|
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes September 25, 2006 Official as of October 23, 2006
Vice-Chairman Roy Pender calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Thomas Lavigne, Robert Bailey, Nona Holmes, Alternates Jean Lane, Andrea Korson, and Ken Wilkins, Board Administrator Linda Smith, Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver, and Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector David Hickey.
ABSENT: Chairman Bruce Farr
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. [Request to continue >.
VOTING MEMBERS: Roy Pender, Nona Holmes, Bob Bailey, Tom Lavigne, and Andrea Korson. Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Andrea Korson, to continue Case 06-14 to October 23, 2006. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
MINUTES:
Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to approve the minutes of July 24, August 28, and September 6, 2006, as written. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
OLD CASE:
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). Continued from August 28.
Roy Pender recuses himself. Tom Lavigne is acting chair.
VOTING MEMBERS: Jean Lane, Nona Holmes, Bob Bailey, Tom Lavigne, and Andrea Korson.
Mr. Plourde provides an overview of the property. He states that the board requested more information for condition #5 as there was risk of affecting the view of an abutter. New floor plans are provided and Mr. Plourde explains the elevations of the structure. There will be a first floor and a dormered second floor. The original structure was proposed to be 30’ x 40’ and angled on the lot in which the ridge line would affect the views by up to 60’. He explains that he has reduced the second floor to only half the distance and extended the total footprint out to accommodate a dining room. He states that he is trying to reduce the impacts to the views. By electing to square the structure it reduces the impact to the views. The ridge line at the highest level is 24’, affecting the view. Mr. Plourde states that the surveyor did check the property for accuracy of the property lines. Blueprints are provided and reviewed. Mr. Plourde feels that he has protected the interests of everyone.
Jean Lane asks where the septic and well are located. Mr. Plourde explains that the well is in the front of the lot and they are 75’ apart.
Abutter Richard Schofield is present and states that he and Mr. Plourde met and discussed his concerns of the site. He states that he appreciates the steps that Mr. Plourde has taken to reduce the impacts. Mr. Schofield states that there will still be some impact; however, he agrees that there will be no way to avoid it. He appreciates the steps that have been taken and hopes to be good neighbors and friends. With that stated, he withdraws his objections.
Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Plourde
states that the lots were created prior to the ordinance. The variance will allow him to build a structure that is consistent with other properties in the area and will not violate the public interest. A new residence on this location will increase the value of the property, create tax revenue, and will increase the value of all surrounding properties. A new waste water treatment system and well water system will be added to the property.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Plourde states that the property was established by the town as a residential lot. This request conforms to the intended use and is consistent with the surrounding properties.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Plourde feels that the ordinance did not intend to restrict the homeowners of existing residences from improving their properties. The variance will allow the enhancement and continuation of the intended use of the property.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Plourde
states that the current structure and waste treatment do not meet the standard of the properties in the area and there is no useable well on this property. Granting the permit will allow a dwelling on the lot. Substantial justice will be done by allowing the construction of the new dwelling on the property that conforms to state and town requirements and is consistent with other properties in the area. The septic system will protect the environment and the well system will support the residential needs.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Plourde states that the new structure with a new septic and well will enhance the value and reduce environmental impacts, while not affecting the use of abutting properties. The design of the structure will be sensitive to the natural settings of the Lucas Pond area and will only enhance the values of the surrounding properties. The location and elevation of the plan is considerate of abutter’s views.
Jean Lane makes a motion, second by Andrea Korson, to grant the variance based on the fact that all 5 standards have been met. Ms. Lane states that Mr. Plourde has tried to comply with the board’s requests and also the concerns of the abutter. Ms. Korson concurs with Ms. Lane in that all 5 standards have been met. She feels that the applicant has consulted with the abutter and addressed his concern and he has removed his objection. 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; larger portion of the building will be within the building setback. [Request to continue >
Roy Pender returns as chair
VOTING MEMBERS: Roy Pender, Nona Holmes, Bob Bailey, Tom Lavigne, and Andrea Korson.
Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to continue Case 06-23 to October 23, 2006. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
NEW CASES:
Case #06-26: Marcia and Mark Anderson, 13 Fiore Rd. Map 112; Lot 11. Applicant is seeking a special exception under Article 1.04(C)(2) and a variance to Article 3.01(C), 3.02(B), and 3.04(B) to add a second floor and front deck to existing structure on a lot of 0.20 Ac. where 2 Ac. is required, and 70’ of road frontage on a private road. A portion of the deck and expansion will be within the side setbacks.
Mr. and Mrs. Anderson are present. Mr. Anderson states that the request is to add a deck across the front of the existing house and to change the house from a two bedroom ranch to a cape, with dormers on the second floor. He adds that the number of bedrooms will not be changing.
Mr. Hickey states that the variances are for the side setback for the deck, road frontage, and area. The special exception is for an upward expansion. Discussion is held regarding the special exception and posting purposes. Ms. Smith states that the notice is incorrect for the special exception; however, she explains that the purpose of the notification is to let neighbors know that there is something going on with the property. The board agrees to proceed with the three variances, as the requirements are more difficult to achieve and they will be addressed individually.
3.04(B) Setbacks: Mr. Anderson states that they are not proposing to go any closer to the property line then what already exists. He states that the house is approximately 1 ft. from the property line on one neighbor’s side. He explains that they would like to extend the deck, parallel to the property line so it will be the same distance. The deck is proposed to be 10’ x 33’, which is the width of house, 10’ out, and angled. Additional discussion is held regarding the property lines, as determined by Fred Walker. Ms. Smith asks if this can be accepted as a legal certification as he is not a licensed land surveyor. Mr. Pender states that it should be for information purposes only.
Mr. Bailey asks what the distance is between the house and the neighbor. Mr. Anderson replies that there is 20’ on the side with the deck. The setback is deemed to be 7’ at the widest point. The encroachment will be 13’. Mr. Robinson adds that it is not any greater than what exists.
Abutter Todd Graham, the closest abutter, is present and is okay with the deck provided it does not go over the property line.
Mr. Lavigne reads the criteria for an area variance.
Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Robinson
states that they have provided written replies to the questions and reads that they are proposing to renovate the existing dwelling into a significantly more attractive and appealing dwelling. The proposal uses the existing footprint of the dwelling with no increase in building footprint. The value of the property will be significantly increased and will enhance the neighborhood. He adds they are proposing to construct a deck across the front of the existing dwelling in such a way to enhance the value of the property. This will not devalue the surrounding properties.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Robinson states that he is not aware of any other way based on the property location to put a sufficient deck onto the front of the house and have it look reasonable.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Robinson states that deck proposed would not block the area, as the area is very close together with only 1 ft. apart between their house and the abutter. He adds that this is an open deck; not a wall.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Robinson
replies that this is a reasonable thing to do to the house.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered.
Mr. Robinson states that having a deck in front of the dwelling will enhance the surrounding property values.
Mr. Lavigne clarifies that the board is voting on the deck and the setback. Tom Lavigne makes a motion to grant the area variance for the setback for the deck, based on the fact that all of the 5 standards have been met. The deck encroachment will be no closer to the lot line than the existing house and the deck will remain as an open deck. Second by Bob Bailey. Mr. Lavigne states that this house is considerably set back from the two surrounding abutters. He adds that with these setbacks, they are missing some views of the lake and in looking at the property by not placing the deck on the entire front of the house would look terrible, which would devalue all properties. Mr. Lavigne states that the deck will be 10’ x 33’, not to extend any further into the setback that the house. Mr. Bailey adds that there should be a condition added stating the deck will never be closed in. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
3.01(C) Frontage: Mr. Lavigne states that there is no frontage, as it is a private road. Mr. Robinson states that there is 70’ on Fiore Road.
Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Robinson
states that the proposed renovations will enhance the value of our property and those around us.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Robinson states that they are
not aware of any other way to do this on the undersized lot without road frontage.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Robinson
states that variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance in allowing the applicant to renovate and improve the existing dwelling in a manner that is attractive and in kind with other properties in the neighborhood. This will increase the property value of the dwelling and the neighborhood homes. The proposal will result in a modest dwelling, which will meet the needs of the applicant’s family while maintaining the quality of the neighborhood.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Robinson
states that by granting the variance substantial justice will be done by allowing the applicant to maintain the dwelling in a manner which is beneficial to the neighborhood and maintain property values.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Robinson states that the applicant believes that by improving the property, surrounding properties will be enhanced and will certainly not suffer; property values to both the applicant’s property and surrounding properties will be increased; and the appearance of the property will be improved from both the street side, as well as the lake side.
Mr. Bailey asks about the cape and if the side walls will be raised on the roof. Mr. Robinson replies that they intend to dormer the back with a shed dormer so the ridge line will be increased. Mr. Lavigne states that the area is steep and this will not impact the view of any abutters. Andrea Korson makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to grant the variance based on the fact that all five standards for an area variance for the road frontage have been met. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
3.02(B) Lot Size:
A discussion is held regarding why this is not a special exception for a non-conforming lot. Mr. Hickey states that the protective well radius does not meet the standards as it is not within the property of the adjacent setbacks. Further discussion is held on the reason that this variance is being sought. Ms. Smith explains the need for a variance when the applicant cannot meet the special exception criteria. The lot size does not meet the required 2 acres.
Area Variance for Lot Size:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Robinson
states that the applicant proposes to renovate the existing dwelling to a significantly more attractive and appealing dwelling. The proposal uses the existing footprint of the dwelling. There will be no increase to the building footprint. The value of the property will be significantly increased and will enhance the neighborhood.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Robinson states that the size of the lot is significantly smaller than the required size and the location of the building on the lot. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant by preventing the proposed renovations and improvements to the dwelling. This will negatively impact the abutting properties and the neighborhood. This will not increase the footprint and the proposed renovations will not be any closer to the side lot line than the existing dwelling.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Robinson states that the variance is consistent with the intent and purpose as it would allow them to renovate and improve the existing dwelling in a manner that is attractive and in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and will increase the property values. This will meet the needs of the applicant and still maintain the quality of the neighborhood.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Robinson states that substantial justice will be done by allowing the applicant to maintain the dwelling in the manner in which it is beneficial to the neighborhood and will maintain property values.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Robinson states that by improving the property, surrounding properties will be enhanced and will not suffer. Values of both the applicant and abutters will be increased as well as the appearance of the property on both the street side and lakeside.
Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Robert Bailey, to grant the variance based on the fact that all five standards for an area variance for lot size have been met. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
1.04 (B)(3) Special Exception:
A discussion is held regarding the noticing of the special exception. Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to hear the special exception for Section 1.04(B)(3) even though the public notice was incorrect for 1.04(C)(2. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Special Exception 3 Conditions:
1. If an upward expansion, it shall not have an adverse impact on any neighboring property, including but not limited to blocking of views and/or sunlight. Mr. Robinson refers to pictures and states that the house behind them looks out over their house.
2. If an upward expansion, it shall not exceed the maximum height limitations specified in this Ordinance. Mr. Robinson states that this will be well under 35’.
3. The expansion shall not increase any other non conforming aspect of the structure or lot. Mr. Robinson states that this is correct.
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the special exception based on the fact that all three standards of the town’s criteria for 1.04(B)(3), have been met. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Case #06-27: Scott Proux, 48 Angela Dr. Map 209; Lot 14. Applicant is seeking a special exception under Article 1.04(C)(2), to construct a 28’x24’ garage/family room on a 1.9 Ac. lot where 2 Ac. is required. (Property currently owned by Wilfred Deschamps and James Decker.)
