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, Assistant Building Inspector David Copeland, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver.

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

Continued Cases:
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.

John Hendrick is present along with Jeff Hendrick, and Fred Walker. Mr. Hendrick explains that he has addressed the abutters concerns regarding the well and septic. Mr. Walker explains that the location of the septic system and the well have been relocated outside of the 100’ setback of the prime wetland. He adds that all town and state requirements will be met. Plans are reviewed. Mr. Lavigne asks if Mr. Hendrick will still require a variance for Article 5.01 (E)(1). Mr. Hendrick requests to withdraw the variance for 5.01 (E)(1). Ms. Lane motions to accept the applicants request to withdraw the request for a variance, Article 5.01(E)(1) for prime wetland setbacks. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Hendrick explains that the lot is at the end of Corson Dr. Ms. Smith states that this is a private road, not a Class V road. Mr. Farr asks if the road meets the town’s standards. Ms. Smith replies that in her opinion under RSA 674:41, this lot would fall under RSA 674:41(I)(b)(3). Mr. Corson states that lot 25 only touches the end of Corson Dr. He adds that there is 26.86’ of frontage on Bow Lake Rd. Ms. Smith refers to the statute and notes that it specifically states the street giving access. She explains that the she believes frontage does not exist for the purpose of 674:41.

Mr. Farr reads RSA 674:41.
1. …would not tend to distort the official map or increase the difficulty of carrying out the Master Plan. Mr. Hendrick explains that Corson Dr. appears on the official map and this lot abuts the road. He adds that as far as the town’s Master Plan the proposal is for a single family cape, which will be built as a 1773 reproduction so it will fit in with the neighborhood. He adds that the lot is a lot of record since 1969.
2. …the permit will not cause hardship to future purchasers. Mr. Hendrick explains that the fire department visited the lot last year, turned around in the driveway and did not have any problems with the lot.
3. The erection of a building will not cause any undue financial impact on the town. Mr. Hendrick explains that there is a road to lot 25 already. He adds that he has signed the town’s liability.

Mr. Lavigne asks how the Master Plan interprets building on roads such as Corson Dr. Mr. Farr reads portions of the town’s Master Plan noting safety, sunlight, prevent overcrowding, proper uses of natural resources, enhancing the quality of life, protection within the community, etc. Mr. Hendrick replies that he will be building a home from the 1700’s, which would not be out of place in this area. He adds that this relief will allow him the opportunity to live within his work environment and manage the forest.

Jean Lane makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to grant relief from RSA 674:41. Ms. Lane states that he has been through the process and has spoke to the neighbors. He is trying to comply to the town’s rules. Ms. Holmes states that she was on the Master Plan committee. She states that she does not see how the proposal would be against the goals of the Master Plan. Mr. Lavigne comments that the state has placed a great burden on the board. He feels that there is no harm in the proposal and it is keeping with the context of the state with a dirt road, a farm house. He understands the astronomical costs to continue Corson Drive and upgrade that portion leading to the property. He feels that it is not fair to the applicant; however, the state says that the road should be approved by the town and the ZBA has no authority to do that. Mr. Lavigne states that the only thing the ZBA has the authority to do is grant relief and he does not feel that he can grant relief. Mr. Farr states that he is extremely cautious in granting relief. Corson Dr. is on the plat and is a working area. He states that the state has delegated this board to address these issues. He adds that Mr. Hendrick has a made his case and points. Mr. Pender asks why the law is in affect now. Mr. Farr stats that this RSA has been in affect for a while and it is now a burden for the board. Mr. Farr cautions the board that there is no agreement to maintain the road. VOTE: 4/1. Mr. Lavigne is opposed.

New Cases:
Case #08-10: Paul Brady, 14 Association Dr. Map 108; Lot 59. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.04(B); 3.01(C)(1); 3.02 (B); 3.01(B)(2), and a special exception under Sec. 1.04(C)(7). The lot has .23 Ac. were 2 Ac. are required; and 0 feet of road frontage (private road) where 150 feet on an approved road is required.

