The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

Chairman Farr calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Chairman Bruce Farr, 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, Tom Lavigne, Nona Holmes, and Jean Lane.

ABSENT: Vice-Chairman Roy Pender

A discussion is held regarding voting members. Mr. Farr requests that Ms. Holmes consider recusing herself from the discussions based on a perceived conflict of interest relative to a business transaction. Ms. Holmes requests to read documentation received tonight from the applicant, Jon Hendrick, noting that there is no conflict as she was unaware of any such agreement and her husband would not be undertaking the work required by the applicant. She adds that it is not an error for her to have sat on the board through the previous applications and therefore is declining to recuse herself.

Ms. Lane states that she feels that Ms. Holmes should remain as a member. Mr. Lavigne states that since Ms. Holmes was unaware and Mr. Holmes was not going to take the job anyway, he does not have any problems with Ms. Holmes remaining as a voting member.

Ms. Smith notes that the documentation provided was written by the applicant. She refers to the town’s current code of conduct. Mr. Farr reads the code of conduct and notes that there is a quorum should Ms. Holmes decide to recuse herself from the Hendrick cases. He adds that he personally feels it would be cleaner regarding any perceived conflict and requests that Ms. Holmes recuse herself from discussions, even though he has no questions regarding the retirement status of Mr. Holmes and there is no financial interest. Ms. Holmes requests a vote of the board. Ms. Lane motions to allow Ms. Holmes to remain as a voting member of the board. No second is provided. Mr. Farr makes a motion, for purposes of parliamentary procedures, to excuse Nona Holmes from the Hendrick cases due to perceived conflict of interest. Second by Tom Lavigne. Motion fails; 1/2. Bruce Farr is opposed.

Bob Bailey recuses himself from the Hendrick cases; 08-06, 08-07, and 08-08.

Ms. Smith asks if the documentation received from Jon Hendrick tonight, and read by Ms. Holmes, is now a public document. Mr. Farr replies that the documentation was provided tonight, prior to the meeting and is now part of the file.

Bruce Farr explains the process of rehearings and Mr. Lavigne reads RSA 677:2.

REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING by Northwood Board of Selectmen Case #08-06: Jon Hendrick, Corson Dr. Map 202; Lot 4. Applicant is seeking an appeal to RSA 674:41 II for lack of frontage, to permit the construction of a single family residence.

Mr. Farr states that this request for rehearing is from the board of selectmen (BOS) noting that the ZBA did not have necessary information as stated in the Master Plan and/or the ZBA made errors in judgment relative to RSA 674:41. Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to grant the request for a rehearing for Jon Hendrick, Case: 08-06. Mr. Lavigne states that the planning board (PB) has expressed concerns by sending correspondence to the selectmen requesting that the BOS intervene. He notes that the conservation commission (CC) has also expressed concerns relative to the ZBA’s decision. Mr. Lavigne adds that the board has also received a motion from the town’s attorney noting specifics that the board has erred in its decision. He states with these items noted, he feels that the board should look into the issues further.

Bruce Farr states that he has read the documents provided by Atty. Spector and adds that there is new information relative to the Master Plan that the board did not have. In addition, he notes that the CC also has noted information regarding the Master Plan that was not previously available. Mr. Farr states that documentation has also been received relative to the effect that the project may have on the future of town expenses and the owners of land in the Corson drive area. Mr. Farr states that the board has received information noting that the board may have made an error in the case and needs to review point by point.

Ms. Lane states that there is much concern with the road, Corson Drive. She adds that she agrees to hold the rehearing and is one of the main reasons to have the rehearing.