Mr. Proux explains that the special exception is for a 28’x24’ garage on a lot of 1.9 acres. He states that after the addition is built, the property line, front side back, will be over 50’ on width.
Abutters Ken Wilkins, and Phil Auger are present. Copies of the proposal are submitted and copies are made for the board members. A discussion is held regarding a deck. Mr. Hickey states that a deck is an accessory structure and is, there are no setback issues. Mr. Auger reviews the plans and asks about the distance to the property line. Mr. Auger has no objections. Mr. Wilkins also has no objections.
Special Exception: 1.04 C
(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. Proux states that the septic system is in the rear of the house. Mr. Hickey states that there is a state approved septic plan from when the house was built and it meets all of the criteria. Ms. Smith states that it should be noted on the plans. Bob Bailey makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to grant the special exception for 1.04(C)(2), based on the fact that all three standards of the town’s criteria for 1.04(C)(2), have been met, according to Code Enforcement Officer Dave Hickey, having seen the state approved septic plans. 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.)
Roy Pender recuses himself. Tom Lavigne will be acting chair.
VOTING MEMBERS: Ken Wilkins, Nona Holmes, Bob Bailey, Tom Lavigne, and Andrea Korson.
Mr. and Mrs. Holden and Steve Conway are present. Ms. Smith states that the property is solely owned by Susan Holden. Mr. Conway states that he has spoken to Attorney Denis Vachon regarding deeding of the property. Access behind the property no one knows what happened when the town built Bow Lake and Pender Hill roads. There was no documentation that this parcel was ever given back to any owners. Research has been done and there are no town or registry copies of deed records. Mr. Lavigne asks the parcels frontage points. He states that there is frontage on two sides but not on the third. Mr. Conway states that it is an old Range road and has only been accessed by snowmobiles. He adds that this is a lot of record and has been taxed as a lot of record. Ms. Smith states that a letter should be sent from Atty. Vachon stating that documentation is not available for proper ownership. Additional discussion is held regarding the process of how the road was created. Mr. Bailey states that the lot was separated from the main road.
A plan provided by Mr. Conway, by a licensed surveyor is reviewed. Ms. Smith states that the plan is not stamped; it was only provided for purposes of this application. Mr. Holden states that this is a lot of record and the only issue for the board is that the lot does not conform to the 2 acre minimum. The conditions of old range road are not relevant to this application. Mr. Hickey states that he does not agree with Mr. Holden. He states that if Old Range Road is someone’s property rather than a road, it would not be an application for a special exception because it would not meet the setbacks for the protective well radius. Mr. Bailey suggests that Marion Knox maybe able to help as she has been reviewing the history of the town’s roads. Ms. Smith states that it is not the job of the zoning board to provide ownership information. Ken Wilkins makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to continue Case 06-28 to October 23, so the applicants can consult with their attorney to provide documentation of proof of ownership of the road, or proof that lot 11 does not have ownership of Range Road. Ms. Smith notes that if the town still has rights to Range Road and the board accepts the special exception, there may be concerns about salt contamination of the well if the road is ever re-opened. There would need to be a condition of approval that they would sign off on liability to the town for any contamination of the well. Mr. Lavigne adds that there is also Bow Lake Road that would be affected. He does not see the point for this. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Mr. Pender returns to the board and calls for a recess.
Session resumes with the following voting members:
VOTING MEMBERS: Roy Pender, Nona Holmes, Bob Bailey, Tom Lavigne, and Andrea Korson.
Case #06-29: Northeast Credit Union, 144 First NH Tpke. Map 234; Lots 9 & 10. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 2.01(C), and 3.02(B) to develop a non conforming lot for non residential use. Lot is 1.71 Ac. where 2 Ac. is required.
Present are Attorney John Ryan representing the NECU, Jonathan Ring, professional engineer from Jones & Beach, and Rick Parks from the NECU. Mr. Ryan states that there is a purchase and sales agreement with Mr. Grano. Mr. Ryan states that the zoning ordinances do not recognize a bank or credit union facility as a permitted use and the property is 1.76 acres.
