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, Alternate Jean Lane, 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:
Bob Bailey makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to approve the minutes of September 24, 2007, as amended as follows:
Page 1: Change stat to states. Change us to this. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

A discussion is held regarding Upper Deerfield Rd. and Old Deerfield Rd. Ms. Smith states that there is no road classified in Northwood as Old Deerfield. Ms. Smith states that she will review this further, speak to the road agent, and Mrs. Knox who has been researching roads in Northwood.

Continued Case:
Case #07-17: David and May Erwin, 107 Broad Cove Rd. Map 120; Lot 15. Applicant is seeking a special exception under Article 1.04 (C)(5), and variances for Article 3.01 (C)(1) and 3.02 (B)& (B)(3) to replace existing 16’x28’ dwelling with a 24’x37’ residence on a lot with 0.53 acres where 2 Ac is required, no road frontage (60’ on private road), and the proposed location of the replacement dwelling is 17’ from a stream, where 20’ is required.

Ms. Weaver states that the Erwins called in this evening and requested a continuance to November 26. Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to continue Case 07-17 to November 26, 2007. Mr. Farr requests that the Erwins be notified in writing that their request to continue has been granted; however, also note that the board is expecting attendance at the November meeting. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #07-19: Robert Braun, 216 Long Pond Rd. Map 207; Lot 32. Applicant is seeking a variance under Article 1.04(C)(6), 3.01(B)(2), 3.01(C)(1), and 3.02(B) to construct a 12’x30’ addition and a 8’x34’ deck on a non-conforming lot of .29 acres where 2 Ac is required, within the 12’ setback, and no road frontage (60’ on a private road) where 150’ is required.
Ms. Smith states that Mr. Braun emailed a request to continue to November 26. Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to continue Case 07-19 to November 26, 2007. Ms. Smith adds that Fred Walker has provided information for the case. Mr. Farr requests that the applicant be notified in writing that the request to continue has been granted; however, also note that the board is expecting his attendance at the next meeting. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

New Cases:
Case #07-21: David and Alisa Caron, 47 Upper Camp Rd. Map 125; Lot 68. Applicants are seeking variances to Article 3.01(B)(2), 3.01(C)(1), and 3.02(B) to construct a 24’x28’ two story addition and an 8’x12’ utility room on a non conforming lot with 0.40 Ac. where 2 Ac. are required, no road frontage (154’ on private road).

Mr. and Mrs. Caron are present. An outstanding balance of $18. for additional abutters is paid in full. Mr. Farr explains the process of granting a variance.

Mr. Caron explains that the proposal is to add a 2 story addition, 24’x28’ to the existing structure. The structure has no foundation. Mr. Caron explains that they have a new septic design proposed for a 2 bedroom structure. They are reducing the amount of bedrooms from 3 to 2.

Abutter Lisa Kelley is present. Ms. Kelley asks what the length of construction will be. Mr. Caron states that they will be starting within one month and the project will be completed within two years. She also asks if construction will be occurring during weekends. Mr. Farr states that this discussion is not relevant to the application.

Mr. Lavigne asks about the maintenance of the road. Ms. Smith explains that this is the same relief that has been requested under a special exception or the higher request, a variance. She further explains that this is a relief for the road frontage. Mr. Hickey states that the applicant will need to sign the town’s agreement for maintenance as part of the building permit process. Ms. Caron explains that this lot was leased land and they took care of the road then. They purchased the land from the town and signed the agreement again that they would take care of the road. Mr. Caron states that an association was created and has always taken care of the road.

Mr. Lavigne suggests that all three variances be addressed at the same time. The aboard agrees.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Caron
states that this is still a residential structure. The proposal would not be changing the use of the property. He adds that the proposal is reducing the number of bedrooms from 3 to 2. Ms. Caron states there is less bedrooms and less septic. This proposal will not interfere or affect anyone any more than what now exists. Mr. Caron adds that there will be no additional traffic. They are not adding an apartment or a business. Mr. Caron states that the proposal would not affect the public interest.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Caron states that they need more room. The house is 824 sq. ft. and the average size home is over 1,000 sq. ft. There is no additional land to purchase to add on.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Caron states that when the addition is completed there will be a reasonably sized living area. He adds that there is no basement for storage and the new section would be on piers.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Caron states that when they purchased the land, it was leased and is a small lot. Ms. Caron states that they purchased the land 23 years ago and have lived there, year round for 20 years and having been paying taxes on it.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mrs. Caron states that when improvements are done the value of the surrounding properties improves.

