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, Board Administrator Linda Smith and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver.

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

MINUTES:
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to approve the minutes of February 25, and March 3, 2008, as written. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Nominations:
Bruce Farr makes a motion to nominate Nona Holmes and Tom Lavigne to continue as board members. Roy Pender seconds. Motion passes; 3/0/2. Ms. Holmes and Mr. Lavigne abstain. Notification to the selectmen to be done.

Case #08-03: Herbert and Lynne Paul, Jr., 4 Frost Rd. Map 118; Lot 15. Applicant is seeking an appeal to an administrative decision (building inspector) to RSA 674:41 for lack of frontage; and variances to Articles 3.01(B), 3.01(C), and 3.02(B) for a two story 4,400 sq. ft. 3 bedroom residence to replace existing 20’x26’ 1½ story 3 bedroom home. Lot has 0 ft. of road frontage where 150 ft. of frontage on an approved road is required. Lot is .72 Ac. where 2 Ac. are required. Continued from February 25.

Dave Allain and Lynne Paul are present. Ms. Paul states that Mr. Allain has permission to represent her. No abutters are present.

Mr. Allain explains that the property is located on Frost Road. The parcel is .7 acres on off of a private road, accessed by a driveway. He states that there is an existing 3 bedroom home on the parcel. The proposal is to replace the existing 840 sq. ft. 1½ story home with a 2 story. The footage would be 2,455 sq. ft. Bedrooms will remain the same at 3 bedrooms. All zoning requirements and setbacks are met. Mr. Allain states that the lot and home have been in existence for over 40 years. The home conforms now and there was a garage built a few years back and a variance was granted by the ZBA for the garage. Mr. Allain notes that the existing structure predates many requirements. Mr. Allain explains that currently the home is on a right of way and there is an easement across the abutters land.

Ms. Smith asks if the applicant is in agreement that relief is needed from RSA 674:41, due to the wording on their application. Mr. Allain states that the RSA is relief which provides an avenue for his clients. Ms. Smith states that it provides an avenue to seek the relief. Mr. Farr adds that 674 allows a person to come to the ZBA. Mr. Allain states that there is access existing for the Pauls to their property. It is a driveway or an easement through the neighbor’s property to get to the Pauls property. There is no frontage on a town road; it is a class VI road.

Mr. Farr reads RSA 674:41. Mr. Allain states that this is not on a class VI highway; it is a private road. He adds that the selectmen have not given a building permit for the lot. Mr. Farr reads section “e”. Mr. Allain states that Frost Rd. leads to the Paul’s property; however, there is no frontage so “e” does not apply. Mr. Allain states that there are no changes proposed in the amount of bedrooms. The change in the footage will be 2455 and this will be a year round home. Mr. Allain notes that the proposal is moving the new home away from the lake. He adds that the driveway will be in the same location as it has been for 45 years. Frost Road will continue to be the access to the home. Therefore; the map is not changing. Mr. Allain states that the master plan would not be affected. The existing home is a single family residence, year round, and will continue as such. The new building will be closer to codes, making it less likely for fires. Mr. Allain states that the road has been accessed by large equipment and is capable of supporting heavy trucks. There will be no hardship to future buyers or the town. There are no changes to the road. There have not been any problems in the past. Further discussion is held regarding the condition of the existing driveway. Mr. Allain states that the plowing is shared by property owners. The road is oiled, is gravel and allows two cars to pass. Ms. Paul explains that there are some rough areas throughout the road and she adds that the general maintenance of the road is done through the neighbors. Mr. Allain states that this is a right of way and is the only accesses the Pauls have to their lot. He notes that there are other residents that have to pass through other easements on other properties in the area. Mr. Copeland notes that there are properties past the Pauls which have been granted variances.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion to grant relief for road frontage requirements based on RSA 674:41. Roy Pender seconds. Mr. Lavigne states that the proposal is not creating anything new. The house and lot have been in existence for 40 years, have been accessible, and passable. He adds that the town does not recognize Frost Rd. He feels that this is making an improvement and he cannot see as to why it does not meet the criteria. Mr. Pender agrees and states that this is not out of line. He adds that the state statute is more stringent than the town’s ordinances; however, he feels that the same conditions apply as would be applied to a variance. He states that the proposal will not cause any negative changes to the master plan and this is not unreasonable. Ms. Holmes states that the access has been working for over 40 years. Mr. Bailey states that the board is not changing the method or the process. Mr. Farr feels that the statute is at a higher standard. He adds that this is not proposing to increase the traffic flow, and overall there is no real change. There is no conflict and no additional impact. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

General building footprint is discussed. Mr. Allain states that counting the second floor, the square footage will not exceed 4,400 sq. ft.

