The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

PRESENT: Chairman Bruce Farr, Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Thomas Lavigne, Nona Holmes, Joseph Knox, Alternate Jean Lane Assistant, Board Administrator Linda Smith, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver.

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

ABSENT: Robert Bailey

Case #08-06: Jon Hendrick, 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.

Case #08-07: Jon Hendrick, 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 explains that the above cases were continued to June 16, 2008, 7:00 p.m. Courtesy letters will be sent out to abutters noting the continuation. Motion is made by Roy Pender, second by Tom Lavigne, to continue cases 08-06 and 08-07 to June 16, 7:00 p.m. and to send courtesy letters to abutters. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case #08-11R: 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.

Attorney Gregory Wirth is present representing Doug MacDonald. Atty. Wirth explains that Mr. MacDonald’s case is very similar to the cases of Jon Hendrick.

Atty. Wirth explains that the parcel is 50 acres; Map 105; Lot 16. Atty. Wirth states that the configuration of the lot has been the same for 60 years with the exception of two boundary line adjustments that were done in 1979. The access to the lot is from Bow Lake Rd. It is designated as a wood lot. The lot is accessed across Corson Dr. via an existing woods road, which has been there for 23 years. He refers to an approved planning board (PB) plan from 1984 that shows the access existed.

Atty. Wirth explains that as previously presented the specifications for the woods road is 14 ft. wide including the ability to withstand a logging truck weighing 55,000 lbs. It has culverts on either side of the road.

Atty. Wirth states that Mr. MacDonald has requested a building permit to build a single family residence on a 50 acre parcel. The access proposed is across Corson Drive and the existing woods road. He does not want to do anything to the access as it already exists, is safe, and convenient. He adds that there is no problem accessing the lot and for purposes to restrict development, costs, and to avoid problems with the environment, the proposal is to do nothing to the road. Atty. Wirth states that the only impact is the single family residence on 50 acres. Mr. MacDonald has noted that he is willing to acknowledge no further subdivision of the parcel.

Atty. Wirth provides a copy of the fire and police letters previously provided for Mr. Hendrick’s cases. He refers to the letter from the police chief first and states that the letter indicates that the road has always been in good condition and is passable, and there has never been any problems with turning around. He then quotes the letter regarding accessing with emergency vehicles if necessary. In terms of the fire department, the letter states that the access road should be built to a standard to allow a Class A pumper weighing 55,000 lbs. with an area at the end to turn around a truck at approximately 30’ long. Atty. Wirth notes another letter provided at the Hendrick meeting last week from a logging company provided specifications for the road to allow logging trucks weighing in excess of 55,000 lbs. He notes that the police chief has indicated that there would be no problem with the turn around and Mr. MacDonald would propose a turn around, if required by the fire department, to allow a pumper to be able to turn around. He states that there would be no impact.

Atty. Wirth provides a timeline and states that Mr. MacDonald began the process back in 2007 when he applied for a special exception to Section 1.04 (C)(3) of the Northwood Development Ordinances, seeking to allow a residence. He explains that this is not a subdivision and there is no intention to propose a subdivision. The special exception was for 150’ of road frontage and a minimum lot size of 2 acres, which the board granted December 17, 2007. Atty. Wirth further explains that Mr. MacDonald was then sent to the planning board, in error, who declined jurisdiction per RSA 674:41 and then reapplied to the ZBA seeking relief under RSA 674:41.

Atty. Wirth provides an explanation of RSA 674:41 (II), which authorizes the ZBA to grant an applicant an appeal for a parcel that does not have road frontage. He notes that the board feels that there are 6 criteria and requested that all must be met. He states that Mr. MacDonald feels that there are only 4 criteria that need to be satisfied. Atty. Wirth refers to the minutes of March 3 and quotes Atty. Jed Callen where he seems to agree that there are only 4 criteria. Ms. Smith states that the minutes are a paraphrased document of the meetings and are not actual quotes of Atty. Callen. Atty. Wirth replies that he is quoting from the March 3 minutes.

Atty. Laura Spector is present representing the Town of Northwood Board of Selectmen (BOS). She states that her interpretation of the law is that there are 6 criteria which must be met. She explains that the “or” should be read as a “nor”.
Tom Lavigne states that the previous case was held to a standard of 6 and the board should follow the same procedure. Other board members agree. Ms. Holmes notes that the “or” is a substitute for “and”, and there is no choice.
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, that there are 6 conditions. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Atty. Wirth further explains that Mr. MacDonald submitted an application March 31, 2008. He states that one issue raised at the meeting was related to the prime wetland, which was reviewed and determined to not be a concern. Also, addressed was access, as well as provisions of RSA 674:41. He states that the relief was granted, and then the motions for the rehearing were filed by several parties, which were granted.