Ms. Kelley expresses concern with weekend construction beginning early in the day; otherwise she has no problems.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the area variances for Section 3.01(B)(2), and 3.01(C)(1) for road frontage; and Section 3.02(B) for lot size, based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met based on the information provided. Mr. Lavigne states that this is one of the lots with the most open space in the neighborhood. He does not feel that there will be any impact to the surrounding areas and feels that this is a reasonable use. He adds that this is still under the normal size of today’s homes. He notes that with the addition, the structure will be applicable to new standards and codes. Mr. Bailey states that there is not a state approved septic system. Ms. Caron states that there is a design. Mr. Hickey states that the building department will not grant a building permit until there is a state approved septic system on file with the town. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #07-22: Karen Jones, 3 Faucher Ln. Map 103; Lot 9. Applicant is seeking a special exception under Article 1.04 (B)(3), and variances for Article 3.01(B)(2), 3.01(C)(1), and 3.02(B) to raise existing 24’x44’ building to add a foundation with lakeside walkout, and replace existing roof to open concept, on a non conforming lot of 0.22 Ac. where 2 Ac. are required, no road frontage (80’ on private road).

Aaron Lazotte and Karen Jones are present. Ms. Jones states that Mr. Lazotte can speak for Ms. Jones.

Bill Wormell, LLS, has sent in a letter relative to a survey of the lot lines stating that he will reset the building corners in their original locations after the concrete footings have been poured. Mr. Farr reviews the sketch provided by Mr. Wormell noting the existing cottage is 2 ft. off one lot line and 13 ft. off the other, with no foundation.

Mr. Lazotte explains that the proposal is to take and raise the existing camp. He would like to put in a 10 ft. foundation with a dropped ceiling, create a better pitch on the roof for aesthetic purposes, and create a crawl space for storage. He adds that the proposed foundation will be a walk out basement.

Special Exception
Mr. Lavigne reads Section 1.04(B)(3):
(3) Portions of structures within a setback may be enclosed or expanded upwards if granted a Special Exception by the ZBA. The ZBA shall grant the Special Exception only if the following conditions are met:
(a) If an upward expansion, it shall not have any adverse impact on any neighboring property, including but not limited to blocking of views and/or sunlight.
Abutter Donna Lewis is present along with affected party Ben Biron. Mr. Biron states that he does not feel that he will be affected by the upward expansion. Ms. Lewis adds that she will not be affected with the expansion. Mr. Lazotte states that the roof line is now 20’ and will be changing to no higher than 32’ to the peak of the roof from the lowest point.

(b) If an upward expansion, it shall not exceed the maximum height limitations specified in this Ordinance.
Mr. Lazotte states that the roof line will not exceed 35’.

(c) The expansion shall not increase any other non-conforming aspect of the structure or lot.

Mr. Lazotte states that the proposal is not changing the footprint as it will remain 24’ x 34’.

Motion to grant the special exception based on the fact that all three criteria have been met is made by Tom Lavigne, and seconded by Roy Pender. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Variances
Mr. Lazotte explains that the proposal is to take the existing house and add a foundation to the camp and make it into a year round home. The roof pitch will change. He states that the back part of the house has a crawl space and he would like to raise this by 3 ft. with a 12’ x 12’ pitch to not exceed 32’. In the front portion, they will match the same existing roof that was put on the back and add cathedral ceilings. A set of pull down attic stairs will be added in the office area and they will add a walk out basement with sliders leading to the beach area. Mr. Lazotte states that there are currently three bedrooms and they are reducing the bedrooms to 2. The well is in and a septic design has been planned. Mr. Lazotte states that the first floor will be the same as the main floor, 1,000 sq. ft. The attic will be 500 sq. ft. and is for storage. Total amount of rooms is 5.

Mr. Lavigne asks how close the house is to the water and Mr. Lazotte replies 60 ft. Additional discussion is held regarding the need for 10 ft. walls rather than 8 ft. Mr. Lazotte explains that this 2 ft. will allow for extra space to hide plumbing, duct work, etc.

