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, Thomas Lavigne, Robert Bailey, Nona Holmes, Alternates Jean Lane and Andrea Korson, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer David Hickey, Board Administrator Linda Smith, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver.

ABSENT: Alternate Ken Wilkins.

VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Roy Pender, Tom Lavigne, Bob Bailey, and Nona Holmes.

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.
The minutes of June 25 are adopted, as amended, as follows:
Page 5: Paragraph 5 add: regarding, change questions to conditions, change cannot to must.
Page 8: Paragraph 5 add: Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

APPLICATIONS:
Continued Case:
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. Farr explains the process. Mr. Marescia explains the plans and states that he would like to add another floor to the house for a completed height of 34’ 7”.

Abutters present are Eleanor Gurliaccio along with Barbara, daughter of Henry Suchomski. The abutters review the plans and Ms. Gurliaccio asks if the roof line will be changing. Mr. Marescia replies yes and further discussion ensues with the applicant and the abutters relative to the proposal.

Mr. Lavigne expresses concern regarding the fact that the modified plans are part of the case file 07-09. Ms. Smith suggests that this case be withdrawn as there was testimony provided last month on the specifics for case 07-06. Mr. Marescia requests to withdraw the application 07-06. Bob Bailey makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to accept the applicants request to withdraw case 07-06 and allow the applicant to withdraw. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

New Cases:
Case #07-09: 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 9’4”x 11’5¼” living area 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 setbacks; and a special exception under 1.04 (B)(3) to expand upwards within the side and front setbacks.

The application is deemed complete. Abutters present are Eleanor Gurliaccio along with Barbara, daughter of Henry Suchomski.

A discussion is held regarding the letter of denial from the building inspector. The deck violates the left side setback, the living space violates the side setback, the lot in non-conforming with 44.27’ of frontage where 150’ is required, and the structure is being expanded upwards.

A discussion is held regarding the proposed fire place. Ms. Holmes notes that it appears that the fire place in encroaching into the setbacks. Mr. Marescia states that the fire place is a gas fireplace, above ground, and extends outward, outside the house. Mr. Lavigne states that it appears that the fire place is 100% in the setback. Mr. Pender states that there are gas codes by the NFPA-54, which do not allow for exhaust to be within 10’ of a property line unless if it were to be ducted up above the roof. Mr. Marescia requests to withdraw the fireplace. Mr. Farr states that upon the applicant’s request, the fireplace has been withdrawn.

Mr. Lavigne states that he does not have a problem with addressing the three variances at once; stairs, new deck, and the squaring off of the house. General consensus of the board is to address the variances all at once.

Ms. Barbara asks if the deck will be an open deck. Mr. Marescia replies yes.

Mr. Farr explains the process of obtaining a variance.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Marescia states that the requests will not have an adverse effect to the public interest. Although both the deck and the foundation will not be within the 10’ property line requirement they will in no way 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 deck on the back of the house will be 6’ 9½” from the property line on the left side and 11’ 5¼” from the property line on the right side of the house. The placement of the deck will not create any safety issues and will not infringe on the abutters. These improvements to the property will increase the value of the property and will also improve the appearance of the neighborhood. There is no way to get the road frontage due to the size of the property as it is a small lot. Mr. Marescia adds that to extend the road frontage will be encroaching onto other properties. This will not increase the traffic as the number of people living in the home will be the same and the number of bedrooms is being reduced from three to two. The lot is an undersized lot. Mr. Marescia states that there will be no impact to the surrounding areas as he is staying within the lot’s parameters for the year round residence. Mr. Marescia adds that he has an approval from the state for construction and septic.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Marescia states that the squaring of the foundation will allow for uniform building to meet all codes. The deck is being placed on the back side of the house due to the restrictions on all other sides of the house. The right and left sides of the home do not allow room for a deck, and the front of the house does not allow for this due to the distance required from the center of the road. He further explains that he needs the deck so that he can use the outside of the property. The land is unique as this is the only place to accommodate the deck for the usage of the house. He explains that he cannot make the deck smaller either as it would be too small. Mr. Marescia states that the deck would be reduced by 4’. Ms. Holmes suggests that the deck be moved so to have more of a setback on the other side. Mr. Marescia explains that there are sauna tubes there for stability and he would then have to dig into the septic system. As far as the living space encroachment. Mr. Marescia states that this is to allow the squaring off of the house to allow for a washer/dryer area. Mr. Marescia states that he cannot do anything else relative to the road frontage.