With no abutters present, Mr. Ring begins his presentation for the building. He provides an architectural design of the building. He states that the proposal is
for a 2,880 sf. financial institution building. The design is similar to the credit union being constructed in Lee. There will be 5 drive-thru lanes. A curb cut is proposed on Rte. 4 and 202/9. He adds that they will need to go to the planning board for site plan approval.
Mr. Wilkins asks if there are any encroachments and Mr. Ring replies no. Ms. Korson asks if the proposed project will meet all of the engineering for the site and Mr. Ring replies yes and adds that this will all be addressed at the planning board level. Mr. Bailey states concern over the amount of traffic on Rte.4 and the driveway locations. Mr. Ring states that these issues will be addressed as the plan proceeds with the planning board. Mr. Bailey adds that the PB and ZBA have met with NHDOT regarding the town roads and are trying to work together to help the major highways that go through Northwood. Ms. Lane asks about the location of septic and well. Mr. Ring replies that they have not completed test pits at this time and explained the proposed locations; however, it will be at least 75 ft. apart.
A discussion is held regarding permitted uses. Mr. Pender refers to the table of uses. He states that the board will address the variances separately.
Ms. Smith asks why the applicant did not use the allowance in the zoning ordinance for a professional office. Mr. Ryan replies that they did explore that option with the building inspector and planning board and the conclusion was that a banking facility of this type would not be included in the permitted uses of the ordinance. Mr. Ring adds that they met with the planning board and they agreed that there is no use in the table of uses that would apply to their requested use.
Use Variance:
1. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered.
Mr. Ryan provides documents from an appraiser whose opinion is that the facility will not cause any diminution of surrounding property values.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Ryan reads the Simplex variance requirement. He states that in this case, the ordinance fails to include banking facilities as a permitted use. There are other retail and commercial uses within the area such as a gas station, ATM, antique shop and restaurant; there is no reason other than inadvertence to exclude banking facilities. Therefore, the failure to list banking facilities as a permitted use interferes with the reasonable use of the property. He adds that there will be no adverse affect upon the public or private rights of others. In fact, the banking facility will provide a benefit to the public who wish to have the convenience of a local banking facility.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Ryan states that the ordinance permits reasonably commercial uses in this zone. The proposed banking facility is consistent with these permitted uses. The facility will meet the setbacks and other dimensional requirements of the ordinance and will not impinge on any other property.
4. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Ryan states
the applicant’s proposed use will provide a service to the public who desire to do their banking while in transit from home to work and visa versa. He adds that given these reasons, the applicant believes that they have satisfied the criteria for granting the variance.
5. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Ryan states that the NH Supreme Court has held that a variance must not conflict unduly and in a marked degree with basic objectives of the ordinance. Here, the basic objectives of the ordinance are to allow uses which fit within the area and as reasonable commercial uses. The applicant’s proposed use will accomplish this purpose.
In addition, Mr. Ryan adds that the proposed banking facility will meet all of the criteria listed under Section 2.01(C)(1), 2.01(D)(1) and (2), which relate to vibration, noise, glare, and heat, smoke, and air contaminants, odors, lighting, location on a state highway and adjacent property affects. None of the above adverse effects which the ordinance intends to prohibit or regulate will be produced by the proposed banking facility.
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to grant the variance based on the fact that all five standards have been met for a use variance for Section 2.01(C) for the land to be used as a credit union/financial institution. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Area Variance for Lot Size: Section 3.02(B)
1. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered.
Mr. Ryan refers to the previously provided documents from the appraiser whose opinion is that the facility will not cause any diminution of surrounding property values.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Ryan states that the NH Supreme Court has stated that an unnecessary hardship exists where there are special conditions on a property, which do not allow the applicant to achieve the proposed use without a variance. The property is less than 2 acres and there is no ability to increase the size of the property. Therefore, a variance is necessary to achieve the use sought by the applicant.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Ryan
states that with the lot size issue, the fact that the land is not 2 acres will not make a difference. The proposed use would be the same even though it is slightly less than 2 acres.
4. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Ryan states
states that this variance will allow for 1.76 acres to be used for a reasonable use and meets the basic objectives of the commercial uses permitted within the town.
The proposal will fit within the zoning, the area, and will not be a use that is not appropriate in the town.
5. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Ryan states that allowing the lot size to be less than two acres will result in a facility that will provide the public with a convenient banking facility.
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to grant the variance based on the fact that all five standards for an area variance have been met for lot size requirement. Mr. Lavigne states that the board needs to determine what a reasonable use is. In this case it is clear that this type of a business is a reasonable and good use. It will be a benefit of the town. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Case #06-30: Donald & Helen Manseau, 144 Lynn Grove Rd. Map 113; Lot 26. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(C), and 3.02(B) to replace existing 24’x32’ dwelling with a 30’x46’ residence on a non-conforming lot of 0.30 acres where 2 Ac. is required, with no road frontage as it is a private road.
Donald and Helen Manseau are present along with their son Jeff Manseau who will represent his parents. He states that this is an existing 3 bedroom camp. They would like to remove the existing structure and replace it with a structure that will meet the setbacks. It is currently at its closest point, 12 feet from the lake and they are proposing to go back 25 feet, up the hill, and away from the lake. They will be adding a well and septic system. A variance is needed for lot size and frontage, as it is a private road. Mr. Manseau provides a plan for the board to review.
Mr. Pender reads a letter from abutter Kenneth Peterson.
Mr. Lavigne asks if the proposal is to replace with a larger structure. Mr. Manseau states that it will be 1½ story. Mr. Lavigne asks if this will be a new structure on lot and asks about setbacks. Mr. Manseau responds that the back of the building will be 62 ft. from the shore line and not encroach into the setbacks. The current structure encroaches into the water setback. Mr. Manseau adds that they would like to retain the existing driveway.
The board agrees to address the variances together.
Area Variances: Frontage - Section 3.01(C) and Lot Size - Section 3.02(B):
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Manseau
replies states that the area will be better off with the new building; more appealing and all codes will be met.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Manseau states that the lot cannot get any bigger and the existing building is in very poor shape. In order to repair it, it would be very costly. He asks that the board grant the variance so that they are able to replace it.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Manseau
provides a photo to show the placement of the building.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Manseau
states that they will now be able to use the property in the same way that the neighbors are able to use their property.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Manseau states that this will be an enhancement to the area. This will be a nice, safe house. They are moving the septic system back away from the lake, which will require some trees to be removed; thus increasing the view for the neighbors across the street.
Ms. Korson asks about the roofline change and obstructing views. Mr. Manseau explains that the neighbors behind them are moving their structure further up the hill. The trees to be removed are approximately 67-73 ft. The roof line will be increased by 8 ft.
Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the area variances for Section 3.01(C) and Section 3.02(B), based on the fact that all standards have been met for lot size and frontage. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Case #06-31: William & Beverly Holmes, 390 Bow Lake Rd. Map 105; Lot 51. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 1.04(C)(5), 3.01(C)(1), and 3.02(B) to replace existing 26’x26’ dwelling with a 28’x44’ modular home. Lot is 0.19 Ac. with 91 ft. of frontage where 150 ft. and 2 Ac. is required, within the building setbacks.
Bob Bailey recuses himself from this case. Nona Holmes states that she is not related to the applicants.
VOTING MEMBERS: Roy Pender, Nona Holmes, Tom Lavigne, Ken Wilkins, and Andrea Korson.
Mr. and Mrs. Holmes are present. Ms. Holmes explains that their home is 26’ x 26’ and is in need of repair. They would like to tear it down and replace it will a 28’ x 44’ modular home. They intend to keep a portion of the footprint and add 18’.
A discussion is held regarding a 2’ encroachment into the setback on one corner of the property, Old Bennett Road which is a right of way/driveway to the son’s property. Richard Welch, abutter, is present and explains the parcel history and the land transactions. Further discussion is held regarding the creation of zoning ordinance and sizes of lots.
Mr. Hickey states that there is a state approved septic design. Mr. Wilkins asks how many bedrooms and Mr. Hickey replies 2 bedrooms. Ms. Holmes states that the current house is one bedroom and the proposed home would be 2 bedrooms. Mr. Wilkins states that the application is for a one bedroom home and the plans show three bedrooms. Lengthy discussion continues regarding the number of bedrooms. Ms. Holmes explains that the second floor is unfinished. Further discussion is held regarding the notification procedure and what was included. Mr. Pender states that there is some conflict in what was in the application and what is now before the board. Ms. Smith expresses concern if an abutter had reviewed the plan for one bedroom and there is in fact other information. The public notice is reviewed and the case was published with no specific type of house or number of bedrooms. Ms. Holmes explains that the proposed house is a 1 bedroom cape with no living space or heat on the second floor.
Abutter Mr. Welch states that they thought this was a different house.
Area Variances:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Ms. Holmes
states that the house will improve their property as well as the surrounding properties.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Ms. Holmes states that there is no way to increase the area and there is no hardship to others. She adds that this is an improvement to property.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Ms. Holmes
states that thee is no hardship; it is an improvement and an asset to the community.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Ms. Holmes
replies that they will be able to use the property as the use intended. She adds that this would still be their private residence.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Ms. Holmes replies that the new home will improve the area; it is a nice looking property and a nice home. She adds that this will be an asset to the town and the surrounding areas.
Andrea Korson makes a motion, second by Ken Wilkins, to grant the variances for area 1.04(C)(5), frontage 3.01(C)(1), and setbacks 3.02(B), based on the fact that all 5 standards for the area variances have been met. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Case #06-32: Eric and Mary Schuberth, 109 Lakeshore Dr. Map 109; Lot 44. Applicant is seeking a special exception under Article 1.04(B)(3), to build a 12’x20’ second story addition to rear of existing two-story dwelling. A portion of proposed expansion is within the setback; 2.5 feet exists where 10 ft. is required.
Builder Doug Heald, is present along with the Schuberths. Ms. Schuberth states that the front of the structure, the street side, is currently a 12’ x 20’ and this portion is a one story; the rest of the building is actually a two story. She explains that the street side portion of the house that is the single level will be raised up. An old photo of the building when it was a store is shown by the applicant.
1.04 (B)(3) Special Exception:
Mr. Pender reads the criteria for a special exception.
Special Exception 3 Conditions:
1. If an upward expansion, it shall not have an adverse impact on any neighboring property, including but not limited to blocking of views and/or sunlight. Ms. Schuberth states that there will be no adverse impact to the neighbors. She adds that she owns the property across the road.
2. If an upward expansion, it shall not exceed the maximum height limitations specified in this Ordinance. Ms. Schuberth states that this will be under 35’.
3. The expansion shall not increase any other non conforming aspect of the structure or lot. Ms. Schuberth states that everything is remaining the same except for the one area.
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Ken Wilkins, to grant the special exception based on the fact that all criteria for the special exception has been met. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.
Internal Business:
* Budget: The budget is reviewed and discussions are held. The board agrees to the present the following for the 2007 ZBA Budget:
* Legal Line~$7000.
* Printing/Advertising: 1800.
* Supplies: $500.
* Postage: Level Fund
* Equipment: $350.
* Training: $500.
* 41913-330: add a line for contracted services for Rockingham County Registry of Deeds for $600.
Motion by Ken Wilkins to approve the above budget items as a draft and forward to the selectmen. Tom Lavigne seconds. Motion passes unanimously.
Adjournment:
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to adjourn. Motion passes unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary
Town of Northwood
Zoning Board of Adjustment
September 25, 2006 |
Home 
Zoning Board of Adjustment 