Amy Spencer is present representing the applicant with a letter of authorization from Mr. Brady. Letter from Mr. Brady is read, which also authorizes David Copeland to represent Mr. Brady. Discussion ensues regarding Mr. Copeland representing the applicant as he is the town’s building inspector. Mr. Copeland further explains the history of the proposal regarding the original denial letter and the requests for variances, and the fact that there was some confusion on what needed to be applied for. This has since been cleared up. Mr. Lavigne feels that Mr. Copeland is acting as a town employee at this meeting and should not represent the applicant. Amy Spencer will represent Mr. Brady.

No abutters are present.

Ms. Smith states that the special exception portion had been posted due to the proposed development ordinance changes, which have been approved and made the special exception requirements change. Ms. Smith states that the variance will be needed for road frontage since the proposed ordinance was adopted. Ms. Spencer requests to withdraw the special exception, Section 1.04(C)(7). Ms. Lane motions to accept the applicants request to withdraw the request for a special exception, Section 1.04(C)(7). Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Lavigne confirms that the applicant is requesting variances for the following: setbacks, frontage, minimum lot size, and private road. Further discussion is held regarding RSA 674:41. Mr. Copeland explains that 674:41 is not necessary as this is for an accessory structure and therefore would not apply. Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to address all four variance requests at once. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Plans are reviewed. Ms. Spencer explains that the proposal is to add a deck that will be alongside the house, parallel to the house. It will be 7 ft. high, off the ground. She explains that there is an enclosed porch that is now part of the house, which was done by previous owners. She states that it is not on a foundation. Ms. Spencer states that the deck will be 7’9” from the property line, on an undersized lot 10 ft into setback and will be closer to the lake, 43’. Mr. Farr reads an abutter’s letter supporting the project. Further discussion is held regarding the setbacks required. Mr. Copeland states that 20 ft. setbacks are required. Mr. Lavigne states that the proposal is for an open deck with a 12’ 3” encroachment into the setback.

Ms. Lane asks about the septic system. Ms. Spencer explains that it is a pump up system to the leach field. Mr. Copeland states that there is a permit for a new system, which is now being installed. Mr. Copeland adds that the deck will be made of composite deck materials.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Ms. Spencer states that it will be a minimal impact to any abutters. The impact will be at the ground level where the one post of the deck will be built. In addition, this is a year round home that is livable in its current state; however, not preferable to live in, in the current state. The improvements proposed (deck and septic) are environmentally sound and will improve the value of the house and the surrounding properties. She adds that the proposal continues with the current line of house. She notes that the line of the house and property line are not parallel.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Ms. Spencer states that the restrictions of the zoning regulations limit the usefulness of the lot due to the irregular lot design, which go back to the lot and house not being parallel. The deck is keeping in with the symmetrical design of the home and will be in line of the house. The deck will also allow for an egress from the main bedroom. There is no specific impact to the surroundings. She adds that there is currently no way no exit the home from the upper floor.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Ms. Spencer explains that this is staying in the current line of the house. One single post will be within the setback at the ground level. The deck will be approximately 7’ high and only the single post will be at the ground level.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Ms. Spencer states that due to the state setback laws for water protection, it is necessary to have the permit in place by April 1. The deck is a reasonable request and will improve the property. They are working to be within the zoning regulations.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Ms. Spencer states that the proposal will be aesthetically pleasing and increase the value of their home as well as the neighbors.

Roy Pender asks what the width of the deck is and Ms. Spencer replies 8 ft. Ms. Lane makes a motion, second by Mr. Pender, to grant the variances based on the fact that all criteria have been met. She states that this is a small lot but feels that all of the conditions have been met. Ms. Lane makes an amendment that the deck will remain open. Mr. Pender seconds the amendment. Mr. Pender states that this is not unreasonable. He feels that this will enhance the values of the house and the neighborhood. He adds that the setback is not excessive due to the angle of the house and the neighbor is in favor of the encroachment. Mr. Lavigne asks how high the deck is and Ms. Spencer replies 7 ft. Mr. Lavigne notes that the proposed deck adds a safety factor with the egress from the master bedroom. He adds that the width of the deck at 8 ft. is minimal. The motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #08-11: Douglas MacDonald, Tax Map 105; Lot 16. Applicant is seeking an appeal, from RSA 674:41 II, to allow a building permit for a 33’x45’ two story cape residence and garage, on a lot with no road frontage, access to the property is via an easement.

