The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

Vice-Chairman Pender calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Thomas Lavigne, Nona Holmes, Alternate Jean Lane, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer David Hickey, and Board Administrator Linda Smith. Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver (7:15).

ABSENT: Chairman Bruce Farr, Robert Bailey, and Alternate Ken Wilkins.

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

MINUTES:
Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to approve the minutes of November 26, 2007, as written. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Continued Case:
Case #07-25: Ryan Loftus and Renee Tremblay, 1577 First NH Turnpike. Map 108; Lot 96. Applicants are seeking variances to Article 3.01(C)(1), and 3.02(B) to construct an 8’x28’ addition on a non conforming lot with 0.34 Ac. where 2 Ac. are required, with 112’ of frontage where 150’ is required.

No abutters present for this case.

Mr. Loftus is present. The letter of denial is reviewed and Mr. Lavigne notes that the letter of denial is different than what was posted as there is a need for a special exception. Ms. Smith states that originally a letter of denial came though without the 1.04(B) listed. She was aware of the need for a special exception and spoke to Mr. Copeland who agreed and revised the denial letter. She explains that she is not sure as to when the revised letter of denial came in and the notice may have already been sent out. It is determined that the board can only address the variances and the special exception would need to be renoticed. Mr. Lavigne states that this should be paid for by the town. Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to renotice Case 07-25 for a special exception at the cost of the town, not the applicant. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

General discussion ensues regarding the proposal. Mr. Loftus explains that the proposal is for an addition 42.9’ from the water. Septic approval has been obtained for a 2 bedroom home. Mr. Loftus explains that a waiver for the well has been granted by the state. He adds that the closest corner of the septic tank would be 22.7’ and the closest corner of the leach field would be 37.3’. The well is up on the hill and the septic tank is lower on the property.

Property layout is described. Mr. Loftus states that the proposal is not blocking any views. Ms. Holmes states that the septic system is on a small area of the lot. Mr. Lavigne suggests that both variances be addressed at once. The board members agree.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Loftus
states that the addition would not impose on any right of way. It would not prohibit the use of any public properties.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Loftus states that they are looking to create space for another bedroom. They do not want to move to another area and there is no option to purchase additional land. All surrounding properties are small lots and the lake is on one side.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Loftus states that the addition and extended portion of 8’ is not overcrowding. In addition, this is the existing footprint for the second floor. They are expecting a new baby and no other people would be on the premises.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Loftus states that without the permit they would need to sell and find a home that would meet their needs.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Loftus states that the addition will not decrease the property values. He feels that the improvements will raise the value of the home as well as the surrounding properties. Mr. Loftus explains that there is a camp on one side and the other side has a year round home.

Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to grant the variances for Article 3.01(C)(1) for road frontage and 3.02(B) for lot size based on the fact that all 5 criteria been met. Mr. Lavigne states that this is within the context of blending within the neighborhood and upgrading the structure will be nicer. This will improve the safety of the house as it meets current codes. He adds that he feels that it is a reasonable use for the size of the lot and it is not an impact to the area. Ms. Lane asks how far the well is from the lake. Mr. Lotus replies that it is at least 100 ft. Ms. Holmes expresses concern with the quality of water due to salt along Rte. 4. An amendment is made to the motion by Mr. Lavigne, second by Ms. Holmes, to request the additional signature of Ms. Tremblay to the application; to be completed within 30 days. Motion and amendment pass unanimously; 4/0.
New Cases:
Case #07-26: Douglas MacDonald, McClarren Dr. Map 105; Lot 16. Applicant is seeking a special exception to Article 1.04(C)(3) to construct a Cape Cod residence on a 47 acre lot with no road frontage.

Mr. MacDonald is present along with Attorney Mark Puffer who is representing Mr. MacDonald. Abutters present are Wayne Troy and Dennis Huell.

Atty. Puffer explains that the lot was created back in the 1940’s. He refers to a deed noting a parcel of 47 acres and it was a separate lot of record in 1945. A discussion is held regarding the access on the private road, which comes out onto a woods road. Atty. Puffer states that there are three rights of way that benefit the parcel, off of Corson Dr.