Ms. Holmes states that she has no problem with the rehearing as she is not sure if the board had all of the information that was necessary from various town entities. She states that she may not agree with the information; however, feels the board should rehear the case.
Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING by Northwood Board of Selectmen Case #08-07: Jon Hendrick, Corson Dr. Map 208; Lot 3. Applicant is seeking an appeal to RSA 674:41 II for lack of frontage, to permit the construction of a single family residence.
Mr. Farr states that there are many similar issues with this case. He states that again the board may have erred in judgments relative to not having all of the information to consider and should go back to review the decision. Mr. Farr makes a motion, second by Mr. Lavigne, to grant the request for a rehearing for Jon Hendrick, Case: 08-07. Mr. Lavigne adds that there are town departments that have expressed concern with the board’s decision. He agrees to review the information and rehear the case. Ms. Holmes states that there are some of the same issues for this case and it too should be reheard. Ms. Lane states that she feels that there are some issues that need to be looked at again. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING by Northwood Board of Selectmen Case #08-08: Jon Hendrick, Corson Dr. Map 105; Lot 25. Applicant is seeking an appeal to RSA 674:41 II for lack of frontage, to permit the construction of a single family residence.

Mr. Farr reminds the board that Jon Hendrick has submitted a request to the board to not rehear the cases.

Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Ms. Lane, to grant the request for a rehearing for Jon Hendrick, Case: 08-08. Mr. Farr reiterates that the issues are relative to the Master Plan, road construction, and the lack of testimony relative to the impacts. He states that he is in favor of rehearing this case. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING by Wayne & Ellen Troy: Jon Hendrick, Case #08-06, #08-07,#08-08, Corson Dr. Map 202, Lot 4; Map 208, Lot 3; Map 105, Lot 25. Ms. Smith notes that an additional request for a rehearing has come in from abutters Wayne and Ellen Troy, for the Hendrick cases relative to cases 08-06, 08-07, and 08-08. Mr. Farr asks for clarification from Attorney Laura Spector regarding how to grant another rehearing request for the same cases. Atty. Spector explains that once the board grants a rehearing the process begins from the beginning. She adds that she is not sure if it matters as to which grounds the hearing were based on; however, since the motion has been submitted, she encourages the board to review it. It is still one rehearing.

Board members review the information from the Troys. Mr. Farr requests that at this time, the board consider the three Hendrick cases as one item. He recommends that the board rehear the cases based on abutter’s request with due diligence. He adds that the abutters noted that the board did not review the information at last months meeting. Mr. Lavigne makes a motion to grant the request for rehearing 08-06, 08-07, 08-08 having correspondence from abutters expressing concerns concerning the board’s decision. Mr. Farr seconds. Mr. Farr notes that some of the issues raised are valid points and other points are the same and addressed within town counsel’s motion. Motion passes unanimous; 4/0.

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. Farr notes that the much of the documentation is very similar to the Hendrick cases relative to public safety, road construction, Master Plan, back lot development and open areas regarding lot density. Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Mr. Farr, to grant the request to rehear case 08-11, based on the fact that concerns have been received from the planning board, conservation commission, selectmen, and from an abutter. Motion passes unanimous; 4/0.

Mr. Farr requests clarification regarding abutter’s notifications for the cases should a case be continued. Atty. Spector explains that once an abutter has been notified, the board can continue a case to a certain time and date without needing to re-notify.

A discussion is held regarding scheduling times for the rehearings. The board and applicants agree to the following time line:
Hendrick cases 08-06 and 08-07 will be addressed May 27 at 7:00-10:00 p.m.
Hendrick case 08-08 and MacDonald case 08-11 will be heard May 29 at 7:00 p.m. to 10:00.

Mr. Farr calls for a recess. Session resumes at 8:00 p.m.

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.

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.

VOTING MEMBERS: Bruce Farr, Tom Lavigne, Nona Holmes, and Bob Bailey.
Jean Lane recuses as she was not an original voting member for these cases.