Mr. MacDonald is here along with abutter Jon Hendrick and Jeff Hendrick. Ms. Smith notes that Mr. Gardiner reviewed the area for prime wetlands and based on the information that was presented to the office there is not a concern.

A map of the area is reviewed and the plan from the planning board #12797, 1984. Mr. McDonald states that access to his lot 105/16 is via an easement through lot 207/4, property of Jon Hendrick, onto Corson Dr. then to Bow Lake Road. He states that the lot is 47 acres. Mr. MacDonald states that once he accesses his property through a driveway he will create, he will then build a single family home.

Mr. Farr reads the deed noting an area of passage, a right of way, which is 50’. Mr. Lavigne asks how far it is from where the present Corson Dr. ends to the MacDonald lot line. Mr. MacDonald replies that it is 1,500 ft.

Mr. Farr reads the criteria for RSA 674:41.
1. …would not tend to distort the official map or increase the difficulty of carrying out the Master Plan. Mr. MacDonald explains that this was a lot record prior to 1970. No map, boundaries, or borders are being changed at this time. He intends to put one house on 50 acres. Mr. Farr asks if the property was land locked in 1950. Mr. MacDonald stated that in the original deed there was a right of way given through McClarren Dr. Mr. Hendrick has given access through Corson Dr., which is easier. The road will be maintained by an existing association.
2. …the permit will not cause hardship to future purchasers. Mr. MacDonald explains that there will not be any overcrowding issues in the area. The lot is 50 acres and the proposal should support the Master Plan. He adds that there will be a three point turn around at the end of the driveway and he feels this will not distort the Master Plan.
3. The erection of a building will not cause any undue financial impact on the town. Mr. MacDonald explains that there would not be any future hardship as the road will be safe for large trucks to travel and access. He plans to maintain the driveway and the house will be handicap accessible. Mr. MacDonald states that he has signed the town’s liability waiver and will work with Mr. Hendrick to maintain the roads to be suitable for residents. He does not feel that there will be a burden to the town. He hopes to obtain the same rights as were already approved for Jon Hendrick.

Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to grant relief from 674:41 for Map 105; Lot 16. Ms. Holmes states that many people want to live in the woods and it should be their choice. Mr. Farr disagrees and adds that the ZBA is not the planning board. He states that the town has adopted frontage requirements and the state has adopted a set of standards. It is the ZBA’s job is to make sure that the regulations are applied in a reasonable manner, not to modify the regulations. He feels that the ZBA has no jurisdiction for this matter. He states that this creates a back lot development so it does distort the official map. He adds that the Master Plan talks about organized development in order to maintain the rural character of the town. He adds that there is an unregulated road going back to the woods, which will be a hardship to someone someday. In closing, Mr. Farr states that at some point someone will want services in that area as historically this has occurred in town. Ms. Lane expresses concern with the condition of the road. Mr. MacDonald replies that there is an easement. Mr. Farr states that there is nothing provided that the road will be held to any type of standards. Motion passes; 3/2. Mr. Lavigne and Mr. Farr are opposed.

Case#08-12: Stephen V. Anthony, applicant, Tax Map 206 Lot 054, 197 Long Pond Road. Property owners are Paul & Victoria Lesnyk. Applicant seeks an appeal to RSA 674:41 II; variances to 3.01(B); 3.01(C) and 3.02(B) for a 767 sf. ft addition to the existing structure and a 22’x28’ garage with storage above. The lot has 60’ of frontage on a private road, where 150 feet on an approved road is required; the lot has .39 Ac where 2 Ac. is required.