Mr. Lavigne asks if there are any setback issues. Mr. Allain replies no. He notes that there is an approval for a new septic system and it is currently in the process.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Allain states that the lot in question is occupied by a 3 bedroom home. The Pauls have owned the home since the mid 1960’s. The home is in need of repairs and rather than just renovating the existing building, the Pauls wish to reconstruct a new home to meet all current building and life safety codes. All setbacks will continue to be met and the new home will be a benefit to the public interest.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Allain states that the parcel is a lot of record and is only about 0.7 acres; the existing home and the proposed new home placement meet all other applicable zoning requirements. There is no other adjacent land to be purchased in order to conform to the 2 acre minimum lot size requirement. There is also no frontage on a town road, only an access driveway through land owned by an abutter. There is no land available to provide frontage or access on an approved road. He adds that these variances are necessary for the continued reasonable use of the property.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Allain states that the purpose of the zoning ordinance is to preserve and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community and to guide future growth and development of the town. He adds that it is designed to consider the suitability for the area for such uses as indicated by existing conditions and trends in population and modes of living requirements. The relief sought is consistent with the use of the property for many years and of surrounding usages. The current home is in need of replacement. A new septic system will be constructed and will provide for a much greater than required setback distance to the lake. The spirit of the ordinance is to enhance properties and not to be used as a device to limit use. The placement and use of the existing driveway access to the property will not change.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Allain states that even though the existing home is situated on a lot of record and all building setbacks can be met, access will remain the same for this lot and neighboring developed lots. Subsequent changes in zoning requirements and law relating to roads have made this lot non conforming with regard to size, frontage, and access. Granting the variances will provide for substantial justice by allowing them to replace the existing home with a new home meeting all building and life safety requirements. The variance requests are consistent with the reasonable use of the property with its past usage and with the usage of the surrounding properties.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Allain states that the construction of a new home meeting all life safety and building codes will add to the value of the neighborhood and will be consistent with the updating of other homes in the neighborhood. The relief sought is consistent with the uses in the area and will not diminish property values. He adds that the value of the proposed home will likely be equal to or greater in value to the neighboring properties on Frost Road.

Mr. Pender asks about the well and septic. Mr. Allain states that the well is located in the front portion of the property and the septic system will be in the back on the side with the driveway. Mr. Allain delineates the septic and well on the plans and notes that the septic system is a pump up system. Ms. Paul adds that there is a shed noted, which is on blocks.

Mr. Lavigne asks about addressing all variances at one time. The board agrees to address all three variances at once. Mr. Bailey makes a motion, second by Mr. Lavigne, to grant the area variances based on the fact that all criteria have been met. Mr. Bailey states that the proposal is consistent with other buildings in the area. Mr. Lavigne states that the proposal is not adding any additional density, people, or traffic, and will make bring the home current with
today’s codes. He adds that moving back from the lake is an added benefit along with the new septic system. These are all improvements for the area and the footprint is not unreasonable for the size of the lot. Motion passes unanimously 5/0 with the condition that the home is not to exceed 4,400 sq. ft.

A recess is called.

Case #08-06: Jon Hendrick, Corson Dr. Map 202; Lot 4. Applicant is seeking an appeal to to RSA 674:41 II for lack of frontage, to permit the construction of a single family residence. Continued from February 25.

Bob Bailey recuses himself. Jean Lane is now a voting member for this case.

Jon Hendrick is present along with his brother Jeff, and Fred Walker. Mr. Farr confirms that Mr. Hendrick is present regarding lack of frontage. Mr. Jeff Hendrick states that Jon is questioning whether he has a subdivision. He states that this was a buildable lot and a lot of record when it was purchased and he would meet all required specs.