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 and “L” shaped to a square shaped structure. The setback ordinance can be answered by the fact that the increase toward 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 of surrounding properties.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Marescia states that by granting the permit it will not in anyway have an adverse effect on the area. Denial of the permit would result in unnecessary hardship as this is the only home that he owns. He continues to explain that the existing roof is in need of structural repair as well as the exterior roofing, which creates a potential safety concern. He explains that he feels that it is his right to make improvements to the property to increase the value and to increase the interest of the property. He notes that there are other properties in the area that have made similar improvements in recent months so he feels that he should be able to do the same relative to the setback, road frontage, and lot size.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Marescia states that these improvements that are being proposed to the property will not diminish the value of the surrounding properties in any way. He explains that there will be no views blocked and the requested variances will not encroach directly on the property lines. The addition will not obstruct any views of the abutters or any other residential property. These proposals will improve the appearance and value of the property and by doing so will enhance the neighborhood, as a whole.

Ms. Gurliaccio asked how the house is changing. Mr. Marescia states that he will be squaring off the house and will be going up 1½ floors. He states that he will provide the abutters with a sketch.

Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Mr. Bailey, to grant the area variances for setback, road frontage, and lot size, per plans provided RES-608, based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met. Variances do not include a fireplace and the deck must remain an open deck. Mr. Pender states that due to the lot size and the limited amount of road frontage, the applicant has made some compromises and this will enhance the neighborhood. He notes that other neighbors have done similar work. Mr. Bailey states that the applicant has done all that the board has asked for. The applicant has considered all of the abutting buildings and they are all similar in area. Mr. Bailey states that this will help the neighborhood and increase the values in the area. Ms. Holmes agrees. Mr. Lavigne states that this is a reasonable use for a small, confined deck. He states that withdrawing the side deck leaves the area open for fire, light, and air circulation. Mr. Farr states that he supports the open deck and the fact that this is being reduced from three to two bedrooms. Overall he is in favor. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Special Exception
Mr. Farr explains the process of granting a special exception.

a. If and upward expansion, it shall not have any adverse impact on any neighboring property, including but not limited to blocking of views and/or sunlight. Mr. Bailey states that the there are no visual problems. There are no buildings behind the property.
b. If an upward expansion, it shall not exceed the maximum height limitations specified in the ordinance. After discussion, the height will be less than 35’. Mr. Hickey states that the high side will be less than 35’ when completed.
c. The expansion shall not increase any other non conforming aspect of the structure or lot. Mr. Marescia states that nothing is changing and the variances have been granted.

Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Mr. Bailey, to grant the special exception, based on the fact that all criteria have been met. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #07-08: Paul and Michelle Carter, 865 First NH Tpke. Map 223; Lot 9-1. Applicant is seeking a variance under Article 3.01(C)(1) and 3.02 (B) for two living area additions with only 30 ft. of road frontage where 150 ft. is required, on a .72 acre lot where 2 ac. is required. Mr. and Mrs. Carter are present.

The application is deemed complete. No abutters are present and no correspondence has been received. Mr. Farr explains the process of granting a variance.

Ms. Carter explains that the lot was previously owned by Doris Entwisle and a lot line adjustment was done about 5-6 years ago. The existing footprint is reviewed. Ms. Carter states that this house is a two bedroom home that was a camp and they are now using it as a year round home. She explains that they are proposing to add 135 sq. ft. on to the kitchen and the bathroom. Pictures are submitted and are reviewed. She states that this will make the house more uniformed and no additional bedrooms are proposed.

A discussion is held regarding the acreage on the letter of denial. Mr. Hickey states that the acreage should be 2 acres.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Ms. Carter states that if the variance is passed it will not be contrary to the public’s interest because they believe that there will be no affect on anyone in the neighborhood. She states that the abutters are far enough away from the property line, at least 150’ on one side and 35’ on the other.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Ms. Carter refers to the pictures and states that the hardship for the family is that there is simply not enough room. Only one person can be in the kitchen at one time if the refrigerator or oven is open. She states that for a family of four this is a minimal addition of living space. Ms. Carter adds that the doorway entrance to the bathroom is only 15” wide and if there was an emergency, she does not believe that rescue personnel would be able to gain access with any of their necessary equipment. She adds that they cannot see any other method reasonably feasible for additional space other than the variance, as the lake is on the back side of the house.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Ms. Carter states that if the variance is granted, it is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance by which it was intended due to the issue of part time use to now being the full time residence for the family.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Ms. Carter states the permit, they will be granted the ability to live in a more comfortable setting without any overindulgence of space.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Ms. Carter states that there would be no devaluing of the surrounding properties. She explains that any improvement would only add value to the neighbor’s homes. She states that the zoning restriction interferes with the reasonable use of the property due to the minimal space for the family and the property is unique. She explains that they are a considerable distance from the road with the only neighbor in sight is a 50’ section of water frontage, which is now being used as a patio area and dock for access to the land. She adds that beside the 50’ strip is a cemetery. In closing, Ms. Carter states that they believe that these additions have no bearing as they are ample feet from the property lines. She states that by adding the existing structures in this manner instead of going up, minimizes the impact of the building on the property. There will be no blocking of views from the neighbors and makes the property and structure more uniform.

