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, 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, Nona Holmes, Alternates Jean Lane, and Andrea Korson.

ABSENT: Thomas Lavigne, Robert Bailey, and Alternate Ken Wilkins

MINUTES:

Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Andrea Korson, to postpone the minutes of August 28, 2006. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

APPLICATIONS:

NEW CASES:

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).

All abutters have been notified. No abutters are present. Mr. David Ward is present representing the applicants. Mr. Ward explains that the Neals would like to build a 4 bedroom home on a non conforming lot of 1.28 acres.

Special Exception:

Dimensionally nonconforming lots which were created or existed prior to December 31, 2005 may be developed without compliance with the requirements established by section 3.01 (C)(1) and 3.02 of this ordinance for lot size and frontage if granted a Special Exception by the ZBA. The ZBA shall grant the Special Exception only if the following conditions are met:

(a) septic systems shall be located 75 feet or greater from open drainage or surface water, 50 feet or greater from hydric B soils, 75 feet or greater from existing wells; and septic systems must meet all other setback requirements set by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, unless a waiver has been granted by the appropriate state regulatory agency; and,

(b) the well protection radius shall be 75’ or greater and may not extend beyond the building setback on an adjoining lot.

Mr. Ward states that the septic design does not show any open waters or drainage on the lot. He adds that hydric B spoils are delineated 55 – 60 ft. away. The well radius is shown on the plan and is over 75 ft from the septic system. Mr. Ward states that the well setback is contained within the lot and all other setback requirements have been met. Mr. Hickey adds that a state approved septic design has been received.

All abutters have been notified and all fees have been paid.

Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, based on the fact that all criteria have been met. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #06-22: Larry Plourde, 10 Lower Camp Rd. Map 124; Lot 12. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(B), and 3.02(B) to construct a replacement residence on a non-conforming lot of 0.36 Ac., with no road frontage. (Property currently owned by Levi Wood). Mr. Plourde will be arriving late.

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; larger portion of the building will be within the building setback. The applicants are not present.

Case #06-24: David Champney, 7 Sawyer Ave. Map 109; Lot 70. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(A), and 3.02(B) to construct a 3’ x 18’6” addition on a non-conforming lot of 0.12 Ac., with no road frontage, as it is a private road.

No abutters are present.

A brief discussion is held regarding the voluntary merger, which was completed in August. Mr. Farr explains the process of granting a variance. Mr. Champney explains that the property is 7 Sawyer Ave. and he would like to enlarge the ¾ bathroom into a full bathroom with laundry facilities/mud room area. Mr. Champney states that the camp is 19’ x 27’ and it is a year round residence as far as heating and insulation but is not used year round. He adds that by making these improvements some decayed area will also be repaired.

A discussion is held regarding the septic system. Mr. Champney states that he purchased the property 2 years ago with the understanding that there was a 1,000 gallon leach field that was only 3 years old. He states that it was on the purchase agreements. He adds that the camp was purchased as a year round home and the previous owners were living in the house year round.

Mr. Champney states that there is 20’ behind the camp to the property line. He adds that the side with the addition proposed, he would be extending out 3 ft., towards the 20’. Mr. Champney adds that without doing the voluntary merger, he would have been too close to do the addition. Mr. Pender states that the setbacks are 16’ based on the lot size of 80’ wide.

Area Variance:

1.    The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Champney

states that he does not feel that the proposal would affect the public. He adds that it is not encroaching on any other boundaries or blocking any views. He notes that this is not a substantial change. He explains that there is a 6’ x 6’ inward jog. The addition would be squaring the area off and it is not taking up much more room. This would allow for better living of the area and is not really an impact to the neighbors.

2.    Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the

ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Champney states that there are rotted sills on the back side of the house. He states that there is 500 sq. ft. of living space with the average house size being 1200-1500 sq. ft. His house is under half the current size and is a special condition. He notes that he is not able to add on more land to the property and he has already merged the two lots together.

3.    The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.

Champney states that this does not affect anything as he is not changing anything or taking up any more room. He is not adding a bedroom, just making the bathroom larger. He adds that the addition would make the area more comfortable and livable.

4.    By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr.

Champney states that this will allow more space in the bathroom and will add room for laundry facilities.

5.    No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be

suffered. Mr. Champney states that this will make the house nicer to look at and it is squaring off the building.

A discussion is held regarding the camp being a year round home. Mr. Champney states that prior to purchasing the house, everything was tested and was okay. He adds that he is not making it into a year round residence; however, it was purchased as a year round home.

Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to grant the area variance based on the fact that all 5 standards have been met. Ms. Holmes states that this is a reasonable use and is making the home more modern. Mr. Pender states that this will make the house more in compliance with the plumbing codes. It does not affect any other properties. Mr. Farr states that the lots were merged, it is the least amount of impact and the addition will square off the property. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Pender recuses himself for this case.

VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Nona Holmes, Jean Lane, and Andrea Korson.

Case #06-22: Larry Plourde, 10 Lower Camp Rd. Map 124; Lot 12. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(B), and 3.02(B) to construct a replacement residence on a non-conforming lot of 0.36 Ac., with no road frontage. (Property currently owned by Levi Wood).

Mr. Plourde is present along with abutter Rick Schofield. Mr. Farr explains the process of granting a variance. Mr. Plourde explains that the lot is .36 on Lucas Pond. He would like to build a 30’ x 40’, two bedroom, two story house with a walk out basement. There will be a new septic system and a new well. Mr. Farr reads a letter from Fred Walker stating that he did do test pits and the lot would support a 2 bedroom home with an on site well.

Mr. Plourde states that currently there is a small camp on the lot and it is used year round for recreational use. He adds that the new structure will also be used year round and he will not be staying on the established foot print. Abutter Rick Shofield states that he has no questions with the proposal.

Area Variance:

1.    The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Plourde

states that the lot was created prior to the ordinance. He states that he intends to maintain its existing use and intended use. It is a residential property and a new residence will increase the value of the property. He adds that the existing structure is substandard with an inadequate septic system and well.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the

ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Plourde states that this was a pre-established lot. This request conforms to the intended use and is consistent with the surrounding properties. Literal enforcement would keep it substandard and not conform to the standard setbacks in the area. The existing home is 20’ x 30’ including a porch and the new home is proposed to be 30’ x 40’, a second story with a garage.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.

Plourde states that his interpretation of the ordinance is that it did not intend to restrict homeowners of existing residences from improving their property. Allowing to maintain its existing use and intended use is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance particularly not encroaching into the setback requirements.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Plourde

states that the current structure does not meet the standard of the properties in the area and there is no usable well on the property. He adds that the value of the land as waterfront property is very high and the value of the existing structure is very low. By allowing the variance and the completion of a new structure with a new septic, and new well would be substantial justice. He adds that it would conform to state standards.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Plourde states that with a new structure, new septic, and new well, enhances the value of the property and the surrounding properties. The design that he seeks is sensitive to the surroundings and would do nothing but enhance this property and the surrounding properties.

Mr. Schofield expresses concern with the proposed structure. He explains that he has a pleasant view of the area for 6 months of the year and the structure will be between the pond and his property. He adds that the view in the summer is somewhat blocked by the trees. Mr. Schofield states that the proposed structure is very large and the way the building is being proposed will be 60’ across and will block the views. Mr. Schofield provides an analysis of Lucas Pond lots that were leased by the town. He explains that he purchased the lot in 2002 and as shown on the sheet, it was described as a water view property. Other land assessments of the area are described and there are several different descriptions provided.

Ms. Lane asks if there are any designs of the house. Mr. Plourde states that he is proposing a log home with a dormered roof and a garage. He understands Mr. Schofields concerns and hopes to minimize the impacts when positioning the house and with a design that works.

Further discussion is held regarding the elevation. Mr. Schofield states that the existing building is low. The new location will be closer to the road and will bring the elevation up. He feels that this will devalue his property. He adds that 2,600 sq. ft. is a large house as compared to the other houses in neighborhood. Mr. Plourde replies that he did view the property and he did not recognize the concerns of the site and now understands the view and the elevation will be 25’ – 30’. He adds that he is committed to finding a dwelling that fits the nature of the lot. Some trees will need to come down and that in turn may help to get a better view in the summer months.

A discussion is held regarding plans for the house. Mr. Farr suggests that designs be provided. Additional discussion is held regarding what is achievable and reasonable. Mr. Plourde states that with a waterfront property, the water side is the front yard. Andrea Korson makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to continue the case to September 25 to allow the applicant to provide additional information for a plan of the proposed residence as well as the siting of the lot. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

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; larger portion of the building will be within the building setback.

Mr. and Mrs. Cheung are present. No abutters are present. Mr. Farr explains the process of granting a variance and notes that there are two variances being asked for. Mr. Cheung states that they want to rebuild on the existing footprint and raise up the house on a foundation. Ms. Cheung states that there is water coming into the house and causing mold. A garage will be added onto the side. Mr. Hickey explains that they want to expand to the rear of the dwelling. A portion of the expansion is proposed to be within a 9 ft setback. They want to build back with the addition for more living area, toward the road. He states that the garage would be on the opposite side and would not be in the setback. In addition, there is an encroachment of a deck off the porch, which will become living space, in the future.