Criteria:
Atty. Wirth reads RSA 674:41 and proceeds to address the criteria as follows:
a. the enforcement of RSA 674:41(I) would entail practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; He explains that this is not necessarily only practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to just Mr. MacDonald; it is addressed to anyone. The proposal is to build a single family residence on 50 acres, to be serviced by an existing road. He adds that there will be no more minimal impact to the environment, the Master Plan, on development, or the applicant’s wallet. He explains that the hardship or difficulty arises when the board says that you must seek alternatives. He asks what these alternatives are and states that the road can be improved to minimum state standards of 18’ with shoulders, which now impacts the environment and invites additional development, costs the applicant, and does not seem to be a common sense alternative. Atty. Wirth states that if the road is improved the issue now must be addressed under section 1 of the statute. He asks why there is a section II then and adds that Mr. MacDonald would like to leave things the way they are.
Atty. Wirth states that practical difficulty is not addressed anywhere else in the statutes. He references NH Practice by Peter Laughlin who notes that practical difficulty is addressed in neighboring states by analysis with the perspective of an area variance. He proceeds and asks if the area variance is needed to enable the proposed use given special conditions. He replies yes, and states that the parcel is 50 acres serviced by an existing road with no road frontage. He states that the ZBA has granted a special exception for the lack of road frontage. This is needed to enable the use of a residence.

Atty. Wirth continues and states that the second portion of the analysis is if there are any other reasonable methods to overcome the hurdle. He replies yes, many, however, they are not reasonably feasible. He explains that the road could be improved to specs and that would be costly, impact the environment, and others. That is not in the best interest of the Master Plan. He does not want that to occur as do the neighbors and various committees in the town. Therefore, Atty. Wirth states that they are entitled to an area variance under the analysis, which is the practical difficulty criteria according to Mr. Laughlin. Atty. Wirth also refers to case law and states that a permitted use is deemed reasonable with this analysis, is a permitted use, and is deemed permissible.

Atty. Wirth states that as far as the road, there is no need to upgrade it. The police and fire have noted that there are no issues and the only reason to upgrade the road is if the ZBA requires or more development is proposed. He states that this is not what they want to do.

Therefore, Atty. Wirth states that with both arguments presented, there is practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship to the town, residents, and the conservation commission, which is what they are trying to avoid.

b. the circumstances of the case do not require the building or structure to be related to existing or proposed streets. Atty. Wirth refers to Atty. Callen’s presentation on March 3 who indicated a commercial vs. residential analysis. He explains statute section IIa regarding lots that do not need vehicular access. He notes that the board is reading something into the statute that makes section II meaningless, and the board is reading the statute contrary to the way it was proposed by Atty. Callen. He claims that the legislature provided these sections for a reason and should the board read into section II relating to items requiring no vehicle access, that is not what the legislature intended nor would it be allowed by the Supreme Court.

c. the construction of the structure will not tend to distort the official map; Atty. Wirth states that the town does not have an official map.

d. the construction of the structure would not increase the difficulty of carrying out the Master Plan; Atty. Wirth explains that this proposal is the best proposal in line with the Master Plan. Anything short of the proposal would be nothing more than telling the applicant that he cannot use the property, which is a taking and is not what the board is saying. He adds that the Master Plan addresses no construction of a new road and no upgrade to an existing road. They are not proposing to do either. He mentions cluster development and explains that the proposal is one residence on 50 acres. It is not a cluster, just one house. This preserves the open space short of not using the property, which Mr. MacDonald is entitled to do. Atty. Wirth states that this proposal is the most in line with the town’s Master Plan.

e. the construction of the structure will not cause the hardship to future purchasers; Atty. Wirth states that there is no hardship upon future purchasers. This is an existing access servicing a 50 acre lot for one single family residence. He explains that one reason why Mr. MacDonald wants to build is to preserve the open space and will pay to keep it this way, quiet. He states that towns do not want roads anymore and there is nothing wrong with that. Mr. MacDonald knows how long the access is and will sign the waiver, which will be recorded. He refers to NH Practice again and states that the requirement to hardship on future purchasers is addressed by recording the agreement and release at the registry of deeds office. There is no undue hardship on future purchasers other than what is unreasonable read into the statute.

f. the construction will not cause financial impacts to the municipality. Atty. Wirth states that in order for the board to find any financial impact on the town, the board would need to disregard what the fire and police department have noted regarding the condition of the road and access for emergency vehicles. The road is 14’ wide and the road has always been in good condition and is passable. Atty. Wirth explains that there are no facts presented that granting the relief requested will cost the town anything. Mr. MacDonald does not want it to cost the town and Atty. Wirth states that the town will not be asked to accept the road. In addition, he refers to the March 3 minutes where Atty. Callen noted that the town would not be held liable. Atty. Wirth states that there is no evidence of cost to the town because there is none.