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

Mr. Anthony and Mr. Lesnyk are present. Mr. Anthony explains that the lot has 60 ft. of frontage on Long Pond Road. Discussion is held regarding Long Pond being an approved subdivision. Ms. Smith states that she is not sure if the subdivision was approved prior to the planning board being granted authority to approve subdivisions. Mr. Farr states that there may be no need to apply for 674:41. Mr. Anthony states that they attended the March 3 ZBA meeting and agree with the information obtained from the town’s attorney. Mr. Bailey notes that the deeds reference maintenance of the road which is to be done by an association.

Mr. Farr reads the criteria for RSA 674:41.
1. …would not tend to distort the official map or increase the difficulty of carrying out the Master Plan. Mr. Anthony explains that these are existing lots and part of a subdivision.
2. …the permit will not cause hardship to future purchasers. Mr. Anthony states that they will not be changing anything on the road. This is an existing lot with entrances and exits already existing.
3. The erection of a building will not cause any undue financial impact on the town. Mr. Anthony explains that there is an existing home on the road and other homes in the area. This is an existing lot. He adds that there is an existing association. Mr. Lesnyk states that this will increase the surrounding values and be aesthetically pleasing.

Affected parties present are Mr. and Mrs. Schreiber and do not have any comments regarding RSA 674:41.

Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to grant relief from 674:41 for Map 206; Lot 54. Mr. Farr states that there is an existing subdivision on record, the road exists, and there is an existing association. He states that there is no additional traffic flow or hazards. He feels that there is no change in impact to the town. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Schreiber asks if there will be a shared leach field between lots 53 and 54. Mr. Anthony replies that is correct.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Mr. Pender, to address all of the variance requests at one time. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Anthony explains the proposal is to build an addition onto an existing camp that now is 21’ x 31’. The new size is proposed to be 24’ x 31’. A 12’ x 18’ addition is proposed to be added onto the existing camp. Also a two car garage is proposed with a storage area on the second floor. The existing camp is 1-story, 890 sq. ft., 1 bedroom and 1 bath. The new structure will be 2-story, 1940 sq. ft. 2 bedrooms with 2 baths. Mr. Anthony states that they are doubling the size of the house in the addition portion; however, there will not be a second floor on the existing footprint. Further discussion is held regarding the sizes proposed and the deck. Mr. Anthony states that there is a deck now and the proposal is to continue the deck and wrap it around. He notes that there are no setback issues.

Mr. Lavigne asks about the adjoining lot ownership. Mr. Lesnyk notes that one lot is being sold to his daughter and the owners of record are four parties with two deceased. He adds that there are differences in ownership. Ms. Smith states that all signatures of all owners have not been provided. Mr. Lesnyk notes that he and his wife are both listed as owners on both parcels. After discussion, the board agrees to proceed with the applications.

A discussion is held regarding the leach field. Mr. Anthony states that the proposed leach field is designed for both lots. State approval has been obtained.

Mr. Lavigne asks about the living space. Mr. Lesnyk states that there is a 1-story camp existing, 20’ x 30’ at 600 sq. ft. Mr. Anthony states that when completed there will be 1940 sq. ft. minus the garage. There will be an unfinished mechanical room upstairs in the garage. The garage will have a
gable roof and will be 18’ from the ground to the roof. Mr. Lavigne states that the elevation of Long Pond Rd. goes down. Mr. Bailey asks if there will be a shared driveway with lots 54 and 53. Mr. Anthony replies yes.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Anthony states that this is an existing lot. There are other homes in the area. The new home will add value to the community. He states that there is a safety issue as it is now on blocks. There will be many enhancements such as the driveway being re-done.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Anthony states that this is an approved lot from the 1960’s and they would like to improve it.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Anthony states that this is in an existing subdivision. There are existing homes and they are not asking for anything that has not already been done.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Anthony states that there are other homes in the area. This is an approved subdivision from the 60’s. Mr. Lesnyk states that all setbacks have been met.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Lesnyk states that the new home will increase the values of the area. The home will be a complete home and beautify the lot.