Mr. Farr refers to one request for a rehearing for cases 08-12 and 08-13 from Atty. Sherman. Mr. Farr reads the letter noting 10 reasons for the rehearing requests. Mr. Farr refers to the ZBA March 31 meeting minutes. Mr. Farr explains that the board does not grant rehearings because the decision is not liked and disagreed with. He states that in his opinion, he does not agree with Atty. Sherman in that the board was arbitrary, capricious, as well as conditions were met when the board said that there were conditions not met. Mr. Farr adds that these are not reasons to rehear a case. Mr. Farr adds that no additional information or evidence has been provided relative to the other noted items. Mr. Farr notes that all questions for the variance were addressed and were not misapplied.
Further discussion ensues regarding item 1 noting that a variance was not required. Mr. Farr states that if a variance was not required and asks why Mr. Anthony did not file for an appeal to an administrative decision noting that a variance was not necessary. Section 3.02 of the Northwood Development Ordinances is read by Mr. Lavigne relative to minimum lot size. Mr. Farr notes that the board approved a request to grant relief from RSA 674:41. The original Anthony applications are reviewed. Mr. Farr notes that Mr. Copeland provided a letter of denial based on 3.02, existing structure, (B).

Mr. Farr states that the board should not be granting a rehearing simply because it is requested. He adds that it is his opinion that the board should grant a rehearing if there is some confusion, as a courtesy. Mr. Lavigne asks if the board is supposed to act on a rehearing based on correspondence received. Ms. Smith replies that if the applicant felt that after being denied by the building inspector, he disagrees with his decision, that rather than filing for a variance the application would have appealed the decision under an administrative appeal.

Mr. Lavigne states that he would prefer to have more specific information. There is nothing noted with any fact; it is mostly accusations without any basis. He adds that the facts should be listed for the board to go by and have a basis to grant a rehearing. He states that he feels that there is not enough information provided. However, he adds that if the board missed something then the board should rehear the case. He asks if there is something noted within the 10 points that states that the board missed something. Tom Lavigne makes a motion to rehear cases 08-12 and 08-13. Bruce Farr seconds. Mr. Bailey states that there is nothing noted stating that the board has done anything wrong. He adds that he would like to have specifics. Mr. Farr states that the board has always been fair to applicants and he too would like to hear an explanation of the points noted by the attorney. Ms. Holmes states that in all fairness she would like to hear the specifics as well; however, she feels that they do not pertain. Mr. Farr notes that the motion lists both cases together as the request for the rehearing was submitted as one request for both cases. Motion passes unanimous; 4/0.

The rehearing for cases 08-12 and 08-13 are scheduled for the regular June monthly meeting, June 23.

MINUTES:
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to approve the minutes of March 24, and March 31, 2008, as amended as follows:
March 24, 2008
Page 5: Change: panning to planning

March 31, 2008
Page 2: Change: nay to any
Page 6: Change: there to their
Page 7: Change: Map 105; Lot 16 to Map 206; Lot 54.
Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

OTHER:
Mr. Farr requests meeting with the board’s attorney prior to the May meetings. Ms. Smith states that the she will schedule this.

Ms. Holmes asks about the Hendricks lots and asks if the house lots have been rescinded as such or are they still listed as developable house lots. Ms. Smith explains that when the lots were redesigned through a boundary line adjustment there was a note added to the plan that was part of a conditional approval of the lot that the lot is not a building lot until it receives 674:41 approval. She adds that she has spoken to counsel relative to this question about what determines a lot to be a buildable lot and the explanation provided is that no lot is a building lot until a building permit is issued. She explains that no person has a right to a building lot unless it meets the required standards (or relief is granted). A lot only becomes a building lot when a permit is issued for whatever use. The reason for this is that the zoning ordinances change and when the voters approve new regulations, all lots within the town are now subject to the approved regulations. There is no pre-approved right to build anything on a lot (at a future date). A building permit is what makes a lot a buildable lot. The requirements must meet the zoning ordinances or be granted relief with the ZBA. Discussion ensues regarding tax values. Ms. Smith states that for assessing purposes, assessments are based on market values not property rights.

Further discussion ensues regarding grandfathered lots. Ms. Smith states that
grandfathered lots can be defined as lawfully pre-existing, non-conforming parcels of land. This means that the lot/or use cannot be expanded on unless it meets the current standards.

Adjournment:
8:25 p.m. Mr. Farr makes a motion, second by Mr. Bailey, to adjourn. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page