Atty. Wirth mentions Peter Laughlin’s book again and explains that in the book there are equitable arguments presented that exist in support of an individual who has paid taxes on a lot for many years and simply wants to build a single family residence. This was a response to an analysis of RSA 674:41, commercial vs. residential analysis, a subdivision vs. a single family residence. Atty. Wirth states that you just can’t take the property and in this situation there are no other impacts.

Atty. Wirth states that should the board not grant the relief for Mr. MacDonald then there would be no application that the board would grant under section II. He refers to a previous case of Herbert and Lynne Paul, which the board unanimously approved that is similar to Mr. MacDonald’s request. This is the same analysis and with both there is no other proposal to make.

In closing, Atty. Wirth states that the application passes muster under at least 4 criteria and all 6 even though not necessary. In addition, he states that under the statute Mr. MacDonald is entitled to the relief.

Atty. Wirth submits a copy of an excerpt of the Hard Road to Travel that was provided previously by Atty. Tanguay. This refers to case law for denying permission to building on a lot based on something other than road adequacy because it wants land to remain “wild”. The denial would then likely constitute a taking. He states that the board needs to refer to the town’s provisions of road frontage under section 3.01 of the development ordinances, look at the access and safety. The access is there and is reasonable. The road is passable and in good condition and from a safety point of view vehicles can get to the property. He requests the board grant the relief requested by Mr. MacDonald.

Abutter Wayne Troy states that he has similar comments and concerns for this case as to the Hendrick case. He explains that at least 90% of the lot is actually in the Big Woods conservation area and the Master Plan holds the town to a higher standard to preserve and protect the town’s conservation areas. Therefore, this is not just any 50 acre parcel.

Mr. Troy states that there is a difference of opinion as the matter being addressed is an access way or driveway with a length of 2,000’ from Bow Lake Rd. He explains that living on Corson Dr. prior to the beginning of the woods road, winter plowing and occasional spring/summer road maintenance is costly and may be a financial burden to future owners.

He continues and refers to the first level of hardship. He states that the hardship not to be able to erect a single family residence is an opinion and another is that the lots have been in ownership with other owners who have not applied for permits. There have been uses that were recreational, enjoying the wildlife, and preserving green spaces. He explains that there are distinctions between passive uses and non passive uses, which has been mentioned. Mr. Troy states that it is his opinion that there is not a hardship and a use can be made although it is not a use for a single family residence.

Linda Smith refers to the letter provided by Police Chief D’Alessandro. She states that it does not note this specific lot. She adds that the police chief may be an abutter to this parcel.

Atty. Laura Spector is present representing the board of selectmen who are in opposition to the request for relief.

Atty. Spector provides a plan of the area and explains that the lot has no frontage on any road and is burdened by wetlands. She provides another plan showing that the lot is 85-90% within the Big Woods Conservation District.

Atty. Spector refers to testimony heard tonight that the driveway is approximately 2,000 ft. from the nearest Class V road, Bow Lake Road, when considering Corson Dr. She notes that the town’s subdivision regulations do not directly apply; however, they require that no road shall be more than 1,000 ft. from a Class V road. She adds that the purpose is something that the board needs to considered, which is that homes can be reached by emergency personnel. There will be times throughout the year where access may be difficult. Although a limit of municipal responsibility and liability has been offered to be signed and recorded, first responders will try to get to the house. This puts themselves and the expensive equipment in danger. She refers to case law regarding the Town of New Durham and explains that the limit of liability is specific to the property owners only and may not protect the town from third parties.

Atty. Spector refers to 674:41(II). She explains that the RSA allows the ZBA to authorize the issuances of building permits for lots that do not meet paragraph (I); however, it was not intended for lots with no frontage to be included. Atty. Spector explains that in 1995 an amendment was made to make it clear that all lots need to have some type of frontage in order to be buildable. She adds that even if the RSA allowed the board to authorize these building permits to be issued on landlocked lots, all 6 criteria must be met, and the applicant is not able to meet the criteria.