Mr. Farr asks for comments from any affected parties. Mr. Schreiber states that the proposal creates development, which is not supported by the Master Plan. This is a style of a compressed development by placing a home into an area 60’ wide that could be followed by another home on the same plot. The approval will create the possibility of further development.

Mr. Lavigne states that if the lots were owned by the same person, the lots could be combined to make a bigger lot, thus making the lots more conforming. This would make the impact less. Ms. Smith notes that there could be heirs of the deceased owners to the property, who may have rights to be heard.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to deny the variances, based on the fact that conditions 2, 3, and 4 have not been met. Mr. Lavigne explains that owners have a right to upgrade, fix, and modernize their property. He feels that an addition of this proportion on a lot this size appears to be “jamming the lot”. He feels that this is an extravagant proposal. He feels that the property should be able to be improved; however, the proposal is tripling in size and is not a reasonable use of the lot. Mr. Pender agrees and feels that this proposal is too much for the lot. Mr. Lavigne adds that he is concerned with the dimensions and proportions. Mr. Farr states that 1,200 sq. ft. is a minimal sized house for today; this is a significant change and not a reasonable use. He adds that there are other options available.

A discussion is held regarding living space. Mr. Anthony states that the total living space proposed is 796 sq. ft. Mr. Anthony states that the total living space will be 1367 sq. ft.: an addition with 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, deck, and a 2 story, 2 car garage. Mr. Farr states that he still feels the same way as does Mr. Pender. Mr. Lavigne adds that the proposal is still extravagant for the lot size and layout. Motion passes; 3/2. Ms. Lane and Ms. Holmes are opposed.
Case#08-13: Stephen V. Anthony, applicant, Tax Map 206 Lot 053, 195 Long Pond Road. Property owners are Paul & Victoria Lesnyk. Applicant seeks an appeal to RSA 674:41 II; variances to 3.01(B); 3.01(C) and 3.02(B) to build a two story, 2160 sf. residence, a 20’x28’ garage with storage above, and a 12’x24’ deck. Lot has 60 feet of frontage on a private road where 150 on an approved road is required; the lot has .37 Ac. where 2 Ac. is required.

Mr. Anthony and Mr. Lesnyk are present. Mr. Farr asks if the applicants feel that RSA 674:41 does apply. Mr. Anthony replies no. Ms. Smith states that prior to the meeting with counsel on March 3, there was concern that RSA 674:41 may apply. Mr. Copeland states that he feels RSA 674:41 applies. Mr. Anthony states that they are seeking relief to RSA 674:41.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to grant relief for 674:41 on this lot based on the prior testimony for the previous lot. Mr. Lavigne comments that that the applicant has met all of the qualifications for relief for RSA 674:41. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Mr. Farr, to address all of the variance requests at one time. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Anthony states that they are proposing a new home. There is an existing shed on the lot. The leach field will be on lot 54 and shared with lot 53. This is better to the environment and an easement will be given to each lot for maintenance. Mr. Anthony states that the well radius has been met. He explains that the proposed home is a 2 bedroom salt box, 2 bath, 2-story home, with a deck on the front and a garage. Mr. Anthony states that the total living space is proposed to be 1,600 sq. ft. Mr. Anthony notes that there is no basement proposed. Mr. Pender states that the living space is 1,927. Mr. Copeland states that the sq. ft. is 1,584.

Mr. Lavigne asks about the rooms in the garage. Mr. Anthony explains that the proposal is for a mechanical room for the fire suppression system, water tank, HVAC system, and the other room is for storage.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Anthony states that they are proposing to build a new home, which will add value to the neighbor’s properties. This will take care of the area and all setbacks will be met for the shoreland protection act.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Anthony states that all setbacks to the property lines will be met. The footprint of the house is still less than 20% of the green space. Mr. Lesnyk adds that this will avoid any hardships to the land and will avoid runoff.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr.
Anthony states that the setbacks are meeting the town’s requirements. He adds that the footprint is not that big in relation to the size of the lot. This will add value to the neighbor’s property and he notes that there is an association existing for all of the maintenance issue of the road.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr.
Anthony states that the building will be beatifying the land.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Anthony states that the home being built will add value to the surrounding homes and the land will be maintained better than it has been in the last few years.