Jon Hendrick explains that this is lot 4. He presents an approved plan from 1977, approved by the planning board. 10 lots are pictured on 10 acres. He explains that 5 lots have been developed. He adds that the overall plan will actually only have 9 lots on 210 acres. Also provided is an amended plan approved from 1984. Abutters are present and the plats are reviewed.

Mr. Hendrick states that he does not have an approved road from the planning board. He adds that he received a special exception from the ZBA for frontage. Mr. Farr states that the special exception is not relevant to RSA 674:41. Ms. Smith states that the boundary line adjustment approved by the planning board has a note added, “subject to 674:41”. Mr. Farr explains that the special exception that the board granted was for frontage from the town ordinance.

Jon Hendrick explains that the existing road is 18 ft. wide in certain places and he will improve the road in certain places to the town’s standards. He explains that there is a right of way through the neighboring lot. He states that he owns all of the private ways. The lot is one lot on 10 acres and is a lot of record that has existed since 1970. Mr. Hendrick states that Corson Drive is a private road that Northwood and Strafford school buses use as a turn around. He adds that this road has the best site distance along the entire road. Mr. Lavigne asks if there is a road to lot 202/4. Jon Hendrick replies no. Mr. Pender asks if there would be an easement for 202/4. Mr. Hendrick explains that access to lot 202/4 is via an easement from lot 208/3. He adds that lot 207/4 has access all the way to Corson Dr. He explains that the driveway delineated, per suggestion of Alden Dill, is now proposed at 700 ft. less. Abutter Leo Frawley expresses concern regarding a wetland and property lines. After review of the plan, there is no wetland crossing determined. Mr. Roy, Northwood Conservation Commission Chairman explains that the NCC has not seen any preliminary plans and notes that there are considerable wet areas to the west, northwest, and southwest and there is prime wetlands in the area. Fred Walker states that he did the mapping for the septic area and there is not any relevant wetlands affected by the septic system. Mr. Roy feels that anything may have an affect on drainage and this will ultimately necessitate a drainage way.

Jim Kerivan, abutter from Strafford, asks about the shortened proposed driveway and asks how far the driveway is from Bow Lake Rd. to the proposed house location. He states that he does not understand how it is less now.

Mr. Hendrick speaks to the RSA requirements. He states that there are 9 buildings proposed now on 210 acres, which is a bigger area than what was proposed in 1970. The lots are lots of record without frontage. He states that as far as the master plan, the lot was recognized in 1970 and is a lot of record. With life safety issues he states that he has met with Fire Captain Madison and the lots feed out to Corson Dr. and are sufficient width to allow for fire truck turn arounds and a culvert will be added. The driveway is 30 ft. from ditch to ditch and this proposal will not cause hardship to future borrowers. An association has been created and a maintenance plan will be necessary for the first 1100 ft. of Corson Dr. Mr. Hendrick states as far as the undue hardship of the town, the town liability waivers have been signed.

Letter from abutter Mr. Troy received and added to the file. Mr. Hendrick provides comments from an abutter, noting support of the project. Mr. Kerivan states that even with the liability waiver signed, the town is still liable. He adds that Corson Dr. has 5 abutters and maintenance is all voluntary on road repairs and now there are 5 new people coming on that are not voluntary. Mr. Hendrick states that abutters are in favor of association being created. Mr. Jeff Hendrick explains that the road area is gravel and sand and drains great. He states that there is a lot of pine and it is good draining soil so the road material would already be there. It would not be a problem to make the road wide enough for life safety and construction vehicles. Ms. Smith states that if the applicant could build the road to rural road standards as defined by the regulations, there would be a specific standard to which the town could hold the building permit until the road was created. She explains that the road must be designed by an engineer to meet the standards and then the town could determine if the road has met the standard. Ms. Smith states that the applicant is not subdividing and is asking for relief from being subject to any road standard. She further explains the maintenance agreement process and that it needs to be reviewed by town counsel for liability issues, be a part of the deed, and recorded at the registry of deeds. Ms. Smith states that the building inspector can only enforce the ZBA’s conditions; there is no jurisdiction other than what the ZBA sets as the qualifications of approval.

Mr. Frawley asks if there is a plan of the proposal or layout. He states that he may not agree to the plan provided as to property lines.