Criteria
Atty. Spector reads RSA 674:41 and proceeds to address the criteria as follows:
a. the enforcement of RSA 674:41(I) would entail practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardship; She explains that unnecessary hardship must be to the applicant. She states that no evidence has been presented relative to unnecessary hardship. What has been presented is that bringing the woods road up to the town’s rural road standards, which would involve widening by 2 more feet and 2 ft. shoulders would be costly; however, no amount has been provided. She notes that there are 4 applications in front of the board that will use this woods road. Therefore, the costs will be divided by 4. She states that the board has not stated that the road must be improved to these standards; however, is asking why the road cannot be brought up to standards. This has not been shown.

Atty. Spector refers to the area variance criteria to address practical difficulty, the first criteria is that the variance would be necessary to enable the proposed use. She states that this criteria might be met; however, she asks whether or not there are reasonably feasible methods that are available and in this case there is no evidence that there are no reasonable feasible alternatives. No evidence has been presented as to what the costs would be to bring the road up to the town’s standards. For this reason, the very first criteria cannot be met.

b. the circumstances of the case do not require the building or structure to be related to existing or proposed streets; Atty. Spector states that the language in the statute is that this either must be applied literally or ignored it. If applied literally, building on landlocked lots where regular vehicle access is not required would be for a hunting lodge, barn, etc.

Atty. Spector states paragraph (II) is not redundant. It allows town meeting to vote to exempt any lot from the requirements of the statute and allows the owner to bypass the ZBA and just build.

c. the construction of the structure will not tend to distort the official map. Atty. Spector states that Northwood does not have an official map and does not apply.

d. the construction of the structure would not increase the difficulty of carrying out the Master Plan. Atty. Spector states that the lot is within the Big Woods Conservation Area. The 2004 Master Plan states that land be preserved through the protection of ordinances. One ordinance, for consideration, is the cul-de-sac regulation. She continues to explain that the Master Plan encourages clustering of development. She states that there is only one house on this lot; however, there are 4 applications to be considered proposing 4 houses over many acres with nothing being clustered. This is wide, spread out development, with many roads being built, improved, or accessed to get to the homes.

Atty. Spector also explains a goal of the Master Plan is to protect and preserve natural resources. She states that the board needs to make sure that this development complies with the statute and in this case it does not; this is not a taking. She explains that the requirements of the statute must be met; longevity of the lot does not matter. In addition, the applicant can use the property if the requirements are met or if the road is constructed to be in compliance with paragraph (I).

Atty. Spector states that there is not a right to use your property in violation of state statutes and local ordinances. If the requirements cannot be met, then the applicant must prove that they meet the requirements to get a waiver from the requirements and that cannot be done.

e. the construction of the structure will not cause the hardship to future purchasers. Atty. Spector states that the construction of the home will cause hardship to new owners. The access is 2,000 ft. from a town maintained road. 1,500 ft. will be a private right of way either via an existing woods road or driveway off the woods road, with the remainder being Corson Dr. No discussion was presented tonight, for a homeowner’s association for Corson Dr. and the maintenance. Atty. Spector states that there is currently no mechanism to require the current residents to enter into that association so anyone building on this lot may be responsible to maintain their 1,000 ft. and also a share of Corson Dr., which is a hardship to future purchasers.

f. the construction will not cause financial impacts to the municipality. Atty. Spector refers to the issue with first responders; cost of lives and cost to equipment.

In addition, she refers to the letters submitted in that they do not apply to Mr. MacDonald. These letters were written on behalf of Mr. Hendrick. The letter from the fire department states that if a private road is to be built then it must be built to meet standards. The letter from the police chief notes the road belonging to Jon Hendrick. She states that she is unsure if this means the woods road or Corson Dr. Moreover, if it is the woods road, there is also a driveway proposed off that too.

In addition, she explains that as more people seek to develop lots beyond Corson Dr. it is likely that those people will seek to have Corson Dr. laid out as a Class V road or have it accepted as a town road and this will result in costs to the town.

Atty. Spector refers to case law regarding granting variances and the cumulative effect of impact. She requests that the board consider the cumulative effect of the four lots when considering the relief under RSA 674:41.

Steve Roy, conservation commission chair, refers to the NCC letter submitted to the selectmen. He states that one issue addressed is the potential impact with developments. The allowance of access to the lot in the manner and location proposed would have an impact in the area more so than what has been described as a lesser impact.

