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, 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.

ABSENT: Robert Bailey

MINUTES
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to approve the minutes of April 28, as amended as follows:
April 28, 2008
Page 1: Change: passes 2/1 to fails 1/2.
Page 2: Change: Hendirck to Hendrick
Page 5: Change: the to that
Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case#08-15: Charles and Tammie Beaulieu, 42 Fiore Rd. Map 116; Lot 31. Applicants are seeking an appeal from an administrative decision by the building inspector in relation to Article 3.02(B)(2); and a variance to Article 3.02(B)(2) to permit 120’ of road frontage on a private road where 150’ on an approved road is required.

Tammie Beaulieu is present along with Attorney Malcolm McNeill. Abutter Sean Dolliver is also present.

Mr. Farr states that the administrative appeal will be addressed first and then the request for a variance. Mr. Farr asks Mr. Copeland if RSA 674:41 applies. Ms. Smith replies that it does not due to the fact that this lot is on an approved planning board plat.

Atty. McNeill states that there are two forms of relief being requested. He requested to reverse the order and begin with the variance as the appeal would not be necessary. Further discussion is held regarding the process and which matter will be addressed first.

Mr. Copeland explains the denial for 3.02(B)(2). He states that 3.02 refers to minimum lot size and refers to Table 3.1, which states that minimum road frontage is 150’ and minimum lot size is 2 acres. The parcel meets the lot size requirement; however, not the frontage requirement. Atty. McNeill suggests that the board address the administrative appeal prior to the variance.
A discussion is held regarding the reasoning for the variance is for frontage. Atty. McNeill explains that the parcel of land is over 10 acres with an existing barn that was built over 5 years ago. He adds that there is a total of 170’ of frontage; 120’ on Fiore Rd. with 50’ on Lynn Grove Rd. Mr. Copeland states that he would still deny the application as these roads are not town approved roads or state highways.

Atty. McNeil states that there are a number of lots on Fiore Road that are all postage stamp lots. He states that the planning board approved a boundary line adjustment (BLA) February 22, 2007. This is a lot of record that existed before the change in the regulations between 2007 - 2008. He adds that in most communities a lot of record is protected and grandfathered against zoning changes. He states that the lot is what it is, a 10 acre lot that cannot be altered. Atty. McNeill states that the planning board would not have approved a BLA that was against the ordinances. He reads 3.02 in the 2007 zoning ordinances as well as the 2008 version. Atty. McNeill states that the lot was in existence in 2007 and in 2008 the ordinance changed to state “all lots” vs. “all new lots”. Atty. McNeill explains that this lot was a lot of record, an approved lot that predates the change in the law, with a 170’ of frontage. He notes that before the 2008 town meeting the lot was a legal lot. He adds that the owner is not able to do anything to alter the characteristics of the lot. Atty. McNeill states that should the law be applied strictly, the lot would not be able to be used for residential purposes at all despite the fact that the applicant had an approved lot in 2007. Atty. McNeill asks how this can be and explains that it is similar to having a non conforming building that would not be able to be used because of its nonconforming status.

Bruce Farr replied that the town is not saying that the lot ceases to exist or cannot be used. McNeill replies that if a lot is purchased and the buyer relies on the regulations and when the time comes to build on the lot there is an intervening regulation; the applicant is now unable to create frontage. Atty. McNeill states that in this case the lot is 10 acres and was approved in 2007 by the planning board. There is a total of 170’ of frontage. He notes that this is not an accepted public way; however, nothing can be changed.

Atty. McNeill replied that he respects the building inspector’s decision; however, when a town says that there is a process to be followed for a parcel that has been owned for some time with all appropriate municipal relief obtained, the law changes, and the town does not grandfather lots of record, he feels that the town should have grandfathered lots that were in existence.

Ms. Beaulieu states that many of the lots in the area are postage stamp lots. She explains that any of the lots that have been expanded have become more conforming that they have been involved with. She states that they are making the lots more conforming and were required by the planning board for a state subdivision approval, which has been granted, and have complied with a shared driveway that is already in existence, again required by the planning board.
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to uphold the administrative decision of the building inspector. Mr. Lavigne states the ordinance says 150’ of frontage on a town approved road and there is only 120’. He feels that the building inspector made an accurate decision. Ms. Holmes states that the building inspector made the right decision in leaving the matter up to the ZBA to grant people the chance to use their property. Mr. Pender feels that the planning board has made the rules and should have said something when the lot was subdivided. He feels that the building inspector made the right decision. Mr. Farr states that the town adopted the ordinances and the building inspector made the correct decision. He adds that it is not the role of the building inspector to approve development on private roads.