An approved septic plan has been obtained. The plan is reviewed and explained as to where the house will be located. Mr. MacDonald states that the area to be built on is approximately 2,400 feet down the deeded right of way. He is proposing a single family residence. Further discussion is held regarding upgrading the road and the town’s requirements.

Mr. Troy asks about the road conditions and if it will remain as it exists. Mr. MacDonald explains that he will grade the road as required to obtain a driveway permit. Mr. Hickey states that there is a process to follow for the road, per RSA 674:41. He states that there will need to be an agreement and release and an application that needs to be sent to the planning board for input and then to the selectmen.

Atty. Puffer states that they are seeking a special exception as this is a non conforming lot prior to 12/31/05. He feels that they have been able to meet all of the requirements for the special exception.

Mr. Huelle is present regarding the size of the house and now knowing that the proposal is for a single family house, he welcomes Mr. MacDonald to the neighborhood.

Mr. Kerivan, neighbor, expresses concern regarding the driveway for the lot and asks if it is part of the next cases and if it will be presented on the Hendrick plans. Mr. Pender replies that each case will be addressed separately. Mr. Kerivan states that the special exception is for frontage on a roadway, a state regulation for frontage. He states that there is no frontage on a public road and this is out of the realm for the special exception. He does not feel that this should be considered for review. Mr. Pender explains that the issue would need to be addressed to the planning board.

Ms. Smith suggests that if the special exception is granted, a condition be added regarding the need to be in compliance with RSA 674:41. She also adds that a designated prime wetland has been noted on the plans. She explains that there is a wetlands delineation done in 1987 and the town has adopted prime since then. She requests that another condition be added that all setbacks to prime wetlands be met. Mr. MacDonald feels that the setbacks are 150 ft. Atty. Puffer states that all the ZBA needs to address tonight is to the special exception. Both Atty. Puffer and Mr. MacDonald agree with the suggested conditions.

Steve Roy, chairman of the conservation commission, comments that in the late 90’s the town adopted prime wetlands. He expresses concern with the fact that an 1,800 ft. long road, north to north east of the prime wetlands, the grading will modify the surface water and drainage around the sight and area around the wetlands. This proposal contradicts the intent of town trying to preserve the wetlands.

Mr. Kerivan also requests that the board consider the public safety criteria for the proposal.

Special Exception
Mr. Lavigne reads the criteria for a special exception, Section 1.04(C)(3) as follows:
Dimensionally nonconforming lots which were created or existed prior to December 31, 2005 may be developed without compliance with the requirements established by section 3.01 (C)(1) and 3.02 of this ordinance for lot size and frontage if granted a Special Exception by the ZBA. The ZBA shall grant the Special Exception only if the following conditions are met:
(a) septic systems shall be located 75 feet or greater from open drainage or surface water, 50 feet or greater from hydric B soils, 75 feet or greater from existing wells; and septic systems must meet all other setback requirements set by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, unless a waiver has been granted by the appropriate state regulatory agency; and,

(b) the well protection radius shall be 75’ or greater and may not extend beyond the building setback on an adjoining lot.
Mr. MacDonald replies yes to all the requirements.
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to grant a special exception for 1.04(C)(3) based on the fact that all criteria have been met. Mr. Lavigne adds that the applicant will need to address requirements per RSA 674:41. An amendment is made by Mr. Lavigne, seconded by Ms. Holmes, to add a condition that 100’ setbacks be met as required for prime wetlands. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Case #07-27: Richard and Charlene Brodeur, 69 Fiore Rd. Map 116; Lot 57. Applicants are seeking a special exception to Article 1.04(C)(3) to replace existing 26’ x 32’ residence with a 55’ x 85’ year round residence on a 1.024 acre lot, with 49.56’ of road frontage on a private road.

Mr. Brodeur is present and provides additional packets of information relative to the case. He explains that the property was purchased in 1982 as a 3 season cottage. Throughout the years additional land has been purchased and a voluntary merger has been obtained.