Abutter Wayne Troy asks about the right of way impact with a new road proposal. He asks if the proposal will retract the right of way to lot 4. Mr. Hendrick states that he will not be going that way.

Mr. Pender makes a motion to grant relief from RSA 674:41 with the condition that the easement be recorded prior to a building permit being issued for lot 202/4. Ms. Lane seconds. Mr. Pender states that there will be no impact to the master plan or cause hardship to future purchases. He adds that he does not feel that it will cause undue financial impact to the municipality. Mr. Lavigne states that he is not in favor as he feels that there needs to be some type of overwhelming circumstances before the ZBA should override a state statute when there is no existing road. This allows a building permit with no road. Mr. Lavigne notes that he would like to see a road. Mr. Farr does not support the motion and states that the ZBA is not the planning board. He states that the statute allows the ZBA to make reasonable exceptions to the frontage requirements adopted by the town. The town has adopted frontage requirements and he asks what a reasonable exception is. He feels that this request will distort the official map and the Master Plan, and adds that there is a process that needs to be followed. This will cause hardship to future purchasers. The road is not a paved road and the town may end up picking up the road for town services. He feels that this is not a reasonable exception.

Ms. Lane amends the motion to add a condition that an acceptable road meeting the Town of Northwood’s rural road standards be established prior to a building permit issued. Mr. Pender seconds the amendment.

Ms. Smith explains that the town’s engineering firm would review the road. Mr. Hendrick explains that he would like to improve up to lot 207/40 and then approximately another 700 ft. which will make the area 1100 ft. from Corson Drive. He states that once you reach that point, it is a shared driveway between two people. He feels that the request is larger than the width of Bow Lake Rd. Ms. Smith states that it is the same standard for all private roads being upgraded. She notes that there is also a standard tied to the Master Plan that only allows new road development to be 1,000 ft. from a single access point for safety purposes. Ms. Smith adds that by stating that this is a driveway, it is not a street giving access to which the lot has actual frontage and this is what needs to be met per RSA 674:41. Mr. Hendrick states that this is a unique situation and the lots have been referenced since 1977. He states that he can provide safe roads for access and has site distance. The proposal will now only have 9 houses instead of the previously approved plan of 10 and this is on 200 acres.

Mr. Troy refers to his letter regarding the lots. Jeff Hendrick states that these lots have been building lots since 1970 with the intention of building or selling. He states that the board is taking half the residences in town and telling them that the land that they have is now not buildable, which is reducing values of land all over town and forcing people to develop. He states that the town is taking the rights of these people and reducing the values of back land then subdivisions will be done.

Ms. Lane withdraws the amendment.
VOTE:
Jean Lane – in favor
Nona Holmes – in favor
Tom Lavigne – opposed
Roy Pender – in favor
Bruce Farr - opposed
3/2; motion passes.

Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Mr. Pender, to not begin any new cases after 9:45 p.m. and that any cases not addressed tonight, will be continued to 3/31/08. Motion passes; 5/0.

Case #08-07: Jon Hendrick, Corson Dr. Map 208; Lot 3. Applicant is seeking an appeal to an administrative decision (building inspector) to RSA 674:41 II for lack of frontage, to permit the construction of a single family residence. Continued from February 25.

Jon Hendrick is present along with his brother Jeff, and Fred Walker. Mr. Hendrick states that this lot is closer to Corson Dr. He will make an 18 ft. road with frontage on a right of way. There will be a hammer head at the end for fire apparatus.

Mr. Farr asks if the applicant will enter into public record all of the information stated regarding the lot 202/4. Jeff Hendrick states that this is a different lot however; many of the issues are the same. He states that the lot is the same type of lot with the same type of access. Ms. Lane makes a motion to grant relief from RSA 674:41 with the condition that the easement be recorded prior to a building permit being issued for lot 208/3. Mr. Pender seconds.

Mr. Troy, abutter, asks about the access to lot 3. He states that this access is over his property. He states that there is a technical distinction between the lots. He adds that there is a deeded right of way to lot 3 with language stating that there is a right to access the property by foot or by vehicle and a right of way for extension for utilities. He does not see any need for road construction on the land. Mr. Troy notes that there are wetland areas and he is concerned with spillage during construction. Ellen Troy refers to the ZBA work session with the ZBA’s attorney. She states that everything that the attorney said, the board is going against. She states that the attorney stated not to grant permits over a right of way. She asks why the board would hire an attorney and then not follow the direction given. Mr. Farr states that this was an opinion provided by their attorney.