Mr. Biron asks about the 32’ measurement and mentions the grading of the road. Mr. Lazotte states that the pitch will be 32’. He adds that the grade of the road is lower on the street side. Mr. Hickey states that the applicant must meet the ordinance and the measurement is from the highest elevation of the ground to the building. Mr. Lazotte had noted from the low side. He states that the top of the foundation will be 5’ above Faucher Lane and 16’ from Faucher Lane to the point of the roof.

Mr. Farr states that the board will address all three variances at the same time.

Area Variance
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Lazotte
states that this proposal will not make the are more dense. The bedroom will be decreased and the septic will be updated. There will be no additional traffic flow. This is not a rental property and there will be no business on site.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Lazotte states that there is only one floor now at 1,000 sq. ft. The proposal is to add 1,000 sq. ft. with 500 sq. ft. of attic storage. 2 ft. will be added for ceilings to hide plumbing, duct work, etc. He would like to have the basement area for storage as well.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Lazotte states that the addition will be aesthetically pleasing. The camp has been neglected and this will be an improvement to the surroundings.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Lazotte states that this is a substantial addition and will be pleasing to others. It will increase property values and make the area nicer.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Lazotte states that when the improvements are done the value of the surrounding properties will increase. This camp will blend in with the neighborhood and be aesthetically pleasing.

Mr. Biron states that this is a tight area. He expresses concern regarding maintaining and preserving the water front. He adds that there has been work done and he is concerned with construction debris. Mr. Hickey replies that a silt fence will be required during construction. Mr. Biron states that he does not have any additional problems with the proposal. Ms. Lewis agrees.

Mr. Bailey states that the road is better than some other town roads; it is in nice shape. Mr. Lazotte states that the construction will be done on a professional basis, Monday thru Friday 9-4 p.m.

A discussion is held regarding the parking area. Mr. Lazotte explains that there are two parking areas in front and he is able to park on the septic system.

Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Ms. Holmes, to grant the area variances for Section 3.01(B)(2) and 3.01(C)(1) for road frontage, and 3.02(B) for lot size, based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met. Mr. Pender states that this property does require some work and there are others in the area that are high. He adds that he was concerned with parking; however, does not have an objection. Mr. Lavigne states that the living space is doubling and is 1/8 of what the town requires for lot size. In his opinion, conditions 1, 2, 3, 4 have not been met. There will be a presence but not comparatively to what else is in the area. He does agree that the applicant has a right to fix the property; however, the proposal is adding 13’ to the existing roof line. He adds that the amount of impact of what is being asked is excessive. Mr. Bailey states that the other buildings along the road are comparable to the proposal and the board has approved similar proposals. He expresses concern with the additional 2 ft. walls proposed. Additional discussion is held regarding the need for the 2ft. wall proposal. Mr. Farr states that he does not feel that it is necessary for the additional wall height. Ms. Holmes agrees that the 2 ft. is more than what is necessary for pipes and wiring. Mr. Lazotte replies that the 10 ft. wall height is proposed to hide things and make the area more pleasing. Mr. Pender states that the house is big for the lot.

As far as the conditions that have not been met, Mr. Lavigne recognizes the applicant’s right to improve the property, agrees that it needs to be done, and asks if this is a reasonable amount as he feels that it is excessive on a lot that is .22 acres. Mr. Lavigne adds that there is no other land that can be purchased for this proposal. Mr. Lavigne states that he feels that the land can still be reasonably used without doubling the size of the house.

Non Holmes – yes
Bob Bailey – yes
Tom Lavigne – no
Bruce Farr – no
Roy Pender – yes
Motion passes; 3/2.

Case #07-23: John and Christine Anderson, 61 Fiore Rd. Map 116; Lot 54. Applicants are seeking variances for Article 3.01(B)(2), 3.01(C)(1), and 3.02(B) to construct a 24’x28’ two story addition on a non conforming lot that has 0.36 Ac. where 2 Ac. are required, no road frontage (131’ on private road).

Mr. and Mrs. Anderson are present. No abutters are present. Mr. Anderson explains that they would like to add on a 28’ x 24’ one story structure. The addition will be on piers only. He adds that they have met with the board in the past to extend an open deck and extend off the side 14 ft. They have completed the open deck but not the side deck; however, they intend to complete the side deck. Mr. Anderson explains that roof line will be perpendicular at the same height and a sketch is provided. He adds that the seasonal camp is currently 2 bedrooms and the proposal is to remain as a 2 bedroom. He adds that the addition will be the bedrooms and the existing bedrooms will change to general living space. Mr. Anderson states that there is an existing well.