Building plans are provided and delineate a 1 story home with 3 bedrooms, 2½
baths, walkout basement and attached 2 stall garage. An approved septic design has been obtained from the state. The proposed structure will not be any closer to the lake than the existing structure, 39’ from the deck to the water and 49’ from the building to the water. There is a minimum of 22’ - 23’ for setbacks on the sides so all setback requirements have been met. Mr. Brodeur explains that he called NHDES regarding the Shoreland Protection Act, and DES agrees that if the septic system is installed and approved, the building permit issued, the camp demolished, and the foundation hole dug, he would not need to pour any cement until after April 1, which is the deadline for NHDES for the CSPA requirements. He adds that the public notice measurement should be 53’ x 86’.

No abutters are present. Ms. Smith acknowledges the new information provided and asked if there is anything new that is different than what was originally provided. She explains that the purpose for abutter’s notices is to notify them and allow them to time to review the proposal and information. Mr. Hickey states that the information provided does not show any changes and is actually more detailed. Pictures are reviewed as well as the packet info.

Mr. Brodeur further explains that the lot was created in 2004. He states that originally there were 5 lots and they have since merged them all.

(b) the well protection radius shall be 75’ or greater and may not extend beyond the building setback on an adjoining lot.
Mr. Brodeur replies that he is 75 feet or greater from open drainage or surface water and 50 feet or greater from hydric B soils. There is a note on the plan regarding the 50 ft. hydric B soils being met. Mr. Brodeur states that he is 75’ from existing wells. As far as the well radius dimensions are not provided on the plan. Mr. Pender states that there must be 75’ from an abutter’s property. Discussion ensues regarding the well radius and setback. Mr. Pender states that in reviewing the plan, this is more than 20’ into the abutter’s property.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to deny the special exception due to fact that the requirements have not been met for Section “B”. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Case #07-28: Jon Hendrick, Corson Dr. Map 105; Lot 25. Applicant is seeking a special exception to Article 1.04(C)(3) to build a 30’ x 58’8” residence on a 4.54 acre lot, with no road frontage.

Mr. Hendrick is present along with Attorney Mark Puffer who is representing Mr. Hendrick. Mr. Pender states that there are three cases for Mr. Hendrick and each case will be addressed separately; three different votes.

Atty. Puffer presents a plan of the lot and area. Abutters review the plan and property layouts. Atty. Puffer proceeds to explains that Mr. Hendrick is seeking a special exception. He states that they agree to meet with the selectmen as required per RSA 674:41 if a condition were added to the approval. Atty. Puffer states that the lot is 4.54 acres. A septic approval has been granted from NHDES and a septic system has been designed.

Special Exception
Criteria for a special exception, Section 1.04(C)(3) is as follows:
Dimensionally nonconforming lots which were created or existed prior to December 31, 2005 may be developed without compliance with the requirements established by section 3.01 (C)(1) and 3.02 of this ordinance for lot size and frontage if granted a Special Exception by the ZBA. The ZBA shall grant the Special Exception only if the following conditions are met:
(a) septic systems shall be located 75 feet or greater from open drainage or surface water, 50 feet or greater from hydric B soils, 75 feet or greater from existing wells; and septic systems must meet all other setback requirements set by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, unless a waiver has been granted by the appropriate state regulatory agency; and,

(b) the well protection radius shall be 75’ or greater and may not extend beyond the building setback on an adjoining lot.
Atty. Puffer provides a copy of the septic system plan. The plan is reviewed and is for a 3 bedroom home. Mr. Hendrick states that the septic system is more than 100 ft. from any open drainage or surface waters.

Mr. Pender notes that the plan shows original lot lines pre 1987. He adds that the well radius is within poorly drained wetlands in a few areas on the plan. Mr. Pender explains that there is a 100’ minimum building setback to prime wetlands that must be met and this has not been met. Mr. Pender states that there is no indication on the plan that there are any hydric b soils. Mr. Hendrick states that Fred Walker did the plans.

Mr. Lavigne asks if there are any wells. Mr. Hendrick explains that in 2004 a well was dug on the property. The radius is more than 75 ft. Mr. Lavigne states that the well radius has remained on the property.