Abutter Sean Dolliver has no comments or concerns. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Farr explains the process of granting an area variance. Ms. Beaulieu explains that the BLA was done to combine 2 lots and add 13+/- acres in 2007. Atty. McNeill states that the parcel is 10.601 acres, which is larger than most lots in the area. The lot has 120’ of frontage on Fiore Rd. and 50’ of frontage on Lynn Grove Rd. He adds that the frontage has existed over an extended period of time and was known at the time when the applicant appeared before the planning board and provided adequate frontage at the time to permit the approval of the BLA. Atty. McNeill states that the lot is irregularly shaped; however, the lot contains a barn built in 2002. There is an existing gravel drive that is a shared driveway which provides access to the barn. He explains that the frontage on Fiore Road is not used for access to the barn as the planning board required the applicant to avoid this area due to existing wetlands. Therefore, the access into the site is the drive and is adequate. Atty. McNeill explains that the desire is to build one house on the existing lot of record; no new lot is being created.

Mr. Farr asks for abutters comments. There are no comments or concerns at this time from the abutter or the board members.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Atty. McNeill states that the lot is an approved lot with frontage, previously described. There are no safety issues regarding access in the area of Fiore Rd. The lot is larger than most contiguous lots. He states that whatever the purpose may have been regarding the ordinance change in terms of the public interest, this roadway adequately serves the property and by comparison the road is relatively a good road and provides access for emergency vehicles to the area. This would not be contrary to the public interest as it relates to this very large 2007 lot. The lot is not a postage stamped lot as many others are that surround this lot.

2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Atty. McNeill states that this lot is a classic case for an area variance. He states that the lot has been approved by the planning board. The applicant cannot provide the frontage required; it is impossible. The zoning restriction interferes with the land owner’s reasonable use of the property considering the unique setting of the property and its environment. The lot is an irregularly shaped lot and due to a recent zoning change, the lot cannot be used to build one house on, despite the fact that similar structures exist in the area. Atty. McNeill further explains that this is a unique hardship in this environment to not permit this use for this property of 10+ acres due to an absence of frontage. He adds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicants to pursue other than an area variance. The applicant has no way to expand the frontage; there is no control over the roadway, and no way to make the lot larger. Atty. McNeill states that given these special conditions, this is a reasonable request to allow the applicant to build one house.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Atty. McNeill states that the spirit of the ordinance is to provide reasonable access to a property. He states that the planning board considered this when the board approved the boundary line adjustment in 2007. Atty. McNeill adds that the roadway is a reasonable road to provide access for emergency vehicles. There is reasonable separation from other properties and the lot is much larger than other lots in the area.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Atty. McNeill explains over one year ago there was an approval for this lot with the size and shape. He adds that the lot is large and there have been other approvals for smaller lots in this area. Atty. McNeill states the approval of the variance is fair and just for a lot that is 10 ½ acres and used for only one house. This will not compromise the safety of the applicant or the town.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Atty. McNeill states that some of the existing homes in the area may not be able to see this house. The house is proposed to be built near the barn and this is the largest lot in neighborhood. The lot has desirable access and approval would increase neighboring values rather than diminish values.

In closing, Atty. McNeill states that they believe they have met the criteria for a variance and request the variance be granted.

Mr. Dolliver has no comments or concerns.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to grant the area based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met. Mr. Lavigne states that they have presented a good case. The road exists and is passable to emergency vehicles and is better than some town approved roads. He adds that as far as the frontage, there is no way to obtain it and this is the largest lot in the area. Ms. Lane agrees. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Internal Business
Reminders of upcoming meetings: May 27 and May 29, 7:00 p.m.

Correspondence
Menard, 224 Rochester Rd. Map 232; Lot 33. Ms. Smith states February 25, 2008, Ms. Menard was granted a variance to allow a new residential structure and well within the prime wetland 100’ setback with the condition that a state approved septic system suitable for a year round structure be obtained. Ms. Smith states that Ms. Menard has received a state approved septic. She requests permission of the ZBA to record another notice of decision (NOD), superseding the 2/25/08 NOD noting that the condition has been met, which would be at the board’s expense. Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to grant the request to record another decision noting that the conditions for the Menards has been met. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Copeland provides information to the board from a seminar referencing pervious materials.

Ms. Weaver provides a brief explanation of a recent conference she attended at the Local Government Center regarding the board of adjustment.

Adjournment
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