ZBA

Minutes

June 26, 2007

Official as of July 26, 2007

Vice-Chairman 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 and Andrea Korson, Board Administrator Linda Smith, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver.

ABSENT: Chairman Bruce Farr, and Alternate Ken Wilkins.

VOTING MEMBERS: Roy Pender, Tom Lavigne, Nona Holmes, Andrea Korson, and Jean Lane.

MINUTES:
Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to approve the minutes of May 21, 2007, as written. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

APPLICATIONS:
Continued Case:
Case #07-03: Bradley Reichenbach, 103 Lower Camp Rd. Map 125; Lot 75. Applicant is seeking a special exception under Article 1.04(C)(3) to construct a 16’ x 45’ two story addition on existing dwelling with no road frontage; 179’ of road frontage on a private road, 0.64 Ac.

Mr. Reichenbach is present. He explains that he measured the well and it does not qualify for a special exception. Ms. Korson asks if Mr. Reichenbach would like to withdraw his application for a special exception and he replies yes. Ms. Korson makes a motion, second by Mr. Lavigne, to accept the the request to withdraw the special exception application. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

New Cases:
Case #07-04: Rick Drew, 28 Blaisdell Dr. Map 104; Lot 27. Applicant is seeking a variance under Article 1.04(C)(1) to adjust the boundary of a grandfathered, non-conforming lot. (Property currently owned by Curtis and Patricia Ley).

Rick Drew is present along with Patricia Ley. Mr. Drew provides an overview of the property. He explains that the property is 1.86 acres and was subdivided back in the 1960’s. The Lombaras own a small strip of land, which may have been an access to Jenness Pond. He states that the proposal is to add the 8 ft. strip to the Lombaras lots. The variance is requested as the Ley lot is less than the town’s minimum standards. Mr. Drew adds that reducing the lot would have no changes to the existing setbacks. The Lombara’s lot will be increased and will make the deck more conforming as it will be 20.16’ from the property line.

He states that the Ley property does not have any setback violations and this will increase the Lombara’s acreage by 1,514 sq. ft. of the lot with the building and the vacant lot will become 651 sq. ft. Mr. Drew states that by adding the strip of land the house will be more conforming. The strip of land width is 8 ft. and it is 3000 sq. ft. long. Mr. Drew adds that all of the lots are undersized by today’s standards and this will make 2 of the lots more conforming. The larger lot will become more non-conforming. Mr. Drew thinks that in the 1960’s the strip was possibly used as an access to the lake. Ms. Ley adds that the strip is not a public right of way.

Abutter Tom Chase is present. A discussion is held regarding the survey. Mr. Drew explains that there were markings and pipes from previous surveys found. Mr. Bailey adds that some are original markers. Mr. Chase explains that 4 years ago the Lombaras tore down a house and built a new house on the same foundation. He feels that the deck is not in compliance with the zoning ordinance. He refers to correspondence within the code enforcement department and that the deck is in the setback, less than 20’ from his property line. Mr. Chase does not agree that the deck will be 20.16 ft. from the property line after the boundary line adjustments.

No other abutters are present.

Ms. Smith states that the application being discussed by the board tonight is for the Ley lot and the request to make it more non-conforming, which does not currently meet the town’s standards. Even though there is a zoning violation on another lot, which is having some land conveyed to it, that matter will be addressed by the planning board during the boundary line adjustment if a variance were to be granted tonight. Ms. Smith adds that the planning board will be looking at all three lots when they are reviewing the boundary line adjustment with a zoning violation existing on one of the lots. Mr. Drew states that the deck would be in compliance based on an accurate survey. It would be 20.16’ from the property line. Mr. Chase asks what markers were used to base the survey.

Mr. Pender closes the public comment portion. 