Ms. Smith states that the well is within the prime wetland buffer. She explains that no construction can be done within the buffer. Discussion ensues regarding building and construction within the 100 ft. buffer of the prime wetland. Ms. Smith adds that this is not in compliance and notes that the septic system may be within the wetlands buffer as well.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to deny the application for a special exception based on the fact that the wetland and setback requirements for special exception have not been met. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Case #07-29: Jon Hendrick, Corson Dr. Map 208; Lot 3. Applicant is seeking a special exception to Article 1.04(C)(3) to build a 30’ x 58’8” residence on a 10.4 acre lot, with no road frontage.

Mr. Hendrick is present along with Attorney Mark Puffer who is representing Mr. Hendrick. Atty. Puffer provides an explanation of the lot and area.

Atty. Puffer proceeds to explains that Mr. Hendrick is seeking a special exception. He provides an approved plan from NHDES for the septic system.

(b) the well protection radius shall be 75’ or greater and may not extend beyond the building setback on an adjoining lot.
Mr. Hendrick states that the area is high and dry and the septic system is at least 75 ft. from open drainage or surface water. He adds that the septic system is 50’ from hydric b soils and 75’ from existing wells. Atty. Puffer states that the well radius is on the entire lot.

Abutters present are the Kerivans and Conroys from Strafford, and Wayne Troy. Abutters review the proposal. A discussion is held regarding the access to the lot. Mr. Kerivan asks about the access. Mr. Hendrick explains that there is a 50 ft. easement off of Corson Dr. which is an existing trail. This would be used to access the back parcel. Mr. Kerivan states that this is locked land and there is no frontage. He states that the access proposed is a snow mobile trail and the board should look at the town’s safety requirements and what their responsibilities are as a board. Mr. Pender explains that this issue will be addressed by the selectmen and planning board due to RSA 674:41 and suggests that the abutters provide comment to them. Mr. Pender adds that the board does not want to ignore abutter’s comments and concerns; however the requirements for a special exception states that if the requirements are met, the board must grant the special exception. Atty. Puffer states that all special exception criteria have been met.

Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to grant the special exception based on the fact that all criteria have been met. Ms. Holmes amends the motion, second by Mr. Lavigne, to add the following condition: the applicant must meet the requirements of RSA 674:41. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Case #07-30: Jon Hendrick, Corson Dr. Map 202; Lot 4. Applicant is seeking a special exception to Article 1.04(C)(3) to build a 30’ x 58’8” residence on a 10.9 acre lot, with no road frontage.

Mr. Hendrick is present along with Attorney Mark Puffer. Atty. Puffer provides an explanation of the lot and area.

Mr. Hendrick states that the access passes through the lot in the front. There is a deeded right of way on lot 3.

After review, there are no issues regarding the wetlands.

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

Mr. Hendrick states that the septic system is at least 75 ft. from open drainage or surface water. He adds that the septic system is 50’ from hydric b soils and 75’ from existing wells. Mr. Hendrick adds that there are no wells on the property. Atty. Puffer states that the well radius is on the entire lot. An approved plan from NHDES for the septic system is provided.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to grant the special exception based on the fact that all criteria have been met with the condition that the applicant must meet the requirements of RSA 674:41. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

INTERNAL BUSINESS:
A discussion is held regarding the revised “Guide to the ZBA Process” and application. Ms. Smith states that after reviewing the suggestions made last month regarding separating the applications for the different options for the ZBA she feels it may not work well. Ms. Smith explains that this could cause some confusion regarding distribution of the correct application. She adds that she would also like to have a requirement added for a state approved septic plan as a part of the application. Jean Lane makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to approve the guide and new application, as presented. Motion passes unanimously; 4.0.

Mr. Hickey states that this will be his last meeting and explains that the building department structure is changing, per the November 27 selectmen’s meeting. Mr. Lavigne states he feels that Mr. Hickey has been the best building inspector that the Town of Northwood has ever had. The board agrees and adds that it has been a pleasure to work with him.

Adjournment:
9:40 p.m. Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Ms. Holmes, to adjourn. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page