Mr. Pender states that should the new driveway go in, the easements that Mr. Troy is concerned about may not be exercised. He adds that the road way, the rural road that exists, is close to the land and when the road is built to lot 208/3 it will meet the minimum standards set forth in 674:41. Mr. Lavigne asks if there is a road to lot 3. Mr. Hendrick replies yes and adds that it is an easement, a deeded right of way, and is at the same standards as Corson Dr.
Mr. Lavigne asks at what point it is a driveway. Mr. Hendrick states at lot 4. Mr. Farr states that he feels that the ZBA is acting much like the planning board. He states that the town does not provide for building on back lots and this is a back lot. He cautions the board and states that the Master Plan does not include developing of back lots. He states that he does not feel that the ZBA is authorized to make this decision. Nona Holmes states that the lots were originally intended to be a part of a subdivision and feels that some type of access should be provided to the lots.

VOTE:
Jean Lane – in favor
Nona Holmes – in favor
Tom Lavigne – opposed
Roy Pender – in favor
Bruce Farr - opposed
3/2; motion passes.

Case #08-08: Jon Hendrick, Corson Dr. Map 105; Lot 25. Applicant is seeking an appeal to an administrative decision (building inspector) to RSA 674:41 II for lack of frontage, to permit the construction of a single family residence. Applicant is also seeking a variance to Article 5.01 (E)(1), to allow two structures, a well and septic system, to be installed within the 100’ prime wetland setback. Continued from February 25.

Jon Hendrick is present along with his brother Jeff, and Fred Walker. Mr. Hendrick states that this lot has frontage on Bow Lake Rd. There is a road through the frontage to access 105/25; however, it cannot be used as it was adjacent to the wetlands. A lot line adjustment was done. He explains that the lot is at the end of Corson Dr. and he would like to improve everything in front of the lot. Mr. Hendrick states that a special exception was granted for the wetlands.

Abutter Mr. Frawley asks about the septic system. Mr. Walker explains that the septic will be a raised system. Mr. Frawley asks about the approval process. Ms. Smith states that town’s health officer reviews plans and the town can be more stringent. Steve Roy, NCC, states that the state will need to hold a public hearing as the septic system is in the 100’ prime wetland and nothing can go forward until the hearing has been held. Jeff Hendrick states that the septic system should not affect the drainage.

Mr. Hendrick states that this will not distort the official map as there was previous access on Bow Lake Rd. and was taken away by a wetlands issue. He adds that he has signed the town’s waiver. He will build a road up to 18’ wide standards and there is great access. Mr. Hendrick states that this lot includes three lots from the original 10 lot subdivision. Mr. Hendrick addresses that hardship. He states that there will be an association to address road issues and the agreement will be recorded.

Non Holmes states that this lot is less intrusive. Mr. Pender states that there are more issues involved with this lot. Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to continue this case to the next scheduled meeting. Jon Hendrick states that this lot has the best access and frontage. Mr. Pender states that there is a lot to be considered and he would like more time to review. Mr. Hendrick states that he has a special exception. Ms. Smith states the board is addressing this again as the applicant does not meet 5.01 E1. Mr. Hendrick states that he does not feel that he needs as this was satisfied by the special exception. Ms. Smith states that Mr. Hendrick would still need to seek relief relative to the prime wetland setback. Further discussion is held regarding the special exception and 100’ prime wetland setback. Ms. Smith states relief had been granted from road frontage. Mr. Roy reminds the board that they can seek comments from the NCC. He notes that the NCC has not seen a set of plans or held a site walk.

VOTE:
Jean Lane – opposed
Nona Holmes – in favor
Tom Lavigne – in favor
Roy Pender – in favor
Bruce Farr - in favor
4/1; motion passes.

Ms. Lane makes a motion, to hear the next case, 08-10, Brady. There is no second provided.

Adjournment:
10:15 p.m. Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Mr. Pender, to recess the meeting until 7 p.m. Monday, March 31. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page