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Drew states that the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the minor decrease in area of the Ley’s property does make any existing structures or septic design in violation of current town or state set back requirements. The adjustment does add conformity to the Lombara’s structure by making it more than 20 ft from the sideline.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Drew states special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship since the small strip of land is basically useless to the Ley’s other than adding area to their lot while it is of great importance to the Lombara’s in that it will make their structure conform to sideline setbacks.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Drew states that this variance would be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance in that the decrease in area does not affect any of the existing structures on the Ley’s property and they still meet and exceed the setback requirements. The increase to the Lombara’s property would meet one aspect of the ordinance, which is the side setback.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Drew states that substantial justice would be done by allowing an otherwise unused piece of property become useful, which would also add a higher tax value to a piece of property.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be  
suffered. Mr. Drew states that there will be no diminution of property values in the area as this strip would be added to the Lombara’s lot thus preventing any pathway to be created along this area for the Ley’s lot. He adds that many times these small strips can progress into unsightly pathways. The strip is only 8 ft. wide so no structure can be put on it.

Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Ms. Holmes, to grant the variance for a lot line adjustment based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met. Mr. Lavigne states that if by the board’s actions tonight that the deck becomes more conforming, then that is a good thing; however, that is not the purpose tonight. He states that what the board is doing is making two very small lots a little more conforming and a lot that is almost conforming but is not, a bit smaller. This cleans up the boundary lines of the area. Ms. Lane asks if this will now go the planning board and Mr. Drew replies yes. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0. Mr. Drew provides a check for $25. for recording fees.

Case #07-05: Daniel and Mardell Radebaugh, 112 Tasker Shore Dr. Map 111; Lot 29. Applicant is seeking a variance under Article 3.01 (C)(1) and Article 3.02 (B) to replace existing 24’x37’ dwelling with approx. 40’x50’ home with an attached garage on a lot with no road frontage(103’ of frontage on a private road). Lot is 0.37 acres where 2 acres is required.
Mr. Radebaugh is present and pays the outstanding balance of $8. 
 
VOTING MEMBERS: Roy Pender, Tom Lavigne, Nona Holmes, Andrea Korson, and Bob Bailey.

A discussion is held regarding the building permit stating that there would be no dwelling unit. Ms. Smith states that this may be due to the growth management ordinance for Northwood as this was already living space.

Mr. Radebaugh states that all setbacks have been met. He explains that the septic tank will be on one side of the lot and the leach field will be on the other side of the road. He explains that there is an existing septic tank; however, they are unsure of the condition of it and the existing leach field. He notes that he has obtained a state septic approval. When the septic is updated it will be at least 75’ from the well.

Mr. Lavigne states that this is a private road with no frontage and the Radebaughs would like to replace the existing house with a bigger and better permanent home. Mr. Radebaugh states that the proposed house is a 2 bedroom. He adds that the existing dwelling is now a non-conforming structure.

Abutters present are Mr. McCarrier and Ms. Blanchard. A letter has been received from abutters, the Pollucks. All abutters have no comments and are in favor of the proposal.  

Mr. Bailey asks about the pins. Mr. Radebaugh states that the property has been surveyed and the pins have not been placed. Mr. Radebaugh states that the old building is approximately 1,200 sq. ft. and the new is proposed at 2,300, which includes the proposed deck.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Radebaugh states that the proposal is for a larger house with a state approved septic system. There will be additional tax revenue to the town and it will promote the public interest.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Radebaugh states that they desire a permanent residence in Northwood. This was a camp and the size and layout of the area are not adequate for a family. He states that they have developed the design of the house and there will be a monetary hardship relative to him. He adds that the existing dwelling does not meet town’s requirements, which he feels is a hardship to the town.  