Mr. Roy states that practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship were discussed. He states that the intent of the CC is that there will be a hardship to the wetlands in the area with development of the roadway. There is also a potential of hardship to the residents living in the area that rely on the wetland to function and absorb water flow and function as a floodway.

Mr. Roy refers to the Master Plan as it was addressed by Atty. Wirth. He explains that there are four recommendations noted in the Master Plan that the town should consider implementing and only two were addressed; not to allow the construction of new roads and no newly existing segments of Class VI roads to be upgraded to Class V. Mr. Roy states that the other two items are to maintain and mandate that any private development must be clustered outside these areas and prohibition of new roads for extensions of private roads should not be allowed.
Mr. Roy refers to section 5.01(e)(1) of the development ordinances relative to setbacks and buffers. Mr. Roy notes that there are two different buffer requirement, 20’ for wetlands and 100’ from prime wetlands. He explains that in areas of the conservation overlay district where there is an overlap, the 100’ buffer is required and is more prohibited.

In closing, Mr. Roy states that the Master Plan’s message and the town’s regulations is that further prohibition or restriction and preservation is needed within these areas of town. Any further activity should be subject to further restrictions, not released through the granting of a waiver. He adds that the Master Plan does not support the granting of this appeal.

Nikki Roy planning board chair is present and has been authorized by the planning board to speak to the application. Ms. Roy explains the planning board’s intent regarding the length of the proposed road. She states that a 1,000 ft. cul-de-sac is a concern of the board based on the nature, safety, and security of the residences and visitors in the area. Ms. Roy states that the planning board has been consistent with applying the 1,000’ regulation to new subdivisions. Although this is not a new subdivision the intent is the same and is to protect the public and with this, the access issues are heightened.

Mr. Roy states that the board has a long standing position with private roads, in general. She states that the opinion of the PB is that these types of roads produce undue hardship to future users and owners. Maintenance agreements often fall apart years down the road. She adds that the BOS has had some issues with plowing and road maintenance. Because of these items the planning board has held a long standing consistent position of being opposed to new private roads or extending private roads as they do become hardships in the future.

In closing, Atty. Spector requests that the board consider the criteria, consider if the applicant has met the criteria. She states that Mr. MacDonald has not met the criteria and asks the board to deny the request.

Atty. Wirth states that in the town’s motion for rehearing the town took the position that the location was near the Big Woods. He states that now the position is that they are in the Big Woods, at least partially. He states that he does not feel that it is important because the applicant’s position is the same as the town’s, to promote the environment and conservation. He adds that they do not want to upgrade the road and want to keep the area as it is and build one residence.

In addition, Atty. Wirth states that there have been statements referencing the fact that this is not a subdivision; however, at the same time that the subdivision regulations should be considered. He states that the board cannot consider the subdivision regulations.
Atty. Wirth addresses the issue regarding emergency personnel and whether people will sue the town. He refers to a Primer on Tort law and states that there is a reason why a waiver and application is signed and recorded with the registry of deeds, which is to provide notice.

Atty. Wirth mentions speculation. He addresses building new roads and laying out new roads. He states that opinions have been provided on wetlands. No facts have been provided and the only fact provided is that there is an existing road that they do not want to upgrade. He adds that he believes that the town does not want them to upgrade. He states that the proposal is for a single family residence on a 50 acre parcel. Nothing has been proposed for improvements to the roads and they have nothing to do with the wetland issues.

Atty. Wirth refers to the previously approved special exception approved in December, which indicated that there must be a 100’ buffer from the prime wetlands and this is not going to be a problem. He states that they want to conserve a 50 acre parcel. They are not proposing a new road. The proposal is to use the existing road, which has been there for 23 years to access a lot that has existed for 60 years.

Atty. Wirth states that Atty. Spector referenced applying the law literally. He explains that if this is accurate, he asks why he is addressing the “or” in section two and reading them as “nor”. He says it is a choice, one or the other but not both. He states that there is a lot of opinion with a lot of arguments being made on both sides and what the proposal is for is a single family residence being built on 50 acres, serviced by an existing road. There could be no impact proposed that is less of an impact to the town.

Atty. Spector states that if she said that the board should apply the regulations for a subdivision she did not mean it and adds that she does not believe that she said it. However, she states that what the board should look to is the purpose of the regulations. She agrees that the subdivision regulations cannot be applied to deny this application. However, the purpose should be looked to.

Atty. Spector states that she did not state that third parties could sue the town, the NH Supreme Court stated this.

