentation is provided to show that the merger has taken place.
Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Demers
states that this is a single family residential home, in a residential neighborhood.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Demers states that this is an undersized lot and the zoning ordinance changed.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Demers states that this is an undersized lot zoned for single family and that is what they intend to use it for.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr.
Demers states that they will be able to use the lot for what it was intended for.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Demers states that there will be a new home built and it will enhance the neighborhood.
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to grant the variance based on the fact that all 5 conditions have been met. Mr. Lavigne states that he has seen the types of house that go on these lots. They are saleable houses and this is a reasonable use. The house proposed is not excessive. It is a ranch and is not over built. He feels that this will blend in with the current surroundings. Mr. Pender replies that he agrees and the motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Correspondence:
Correspondence from Dave Allain has been received regarding concern received from an abutter on a recent variance in wetlands. Mr. Allain states that he will meet the requirements of the state relative to wetlands. Mr. Farr replies that no appeal has been received.
All other correspondence is reviewed.
Adjournment:
Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to adjourn at 10:15. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary |
Home 
Zoning Board of Adjustment 