A discussion is held regarding the seasonal cottage and the use. Mr. Hickey states that the certificate of occupancy will state that the area is for seasonal use only. Discussion ensues regarding the conversion of seasonal to regular use. Mr. Hickey explains that all energy code requirements would need to be met and all piping would need to be protected. Ms. Smith notes that the older case files state seasonal and the file is public information for abutters as they have the right to review the information. She states that if the proposal is changing the application would need to be renoticed. Mr. Bailey notes that properties are assessed differently when listed as seasonal use. After discussion, the addition request is not a seasonal use.

Area Variance
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Anderson states that this proposal will be more attractive and appealing. The property value will be increased as well as the value of the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson provides copies of 3 letters from abutters in support of the project. Mr. Anderson adds that the setbacks are greater than 20’ and all energy codes will be met.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Anderson states that he is not aware of anyway to meet the requirement by purchasing land. The cottage is only 640 sq. ft. with rooms around 9’ x 9’. The proposal is consistent with other cottages in the area totaling approximately 1,400 sq. ft. The additional space will allow for more room which is critical due to a family member whose mobility is limited due to health issues. This addition will allow her to be able to maneuver through the house with a bit more ease.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Anderson states that the addition is consistent to the size of other properties in the general area and is still smaller than some. He explains that they do have a larger lot and the addition proposed is going away from the water. The structure will continue to be a modest dwelling, will meet their needs, and still maintain the quality of the neighborhood.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Anderson states that by allowing them to maintain the dwelling and the addition will be beneficial to themselves and the neighborhood. This will improve property values. He adds that the proposed addition will allow for an additional exit as there is only one now. He notes that this will assist with mobility restrictions for his mother-in-law.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Anderson states that by improving their home, the property values increase as well as the values of the surrounding properties. The lot is a private lot and the addition will not infringe on the neighbors. There is a good tree buffer existing and is consistent with other neighboring properties.

Mr. Lavigne states that they are doubling the living area; however, they are doing it in a way that is not obtrusive. He feels that this is a reasonable use and there are no height or setback issues.

Ms. Smith notes that the plans provided have a copyright. She suggests that a letter be provided allowing the applicants to use the copyrighted plan. Mr. Farr requests that a letter be provided and the Andersons concur.

Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Mr. Lavigne, to grant the area variances for Section 3.01(B)(2), and 3.01(C)(1) for road frontage, and 3.02(B) for lot size, based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met. Mr. Pender states that the addition will meet today’s codes and be energy efficient. He does not have an issue with the seasonal use and feels that there is no impact to the lake. He adds that there are two other places with similar various roof lines and he feels that justice would be served to issue the permit. Mr. Lavigne states that the way the proposal has been presented is a reasonable use; even though the applicants are doubling the square footage the completed project will blend well. Mr. Pender amends the motion to include that the addition is a one story addition. Mr. Farr seconded the amendment. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

CORRESPONDENCE
November 20, 7:00 p.m. NHDES Shoreland Protection Act presentation

All correspondence is reviewed.

INTERNAL BUSINESS:
Appointments: An ad has been placed in the Sun and there is a note on the website requesting alternate members. Ms. Smith explains that names of interested parties will be provided to the selectmen as they make the appointments to the ZBA.

Planning Board Request for Ordinance Suggestions: Ms. Smith states that the planning board is requesting that the ZBA provide suggestions/comments regarding ordinance revisions or additions. Mr. Lavigne mentions in-law apartments and out building provisions for excess of 5 acres without subdividing. Ms. Smith explains that there are state subdivision regulations regarding another residence on one lot. She refers to density issues and frontage requirements for separation. Ms. Smith notes that an amendment was done regarding mother in law apartments, Section 3.01(C)(2).

Mr. Farr states that he would like a note sent to the planning board thanking them for asking for input from the ZBA.

2008 Proposed Budget
A brief discussion is held regarding the 2008 budget. Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Ms. Holmes, to level fund the ZBA’s budget for 2008. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Stratham Publication
Ms. Smith presents a publication from the Town of Stratham that they use as a citizens guide to the ZBA process. She proposes to create something similar for Northwood’s ZBA. The board concurs. A final draft to be sent to members in their monthly packet for their review. Final discussion to be held at the November 26 meeting.

December Meeting
Due to Christmas holidays, the December meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 17, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.

Adjournment:
9:07 p.m. Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to adjourn. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page