Mr. Schreiber refers to conditions 1, 3, and 4 and states that all are similar in that they all deal with the contention that they deal with an 81.5% variance requested in term of the lot size. Mr. Schreiber states that the Master Plan does not support this type of development. He feels that the Master Plan allows for development; however, discourages over development and the purpose is to maintain the rural character. He adds that this is why there are these limits on lot size and frontage. Mr. Schreiber states that this particular development will change the rural character of the existing lot. The area is a compacted residential development. With a full size house and garage, they feel that there will be an appearance diminution to the small lot. Mr. Schreiber reads a letter from a realtor noting that there will be a reduction and devaluation and the line of sight will be changed with the proposed development.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to deny based on the fact that criteria 2, 3, and 4 have not been met. Mr. Lavigne states that he is not denying the applicant’s right to build on the lot. He feels that something will be built on the lot; however, it should be something more proportionally reasonable to the size of the lot. Mr. Lavigne feels that the plan is proportionally excessive to meet criteria 2, 3, and 4. Mr. Pender states that he agrees with Mr. Lavigne and adds that he feels that the proposal is too large for the lot. Mr. Farr states that a two bedroom, one bath home on a lot originally intended to be a camp lot would be in line with the character of the neighborhood. He feels that the proposal is larger than what is appropriate for the variances requested.

VOTE:
Nona Holmes – opposed
Bob Bailey – in favor and adds that the previous application had an existing building. This application is different and this is starting a new proposal. He feels that the same proposal can not be done on this lot.
Roy Pender – in favor
Tom Lavigne – in favor
Bruce Farr – in favor.
Motion passes; 4/1.

Case#08-14: Ryan Lamey, applicant, Tax Map 107, Lot 2. Property owner is Douglas Heald. Applicant seeks variance to 3.02 (B) to build a 1800 sf residence. Lot has .3 Ac. where 2 Ac. is required.

Mr. Lamey provides a copy of the purchase and sales agreement for the file showing ownership of the property. In addition, he states that he is a corporate owner of Shady Point, LLC and provides proof of ownership of LLC ownership. The abutters list is reviewed for completeness.

Mr. Lamey explains that the proposal is to build a proportionally reasonable sized house on the lot. The lot is a pre-existing camp lot with a 20’x15’ sona tube foundation. There is a 20’ setback from the lake. Pictures are provided showing the pre-existing foundation from the previous house. The house was lifted and moved off of the property. He adds that the proposal is to replace that home with a new structure, of approximately 1,800 sq. ft. of living space and a concrete, walkout basement. The lot is a slightly sloping, rolling lot. He adds that he would like to add solar panels, make the home environmentally friendly and possibly include a geothermal well. Mr. Lamey explains that this lot is the first lot that you see when you enter Northwood and would he would like it to be very welcoming.

A layout is provided showing the house being placed in the center of the lot. Mr. Lamey states that there is not much room for movement. All current setbacks are met. Mr. Lamey states that a three sided home with the walk out basement is the right thing to do for this property. He adds that the neighboring property is similar. Mr. Lamey explains that the home is proposed to be 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. Mr. Copeland states that the variance requested is for a new 1800 sq. ft. one story home with a full 1,800 sq. ft. walkout basement. He adds that this would be 3,600 sq. ft. residence Mr. Lamey states that his request is for 1,800 sq. ft. livable. Mr. Farr notes that the building permit application states 28’x54’ x 2. Mr. Copeland states that the request is for 2500 sq. ft. Mr. Lamey replies that the basement will not be livable space. He adds that 44’ x 28’ is the living space, which is 1,780 sq. ft. Mr. Copeland adds that the floor plan notes 1,232 sq. ft. Mr. Lamey requests 1,800 sq. ft. and feels that it is a reasonable request. He notes that the minimum housing size in town is 1,200 sq. ft. Mr. Farr states that the request is for a home 1,800 sq. ft., one story with a walk out basement. Mr. Lamey agrees.