Mr. Lavigne makes a motion to grant the area variance based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met. Mr. Pender seconds. Mr. Lavigne states that they are not going any higher than the existing property and this is a reasonable use. Mr. Pender states that the improvements will be more code compliant for the bathroom. Mr. Farr states that this is a minimal change to the property and is a minimal impact. Mr. Bailey notes that they have put in a new septic system. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #07-10: Robert and Suellen Drake, 103 First NH Tpke. Map 234; Lot 47. Applicant is seeking a variance under Article 3.01(C)(1) to add a 50’x50’ residence in a separate structure, to a lot already containing a business, on a lot with 114.1 ft. of frontage where 150 ft. is required.

The application is deemed complete. No abutters are present and no correspondence has been received.

A discussion is held regarding the front structure, which is a business and the fact that the office could not revert back to a residential structure without another variance from the ZBA. Ms. Drake explains that the existing structure is a medical office building with 2 bathrooms and one with a tub. She adds that they could use the existing well and septic; however, they plan to add both new. Ms. Drake states that the size of the building will be a 50’ x 50’, with three bedrooms.

A discussion is held regarding if the board wants official blueprints and a building sketch. Mr. Bailey states that the board should follow the normal procedure regarding more information. Mr. Hickey states that a permit will not be issued until there is state approved septic. The board agrees to proceed.

Ms. Drake explains that the house will be around 400’ down the property; about half way in the property, which is 800-900 ft.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Ms. Drake states that this will allow for a more convenient access to the office, which provides health care services to the community. She feels that this will be a benefit to the community. She notes that sometimes there are calls for service after hours.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Ms. Drake states that a hardship would be not being able to build a home on the parcel as they would then need to build a home in a different area. She adds that this would also be easier to be right at the office. She adds that a home further away would limit her access and possibly her hours.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Ms. Drake states that there is still plenty of room. There will be no blocking of views. She adds that Northwood supports homes and businesses on the same property. This would go along with that spirit in town.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Ms. Drake states that the ability to have the home and business on the same property will encourage their long term commitment to offer health care services to the town.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Ms. Drake states that the proposed location of the home will not be seen as it is the center and will remain as wooded as possible. She adds that this will not decrease any property values; however, it will increase the values as the area will be being maintained.

Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the variance based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met. Mr. Pender states that he agrees that the town does support residences next to businesses and believes that this will not disrupt the area. He adds that one more driveway will not make any difference in the area. Mr. Farr states that this was a residence and was changed to a business and now the frontage is undersized. 150’ is required in the town and the lot has a good solid use as a commercial use already without adding a house. He states that he supports the ordinance. Mr. Bailey states that the frontage does not affect the area. He states that the driveway is already being used now and this will not increase anything. He adds that this may eliminate vehicles around the business as the Drakes may walk to work. Mr. Bailey notes that there is 2.44 acres. Ms. Holmes states that this is a small residence and they could add onto the business and make a residence. Mr. Lavigne states that this is a medical building. There could be a barn or any other type of business. He adds that since it will be owner occupied there may not be an increase in traffic. He adds that he feels that 114’ is good access for site in both directions. He notes that the house may not be visible and this is a reasonable use. Mr. Bailey states that if the business was changed, they would need to go back to the planning board for approvals. Ms. Smith states that the testimony revolved around the owner occupied status. She notes that once the application is approved the property can be sold and the property could then become a rental property. Mr. Lavigne states that was not his intent of the discussion. Motion passes; 4/1. Mr. Farr is opposed.

Case #07-11: David and May Erwin, 107 Broad Cove Rd. Map 120; Lot 15. Applicant is seeking a variance under Article 3.01 (C)(1) and 3.02 (B) to replace existing 16’x28’ dwelling with a 24’x37’ residence on a lot with 0.53 acres where 2 Ac is required, and no road frontage (private road) where 150 ft. is required.

The application is deemed complete. The balance due of $8 is received.