In addition, Ms. Spector states that there are cases where “or” can mean “and”.

Mr. Lavigne asks Mr. MacDonald how long he has owned the parcel. Mr. MacDonald replies that he purchased the lot in 2003. Mr. Lavigne asks if the road has been in existence since the purchase and Mr. MacDonald replies yes; however, upgrading has been done due to Mr. Hendrick receiving a federal grant for the purpose of logging. Mr. Lavigne asks if the road has been maintained in the winter. Mr. MacDonald states to his knowledge no.
Further discussion is held regarding the width. Mr. MacDonald explains that the road is 14’ wide to his boundary line. He will then proceed to create a driveway with the same standard of the road. He adds that as far as the safety of the road, trees can fall anywhere on Bow Lake. The 14’ is being noted as a minimum and some areas are 18’. With issues of flooding, this can happen on any road and will require someone to address.

Mr. Farr asks about the ownership of the road. Mr. MacDonald states that Jon Hendrick owns the road. He adds that there is a deeded easement. Atty. Wirth states that he believes the deed allows pass and repass for foot and vehicles; however, he would need to review. He adds that it is broad enough to meet the request of the applicant.

Mr. Lavigne asks about the costs to upgrade the road to 18 ft. wide. Mr. MacDonald replies that he does not have that information available, at this time.

Mr. Lavigne asks the conservation commission if there is any part of the road that is currently in violation of the town’s laws. Mr. Roy states that given the limited amount of submittal associated with the application, the NCC has not done a site walk to view the area. He adds that it is something to be determined.

Ms. Holmes states that if the area is private and the map of the conservation district is broken into individually owned lots, how is it that the NCC feels that they can control what is done on the property. Mr. Roy states that the overlay district map was voted on and approved by the town.

Mr. Farr states that in his opinion he does not like RSA 674:41; however, it was adopted by the legislature. He explains that section I is the standard and then there is a section II, which is more restrictive as there may be some circumstances where section I would not apply and section 2 would apply. He adds that the legislature states that there must be an established road, a private road or public road, not an easement. He feels that one house on 50 acres is great; however, a 2,000 ft. driveway is not in accordance with the RSA. He states that the testimony has been by Mr. Hendrick and Mr. MacDonald that the road is almost to the required standards and is unnecessary hardship. Mr. Farr states that he disagrees but there are no specs on the road nor any evidence except letters from fire and police departments and a logging company. He respects the letter but they do not state the standards of the rural roads. Mr. Farr sees that a residence is not an occasional use as a hunting camp or seasonal use.

As far as frontage, Mr. Farr states that there is no frontage on any road at all. There is frontage on Corson Dr. through an easement. There is no association created for maintenance, no specs for the current road, how long it will hold up, and no evidence if it will hold up. He states that logic states that it will be hardship to someone, accepted as a road or not. Then there is a liability for the town. The town has an obligation to get to the residence and he feels that at least four of the six conditions have not been met.

Ms. Lane states that Mr. Farr has covered most of her issues. She clarifies that the width is 4 ft. for the rest of the length.

Mr. Pender states that he has a problem with the road. He explains that he would not want to see an emergency vehicle try to make it over the road, especially the beginning of it, and then not get through. During dry weather the road would be a solid road, however, during wet weather there could be problems. He adds that the town has an obligation to protect the lives and property of the people in the town with a waiver or not. He explains that the emergency response people in this town are heroes and will attempt at all costs to save a life and access the property.

Following the board member’s summary comments, Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Mr. Lavigne, to deny the request for relief from RSA 674:41(II), based on the fact that none of the criteria have been met. Mr. Lavigne states that he has concerns with the road and if it will hold up. He personally would like to see the development but the burden of proof has not been met. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Correspondence:
Information is provided regarding an upcoming workshop relative to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act. Ms. Holmes volunteers to attend the workshop, June 18 at Coe Brown.

Mr. Farr thanks the board members for all of their efforts, and work relative to these cases and for being members. He explains that the decisions of this judicial board are difficult.

Ms. Smith notes that she emailed Atty. Sherman regarding any additional information forthcoming for the Lesnyk cases, to date she has not received a reply. Additional discussion is held regarding new information for the June 23 meeting. The board agrees that any new information relative to new cases can be distributed at the June 16 meeting rather than being mailed out this month.

Mr. Farr asks if the board would like to have Atty. Callen attend the next meeting. After discussion on the matter, it is a general consensus that Atty. Callen will not be asked to attend the meeting.
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Roy Pender to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page