Frontage Area Variance:

1.    The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Ms. Cheung states

that there is already an existing building; there would be no change. She adds that they are not able to purchase additional lots.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance

results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Cheung states that with mold in the house, it is a hazardous condition. He adds that this is not good for the neighborhood. Ms. Cheung states that the house is 1,200 sq. ft. and is an undersized lot. There is only room for a small house. Mr. Cheung states that the septic is only approved for a 2 bedroom home.

     3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Ms. Cheung states that they are not close to their neighbors. The garage is not next to the house. It is next to the abutter’s driveway. The proposal will not block airflows.

4.    By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Ms. Cheung

states that there is an existing dwelling. Mr. Cheung states that upgrading will not affect the area and the new building will increase the property values.

     5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Ms. Cheung states that this will only improve the property.

Ms. Korson asks about the status of the septic system and well. Mr. Cheung replies that the septic system is state approved for a 2 bedroom home and the well is sufficient. Jean Lane makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to grant the variance for frontage based on the fact that all 5 standards have been met. Ms. Lane feels that this is a reasonable use. Mr. Pender states that the lots are all the same in the area and this is a reasonable use. He adds that it is great that they are improving the property and the proposal will not affect the neighbor’s values. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Setbacks:

A discussion is held regarding the porch and the lot location. The applicants currently have 9’ and need 12’ not 20’. Further discussion is held regarding the fact that there may be a way to shift the house to allow fitting within the lot without an encroachment into the setbacks. Mr. Hickey feels that there may be way to meet the setbacks if he were to view the survey that was completed. The applicants request to continue the case to September 25. Jean Lane makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to continue the case to September 25. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #06-25: Suellen and Robert Drake, 103 First NH Tpke. Map 234; Lot 47. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(C)(1), to construct a 28x48 ranch for non-residential use. Lot does not contain the required 150’ of road frontage.

Mr. and Mrs. Drake are present. Mr. Hickey states that Health Officer Don Arsenault had some issues with the subsurface disposal plan in the fact that the plan did not depict all of the features on the property. Ms. Smith states that she has spoken to Mr. Arsenault and all matters have been addressed.

Correspondence has been received from abutters; Pingree’s.

Ms. Drake explains that this ranch is for health care office and a 3 bedroom ranch had a perfect layout for her purpose.

A discussion is held regarding residential and commercial uses. Ms. Smith states that this will still need site plan approval. She adds that they could go back to residential use if they decide too and if the lot meets the septic requirements, etc. Further discussion is held regarding a conditional variance and non residential uses. Mr. Pender explains that even though it is a three bedroom house this should be built to IBC codes now because if there are changes to codes the residential codes would not be as stringent.

Area Variance:

1.    The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Ms. Drake states

that the variance will allow the use for public service on the property and generate tax revenue. She adds that this will be a benefit to the town to be able to use the property as a service to the community versus to a rental property that is run down at this time.

2.    Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the

ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Ms. Drake replies that the property would be limited to the current residential use, which is an older mobile home. It could be considered detriment to the surrounding properties. She adds that there is no more frontage available to be purchased for this property.

     3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Ms. Drake replies that the building is an attractive 3 bedroom ranch style home. It will compliment the setting and will be landscaped. Mostly all of the existing trees will be saved. She adds that it will end up that the spirit of the ordinance is not affected as there will not be any crowding as the lot is 2 ½ acres and there will be no blocking of air circulation.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Ms. Drake

states that she will be able to continue to serve the community. The lot will be put to good use and generate tax revenues.

5.    No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Ms.

Drake states that the new building will be a significant improvement over the existing structure and will enhance the surrounding properties.

Mr. Farr read a supportive letter received from abutters, the Pingrees.

Jean Lane makes a motion to grant the area variance for frontage, second by Roy Pender, based on the fact that all five criteria have been met. Ms. Lane states that this will be an asset to the town. Mr. Pender believes that the facility would be great for the town and is a wonderful idea. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Correspondence:

•     Office of Energy and Planning conference information is distributed.

•     Interpretations of ordinance for accessory structures ensues. Ms. Smith states

that nothing has previously been addressed as permitting accessory structures. In the end the board essentially arrives at the same place. Ms. Smith notes that the planning board was looking at this ordinance specific to non-conforming lots and accessory structures and the ZBA is not taking into consideration the non- conforming lot size based on the interpretation.

Adjournment:

Jean Lane makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to adjourn at 9:25. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,


Lisa Fellows-Weaver

Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page