Mr. Erwin states that there is an existing A-frame. They are proposing to build a 24’ x 37’ cottage, 1100 sq. ft. 2 bedroom with a loft in the right of way. A septic design is now at the state level with expectations to be approved by the end of next week.

Abutters present are Doug Sergeant, Dick Frambach, and Ms. Desautels. Mr. Sargeant states that the state owns the high water mark and asks if there was an elevation survey completed to determine where the high water marks falls on the property. Mr. Erwin replies that no survey has been done. Mr. Sargeant notes that the seasonal high water line is about where the right of way is so the proposed building would be on state property. Mr. Erwin states that the deed states that they own the property to the existing water.

Ms. Desautels asks how the setbacks were determined. A brief discussion is held regarding the calculation of the setbacks. Mr. Hickey states that the setbacks were calculated from the stream. He explains that setbacks should be 20’ from the edge of the stream. Discussion ensues relative to the stream location and setbacks. Mr. Erwin states that there is a note on the plan that states that the property follows the center of the stream. The plan is reviewed further and Mr. Lavigne notes that 18’ is noted on the plan referencing the center of the stream. Mr. Hickey states that a surveyed plan should be done.

Stan Clark, a resident in the area, asks about the lake quality. He states that he is interested in the amount of fill that has been added in this area. He states that it appears that there has been approximately 150 cubic yards of fill added. Mr. Erwin replies that his wife spoke to someone in town hall and they were told that they could fill and they added 150 cubic yards.

Ms. Smith expresses concern with the fact that the plan is showing a structure that may be encroaching into the stream. She states that the board would be voting on a plan that does not meet the town’s ordinance, as it is presented. Ms. Erwin states that they can move the structure towards the right of way; however, they would need to move the power lines. This will give them more room and they are willing to do that.

A discussion is held regarding the septic and well. Mr. Erwin states that there is a dug well and it will be moved. The proposed well and septic are noted on the plans. Mr. Roy notes that the state has methods on how to eliminate an existing well.

Mr. Hickey requests information to determine where the high water mark is on the property as that will determine the minimum setback. Mr. Frambach states that during the 2007 floods, this property was underwater.

Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Mr. Bailey, to continue the case to August 27, due to the fact that the board is requesting further information. Mr. Lavigne amends the motion to note that the information requested is documentation showing the mean high water mark of lake as well as the abutting stream. Mr. Pender seconds the amendment. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #07-12: Stephen Conway, 80 Cole Rd. Map 116; Lot 115. Applicant is seeking a special exception under Article 1.04 (C)(3) to replace existing 14’x67’ mobile home with a 28’x36’ residence on a 0.62 acre non-conforming lot, where 2 acres is required, on a private road with no road frontage where 150 ft. is required. (Property currently owned by Ricky and Erin McAllister).

Roy Pender is recusing himself.
VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Tom Lavigne, Bob Bailey, Nona Holmes, and Alternate Andrea Korson.

The file is deemed complete and no abutters are present. Mr. Farr explains the process of granting a special exception.

Mr. Conway explains that the proposal is to remove an existing 3 bedroom mobile home and replace it with a 3 bedroom cape. He states that all setback requirements are being met along with septic and well radius requirements on a private road without road frontage.

A discussion is held why this is a special exception rather than a variance. Mr. Hickey explains that the applicant can meet Section 1.04(C)(3) in regards to well radius and septic.

Mr. Conway states that there is an approved septic design, provided. He adds that they will remove the mobile home, which is 72’ long. The proposed structure is 28’ x 36’ cape, which is less of an encroachment.

Mr. Lavigne asks about the frontage. Mr. Conway states that the frontage is on two separate roads, Rita Circle and Cole Rd.

Mr. Lavigne reads Article 1.04 (C)(3) as follows:
(3) 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:

Mr. Conway states that the mobile home was placed on the property in 1974 and the subdivision would have occurred prior to 1974.

(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. Conway states that the only surface water open for drainage is the pond. Soil designations are reviewed and deemed to be sandy loam. There are no hydric B soils on the lot. There is no water, or ledge on the lot. Mr. Conway states that the property across the street is over 100’ from the existing septic. No waivers are needed and the well protection radius has been met. The well radius does not extend beyond the setbacks of the adjoining lots on Gulch Mountain Pond and Cole Rd.

Ms. Korson makes a motion, second by Mr. Bailey, to grant the special exception, based on the fact that all criteria have been met, as shown by the plan and application provided. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Tom Lavigne, Bob Bailey, Nona Holmes, and Roy Pender.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to not hear any new cases tonight after 9:30 p.m., at that time re-evaluate the agenda. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #07-13: Motiva Enterprises (Sovereign Consulting), 137 First NH Tpke. Map 234; Lot 52. Applicant is seeking a variance under Article 3.04 (B) to install a 4,100 gallon frac tank, 8’ in diameter, 6’ from the side setback where 20’ is required. (Property currently owned by Motive Enterprises).