A discussion is held regarding the certified site plan. Mr. Lamey states that he has been instructed by the board to have a licensed surveyor survey the property. He adds that he was the septic designer for the lot.

Ms. Holmes asks about the driveway. Mr. Lamey replies that there is a pre-existing off shoulder driveway, off Rte 4. He adds that it is not on the NHDOT right of way. Further discussion is held regarding the septic. Mr. Lamey explains that you can drive over the septic if necessary, as the system is designed with 18” of coverage; however, he prefers not to drive over.

Additional discussion is held regarding the deed of the property. Mr. Lamey notes that the property goes to the state right of way, which is 33’ and recorded as such. He adds that the surveyor has verified all of the information from the deeds. Mr. Farr reads a memo received from Brown Engineering that no engineering services were performed and also no boundary survey was done either. Mr. Farr notes that no lot lines have been determined either.

Mr. Lavigne asks for notification on the plan for the well and septic. Mr. Lamey replies that there are proper distances between the well and septic and adds that there are no variances required by NHDES. He explains that the lot is very well laid out; he does not believe there are any issues on the lot. He notes that there was a previous house on the lot.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Lamey states that the new home will meet all codes and life saving requirements. All setbacks will be met without any variances.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Lamey states that the lot is small; however all setbacks have been met without variances. He explains that he has designed a proportionally, reasonable, well designed new house where once an existing house was. There will be an upgraded septic and well without any variances or waivers.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Lamey states that the existing use of the property is one that meets current similarly used properties in the same area and is keeping in with the overall landscaping. He adds that he does not feel that this is going out of boundaries; is well fitted for the community, and the spirit of the area.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Lamey states that all setbacks are met without any variance and there is more than ample road frontage for easy access for services.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Lamey states that the new construction will add value to the neighborhood and be equal in design and style to the area. It will be a benefit to the environment and to the community. He feels that this is the best use of the land.

Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to grant the variance for an 1,800 sq. ft. home based on the fact that all five criteria have been met. Mr. Lavigne amends the motion to state that the home proposal includes only one story of living space, with an unfinished basement. Mr. Pender seconds the amendment.

Mr. Lavigne feels that this is a good plan. The well and septic are not an extravagant use of the property. The property is unique with the area, shape, and topography. He adds that every case before the board is different. 1,800 sq. ft. is not extravagant for this lot. The proposal of a 2 bedroom, one-story residence is a reasonable use of the land. Mr. Pender agrees with Mr. Lavigne. Mr. Bailey mentions that the lot is smaller than the lots on Long Pond. Mr. Copeland states that he disagrees with Mr. Lavigne in that limiting the square footage is fine; however, making the basement as no living space creates the upper level to be larger. Mr. Farr expresses concern about the size; however, the applicant has done his job to fit the proposal onto the lot and fit into the area. Mr. Farr states that this is making reasonable use of the lot.

VOTE:
Nona Holmes – in favor
Bob Bailey – opposed
Roy Pender – in favor
Tom Lavigne – in favor
Bruce Farr – in favor.
Motion passes; 4/1.

Internal Business
Mr. Farr requests that the board members re-read RSA 674:41. He cautions the board and suggests the board members may want to request additional information regarding the statute. Mr. Copeland states that he has a copy the town’s guidelines for RSA 674:41 created by the selectmen. Mr. Farr requests that the guidelines be mailed out to the board members. Ms. Smith states that the guidelines are actually the selectmen’s adopted policy as to how the BOS will respond to a 674:41 request should one be submitted to them.

Adjournment:
10:15 p.m. Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Mr. Lavigne, to adjourn. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver

Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page