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Radebaugh states that the Master Plan encourages commercial development and home base work. In addition, the town should try to improve the ecological and environmental quality of life that you get when you build a permanent home and become a resident. He adds that he may have a consulting business out of the house or maybe would have a business in town. He will be adding a state approved septic system and will comply with all of the setbacks and therefore meets the spirit of the ordinance.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Radebaugh states that the justice here applies to fairness and treating folks fairly. He states that there have been others in his area that have met with the board for the same situation. He has an expectation that he has met all of the town’s requirements. It would be beneficial for him to be granted a variance.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Radebaugh states that he does not expect any diminution of property values. He believes that they will be increase with the new house as the existing structure has been damaged by a tree. He feels that the new house will be beneficial to the surrounding properties.

Mr. Bailey asks how wide the right of way is. Mr. Radebaugh replies it is 21’ wide and they have not had any problems with vehicles on the road. Mr. Bailey adds that other buildings have been approved in this area. Additional mention is held regarding if there is an existing association. Mr. Radebaugh replies yes and adds that the association is not restrictive. It is more of a maintenance association. 

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the variances for size and road frontage based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met.

Mr. Lavigne states that the unfortunate event that occurred has triggered the Radebaughs to make a change to better the area. Their new home will be up to the standards and the improvements are safer. The replacement is a reasonable use and this will be a safer home. There are no setback issues.

Ms. Korson states that she viewed the area and expresses concern. She states that regarding conditions 1 and 2; the board is not able to use “an increase to the tax base” as a reasonable argument. In addition, the response to the hardship cannot reference a person; it must be addressed to the land not to personal expenditures. She further explains that the conditions are statutory requirements and must be considered as part of the case. She adds that in her mind not all of the conditions have been met. Ms. Korson states that this is a reasonable use and to replace the structure is good for the town. She adds that the proposal could be to replace the existing structure from the original footprint and there would not be such an impact.

Mr. Radebaugh replies that he understands and adds that he has obtained a state approved septic plan. He adds that he will be improving the property by planting grass, trees. They will be trying to protect the lake. Ms. Lane adds that the size of the lot is not adequate for the size of proposed house. Motion passes; 4/1. Ms. Korson is opposed. 

Case #07-06: John Marescia, 134 Lakeshore Dr. Map 108; Lot 14. Applicant is seeking a variance under Article 1.04 (C)(6), 3.01 (C)(1) and Article 3.02 (B) to add a 9’8”x 25’4” deck and 9’4”x11’5” addition on a non-conforming lot with 44.27’ of frontage where 150’ is required; 0.09 Ac. area where 2 Ac. is required, within the front and side setbacks.

Mr. Marescia is present and pays an outstanding balance of $8. Mr. Marescia explains that he is present for a variance for an addition.

A discussion is held regarding how the board would like to address the order of the variances requested. A motion is made by Mr. Lavigne to break the variances into two separate sections, in which the living space will be addressed first, followed by the deck. Mr. Bailey seconds. Motion passes; 5/0.

Discussion ensues regarding squaring off the house. Mr. Marescia explains that he will have a 4 ft. knee wall and building up the house for 2 floors. The setback on the side is 7 inches into the setback. He states he has 9’5” from the side. 
Abutters present are the Suchomskis. They review the plan and mention that there is a fence that is theirs on the property line. They state that they do not have problems with the addition to square off the house; however, the deck is another issue. 

Use Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Marescia states that this would not have an adverse effect to the public interest. The foundation will not be within 10’ of the property line requirement and will not have a negative impact to the surrounding properties. The foundation will be 9.59’ from the property line, so the variance requested is 7”. The improvements to the property will increase the value of the property; therefore, increase tax revenue to the town. They will also improve the appearance of the neighborhood; therefore, improve the appearance of the town. 

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Marescia states that the squaring off of the foundation will allow for a uniform building, and to meet all codes. The hardship is that the lot is small and is undersized. He adds that the septic system has been rerouted and improved to prevent any drainage or seepage into the lake. 