Barbara Laughlin is present representing Sovereign Consulting.

Ms. Laughlin states that there is a frac tank existing on the property. She explains that a frac tank is a free rolling tank used to contain water. Each month the water is batched and samples a taken to make sure that the carbon treatment is working at 100% due to discharge limitations that the government places. She states that these discharge standards are extremely low and they would rather be safe and test the water prior to discharging it into the brook, which is at the bottom of the hill, behind the property.

Abutters present are Norma Heroux representing the library trustees, and the Daskey’s.

Ms. Laughlin states that they took over the property as consultants. She explains that this is a different tank. The tank that was there was a 10,000 gallon tank that was posing aesthetic problems, a pedestrian and traffic issue and was blocking space. This tank was moved and changed to a smaller tank, which was placed further back on the property. They are discussion the matter with NHDES and they anticipate that the tank will remain until the end of this year, to be removed as soon as possible; however, there is no specific time. Ms. Laughlin states that the request is for a permanent variance for the tank.

Ms. Smith states that the 8 x 20 shed previously received a conditional variance with a condition that when it was no longer needed it would be removed. Ms. Laughlin states that they are not able to remove any structures without permission from the state. They are still in clean mode on the site.

Additional discussion is held regarding the tank. Ms. Laughlin explains that this tank is a 4,100 gallon translucent tank. It is used to pump water out of the ground as an extra safety precaution and to treat it before it is discharged. She further explains the filtration process used and notes that a circulation pump has also been added. Only one tank will be on the property and the variance is necessary to keep the tank there as it is beneficial to clean up the petroleum spill.

Mr. Daskey asks about the results of the water testing. Ms. Laughlin states that the test results fluctuate. They have been lower; however, they are not at the point to meet the state requirements.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Ms. Laughlin states that granting the variance will be beneficial to the public interest being served by the clean up of the petroleum spill. The tank will allow for safer mediation practices on the property.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Ms. Laughlin states that due to the contamination, the size, and layout constraints of the property, if not granted the variance would create unnecessary hardships as a tank would need to be placed in the way of the public right of ways, traffic, pedestrian safety, and it could compromise the safeguards on the groundwater treatment system.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Ms. Laughlin states that they will not allow any signage or branding on the tank and there will be no adverse effect as this is not a through way for traffic or a pedestrian foot path.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Ms. Laughlin states that granting the variance would allow for additional safety precautions, protection of public health, and the environment.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Ms. Laughlin states that this is a temporary structure and there is no information that would decrease the values to adjacent properties. The closest residence is approximately 30’ away, with a garage in between.

Mr. Lavigne asks if there should be a specific time frame if granted. Ms. Laughlin states that they are bound by state to treat the groundwater. Ms. Laughlin states that there is no permanent solution. They are not able to close until the state allows it to be closed. She adds that they are working with the state to meet the requirements.

A discussion is held regarding a fence around the frac tank that is aesthetically pleasing to abutters and applicant.

Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant a temporary variance for up to 4 years, for the frac tank to be up to 6 ft. from the property line with a fence for screening purposes from abutters on road side and abutter’s side, based on the fact that all criteria has been met.
Ms. Laughlin states that she wants to make sure that the two sided screening in, only if it does not interfere with the activities on the gas station. She states that she cannot block accesses on the property.

Mr. Lavigne states that he would like to see the fence used to blocking the abutters view not restricting use. Mr. Farr states that the abutter’s are his highest concern. Roy Pender makes an amendment, second by Bob Bailey, for the fence to be added to the property line only, not the front of the property. Ms. Smith asks about the specifics of the fence height. Mr. Pender asks the abutters about the height and they feel that 6 ft. is adequate.

Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #07-14: Michael Travis, Long Pond Rd. Map 212; Lot 56. Applicant is seeking a special exception under Article 1.04 (C)(3) to construct a 24’x36’ two story residence on a 0.84 acre non-conforming lot, where 2 acres is required, with no frontage (180’ of frontage on a private road), where 150’ is required.

The applicant is not present.

Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Ms. Holmes, to continue the case to August 27 as a courtesy, as the applicant is not present. Mr. Farr requests that the applicant be notified that the case was continued and should the board not hear from the applicant by next month, the board will motion to deny the case without prejudice. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page