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Marescia states that the ordinance being not to increase the footprint of the building can be appeased by the fact that the majority of the addition is an increase in the height of the structure and not the footprint. The only increase to the footprint would be a small increase in one corner of the building, which would change the house from an “L” shape to a square shaped structure. The ordinance for setback can be addressed by the fact that the increase towards the abutter’s property line would be minimal. By granting the permit, all public safety will still be intact and it will enhance and increase the value surrounding properties.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Marescia states that granting the permit will allow for full utilization of the property and will not in any way have an adverse effect on the area. Denial of the permit would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it. The existing roof is in need of structural repair as well as exterior roofing, which creates a potential safety concern. Local taxes on the property have jumped considerably over recent years. He adds that he feels it is his right to make improvements to the property to increase the value. If he is to make higher tax payments to the town, it is only right that he be able to increase the interest in the property. He adds that other properties in the neighborhood have made similar improvements in recent months so he feels that he should be able to do the same. 
 
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Marescia states that the improvements being made to the property will not diminish the values of the surrounding properties in any way. He adds that there will be no views blocked and none of the variances will encroach directly on the property line. The addition will not obstruct any view or views of the abutters or any other residential property. He adds that it will improve the appearance and value of the property. 

An abutter questions the plans provided regarding the roof addition. Mr. Marescia explains that he is adding a portion to the roof. Ms. Smith states that if the roofline is changing a special exception is required due to the upward expansion.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to continue the case to July 23 so that the applicant may have time to reapply for a special exception. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #07-07: Bradley Reichenbach, 103 Lower Camp Rd. Map 125; Lot 75. Applicant is seeking a variance under Article 3.01(C)(1) and Article 3.02 (B) to construct a 16’ x 45’ two story addition on existing dwelling with no road frontage; (179’ of road frontage on a private road) on a 0.64 Ac. lot. 

Mr. Reichenbach is present. He explains that he would like to add on to the rear portion of the house. One level is below ground for the garage and storage. He currently has 2 small 10’ x 10’ rooms as bedrooms with no closets.

The board reviews the plans. No abutters are present. He further explains the layout of the proposal to convert the rooms into one bedroom with an entry way supported by a concrete foundation. Mr. Reichenbach states that there will be no setback violations and the well is over 75’ from the septic system. 

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Reichenbach states that all renovation are in the back of the lot. He will not be raising the house. By new landscaping the appearance of the car will be eliminated. 
     
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Reichenbach states that the improvement to the landscape and soil conditions will be accomplished once the area is completed and will be a value to the area.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Reichenbach states that he is improving the area. He plans to work out of his home in his office and there is a possibility that a child could be moving back into his home. Mr. Lavigne states that the lot is small by today’s standards and when the area was subdivided the road was not accepted by the town as a town road. 
 
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Reichenbach states that the rooms are very small and there is no storage. This will improve the value of the surrounding properties and the neighbors in the area are also currently expanding.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Reichenbach states that this will enhance the value of the home as it is very small and increase the value of the surrounding areas.

Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the area variance based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met. Mr. Lavigne states that there are many improvements being done in that neighborhood. By today’s standards it would be difficult to maintain the existing footprint and have a reasonable use of the property. He explains that this is reasonable and also triggers other things than just aesthetics. There are new standards to be followed and new conditions have to be met. The property will be safer. Overall, Mr. Reichenbach is sprawling outward rather than upward and is working with the land as the hill is natural portion of the property. He feels that the proposal is not excessive. Ms. Korson agrees in that Mr. Reichenbach is working with the unique aspects of the lot for the placing of the garage and the addition. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

INTERNAL BUSINESS
Updating Fee Schedule Discussion: A discussion is held regarding the board’s fees and revenues. Current fees are reviewed. Ms. Smith states that the board’s 2006 revenues were $6,600 with $8,200 for expenditures.

The board agrees to increase the fees and Mr. Lavigne makes a motion to recommend that the application fee be increased from $90. to $100. and the abutters fees should be increased from $8. to $10. Mr. Bailey seconds. The motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Adjournment:
9:30 p.m. Andrea Korson makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to adjourn. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary