The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

PRESENT: Chairman Bruce Farr, Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Tom Lavigne, Robert Bailey, Nona Holmes, Alternate Jean Lane, Assistant Building Inspector David Copeland, Board Administrator Linda Smith, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver.

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

MINUTES:
Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to approve the minutes of May 19, May 27, May 29, and June 2, as written. Motion carries; 5/0.

Case#08-12R: Stephen V. Anthony, applicant, Map 206; Lot 54, 197 Long Pond Rd. Property owners are Paul & Victoria Lesnyk. Applicant seeks an appeal for 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.

Mr. Farr explains that this a rehearing based on the board granting the request for a rehearing. He explains the process of granting a variance.

Mr. Anthony explains that currently there is a structure on the property that is 20’x31’, with the main floor of 620 sq. ft. with an existing foundation. The proposal is to renovate the existing structure and add to it. He states that they plan to add 1,320 sq. ft. to the existing 620 sq. ft. with a footprint totaling 960 sq. ft. Mr. Anthony explains that they are also proposing a two car garage, 28’x20’, totaling 560 sq. ft. He adds that the total living space of the house will be 1,320 sq. ft. and the total footprint of the house will be 24’x40’. He adds that there is also a second floor to the garage, which is proposed to be 18’x20’ or 360 sq. ft. of living space. Mr. Anthony states that the height will be staying the same on the current building.

Mr. Anthony states that the proposal meets the setback requirements. He states that they have received approvals from NHDES to do the extension on the current footprint within the Shoreland Protection Act. He adds that any additional renovations that they would like to do are beyond the 4 ft. extension, are beyond the 50’ marker for NHDES, and no approval is necessary. He explains that this is a 24 ft. wide house as opposed to the 20 ft. wide existing camp.

Mr. Anthony explains that the owners of lot 54 are Paul and Victoria Lesnyk along with Rita Lesnyk who is deceased. Owners of lot 53 are Paul and Victoria Lesnyk.

A discussion is held regarding the existing deck on the left side. Mr. Anthony explains that the deck was removed and he plans to build a small porch to access through the front door. The existing deck will remain off the front and the right hand side.

Further discussion is held regarding the room between the main house and the garage. Mr. Anthony replies that this is an extension and is included within the sq. footage provided. He adds that it is an open concept with a set of stairs outside that leads to the upper level of the garage.

Additional discussion is held regarding the highest peak of the proposed structures. Mr. Anthony relies that the structures are not proposed to be more than 21 ft. high. He adds that the existing roof pitch will need to be changed because of the addition.

Mr. Anthony states that Mr. and Mrs. Lesnyk live across the street from this lot and plan to sell their current home and retire into this proposed 2 bedroom; 2 bath home.

Mr. Farr asks about the leach field. Mr. Anthony explains that the proposed system is a clean solution system. There will be a new septic system. The leach field is at the top of lot 54 with the capacity to handle 3 homes. He adds that lot 53 will tie into the system as there is no real place for a leach field on that parcel. He notes that there is a state approved septic design and adds there currently is no system located on site. He feels that this is an improvement to the property.

Mr. Lavigne asks about the foundation. Mr. Anthony states that they are not proposing a full cellar; just a crawl space. He adds that a larger setback would be required if they were adding basements.

Kurt Schreiber, an affected party, explains that he is an affected party to lot 54 due to the concentration of development. He states that his lot is 52. Mr. Schreiber asks about the access to the second story. Mr. Anthony explains that the addition proposed is 9 ft. and there will be stairs as the access on the side facing lot 55 to the 18’x20’ sq. ft. area above the garage. This area will have a mechanical area, bedroom, and bathroom. At the top of the stairs there will be a balcony.

Landscaping plans are provided and reviewed. Mr. Anthony explains that they have had 6 different plans for the lot. Mr. Lavigne explains that the board really needs accurate and final figures to base the variance on. He adds that there will be one driveway accessing both lots.

Mr. Farr asks why not just combine the two lots into one. Mr. Anthony explains that the family has planned to pass the lots on for years. He adds that the Lesnyk have been paying taxes for years. He states that combining the lots would not allow the Lesnyks to pass the lots onto their daughters and grandchildren.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Anthony states that the home will be newly renovated and will meet all codes and life saving requirements. All setbacks will be met except for the well radius.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Anthony states that the parcel lot is small compared to a 2 acre lot; however, all setbacks have been met without any variances. The new house is proportioned to be reasonable. There will be upgrades to the well and septic without any variances or waivers, except for the well radius as the radius needs to cross over the property lines as it does not meet the 75’ requirement.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Anthony states that the existing use of the property meets other similar use properties in the area and is keeping with the overall landscaping. He adds that he does not feel that the proposal is out of the boundaries of anything else that has been built on Long Pond. The proposal is well fitted for the community and the spirit of the area.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr. Anthony states that all setbacks have been met without any variances and there is more than ample road frontage for the ease of access for services.
5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Mr. Anthony states that the renovations will add value to the neighborhood and will be equal in design and style to the area. This will be a benefit to the environment and community. He adds that he feels that this is the best use of the land.

Mr. Farr asks if the board would like to have the variances for road frontage and area addressed together. General consensus of the board is that the variances will be addressed together.

Abutter Crystal Chloros, states that she has seen some plans and has spoken to the applicant regarding the proposals. She states that they are looking forward to the improvements. She supports the plan proposed in addition to septic and improvements of the services. She adds that her house will now have more light and feels that the proposal will increase the value and improve the lake view. She states that there are certain advantages that she will enjoy.

Mike Travis, affected party, feels that what has been done to the land is cause for great concern to the lake and aesthetics. He feels that the trees stripped were native to the area and were a part of the feel of the neighborhood. He explains that he has not seen the landscaping plans or the proposed structure. He feels as a realtor and from a property evaluation standpoint the aesthetic condition and the stripping of trees is unfortunate and is not consistent with the spirit. He appreciates the family using the area and acknowledges that they have owned the land for many years. He does not agree with the statement that this would be a benefit to the neighborhood.

Kurt Schreiber, affected party, explains that he has researched the structures in the area. He states that there are 15 garages on Long Pond Rd. 12 detached garages and every one of the detached garages is on its own lot or on a combined oversized lot with other buildings. There are no detached garages on any of the 60’ wide lots on the road. He feels that this is a huge change in the character of the area. He continues to explain that another garage is unattached on a ranch, and there are 2 smaller homes with garages under the houses.

In addition, Mr. Schreiber explains that if the board looks at both proposals and adds the line footages of the two lots, there will be an almost continuous amount of development adding up to approximately 173’ from one end of the existing construction; a continuous visual line of construction except for a 10’-15’ break area.

Mr. Schreiber provides the board with a drawing of both lots showing the entire development of both lots. He notes an error regarding the deck that has been stated to be removed. The drawing delineates the combined septic systems, and combined driveways.

Atty. Susan Slack is present representing the Schreibers. She states that the Schreibers lot is 52 and they are affected by what occurs on lots 53 and 54. She explains that the Schreibers are aware that property owners have a grandfathered right to what exists on the lots as a non conforming lot, with an existing cottage on one lot and a shed on the other. However, the neighbors do not have a right to develop these lots in a manner that makes them much more non conforming. She refers to the town’s development ordinances relative to the 150’ minimum frontage requirement and minimum lot size. Some exceptions are made to many pre-existing lots prior to the creation of the zoning ordinance. Atty. Slack states that all other dimensional requirements besides lot size must be met including the 150’ frontage requirement.

Atty. Slack states in terms of the variance for road frontage for lot 54, none of the 5 criteria have been met. She explains that to be contrary to the public interest, the board must look at the purpose of the town’s regulations, to prevent overcrowding, undo concentration of population, to promote public safety by providing safe access to each lot, safe travel on the road, and safe access for emergency vehicles. She adds that one main purpose for road frontage is the impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. Use of these lots in the intense use proposed, so concentrated on the lots, will impact the neighborhood as described by Mr. Travis and Mr. Schreiber. She states that granting of the variance would be contrary to the public interest.

As far as the unnecessary hardship, Atty. Slack states that Mr. Anthony has recognized that this is a small lot, the septic would be upgraded, and the design is reasonable. She explains that special conditions mean that something must be unique and notes that this could be topography, shapes, slopes, etc.; something must distinguish a difference and a hardship must apply. She states that nothing to this effect has been heard tonight noting that there is a hardship or that it would be unfair to apply the frontage regulations to the lot. In addition, nothing has been presented that shows a difference with these two lots from any other lot in the area.

Atty. Slack states that as far as the spirit of the ordinance, she states that this is the same analysis for public interest. She explains that in this case the intensity of the development of both lots just does not meet the purpose of the ordinance requirement for minimum frontage.

Atty. Slack addresses substantial justice. She explains that the board must consider loss to the individual vs. a gain to the general public. She asks if denying the variance would be a loss to the property owners and if so would it also be a gain to the general public. She answers by stating that she does not feel that this would be a loss to the owners. There is a right to non conforming existing use of the properties and probably a right to some expansion of the uses that meets some of the requirements of the ordinance, such as the frontage. She adds that the gain to the general public, should the variance be denied, is honoring the spirit of the town’s zoning ordinance and the need for the minimum frontage requirements.

As far as the diminution of the values of surrounding properties, Atty. Slack explains that in this case it would diminish the value of the Schreiber’s property. She refers to a letter form a local real estate broker who estimated that the proposed development will diminish the Schreiber’s property between 15-28%.

Atty. Slack states that the burden has not been met by the applicant and the board must deny the variances. Atty. Slack states that the board must consider the special conditions of the property and there are none. She adds that the board should consider this as a use variance and should not consider an area variance as the impact is so great to the neighborhood.

Ms. Smith states that April 1 the waterbody setback was changed by the state. The original application from Mr. Anthony was dated March 31. Now there is a 50 ft. setback. A waiver from NHDES has been granted with conditions. She asks the board that since there is a 50 ft. setback, would the structure require the town to grant relief as well under the zoning ordinances or simply that the state’s waiver would apply. Mr. Copeland replies that he believes that if the town is more restrictive than that applies. Mr. Farr states that he is okay with the fact that the state has provided a waiver.

Ms. Smith notes that the information within the state’s waiver is not consistent with the materials provided to the ZBA. She explains that the footprint is different as well as the height of the proposed structure.

Further discussion is held and Mr. Anthony states that he has a signed waiver from NHDES and it is recorded at the registry of deeds. He explains that the camp is 23 from the highwater mark. He adds that a survey has been done. He notes that the 50 ft. setback has been changed from April 1 to July 1 and other criteria are not in effect at this time. He adds that everything else is behind the 50’ setback and as far as the town; it is currently 20’ for the town. Mr. Copeland states that there is a surveyed plan and the 23’ shown is on a certified plot plan and scales out correctly. Ms. Smith states that the NHDES letter shows 2,686 sq. ft. which is different than the footage presented tonight. Mr. Anthony states that DES is concerned with vegetation up to 150 ft. which has been noted on the certified plan. Further discussion is held regarding the footage. Mr. Anthony states that he is coming before the board with less footage.

Atty. Slack asks if the details presented tonight are the same as the last meeting. Mr. Farr replies no as it is smaller. Atty. Slack asks how this can be a rehearing of the original denial if the plan is different. Mr. Anthony replies that Mr. Lavigne previously asked if the plans were significantly the same and they are smaller. He adds that the board requested the applicant to come back with a more proportioned proposal for the lot. Ms. Smith states that she understood that everything was going to be the same and had emailed Atty. Sherman requesting that any additional information or plans be submitted, as the board would need to review the materials prior to a meeting. She states that nothing was received. Mr. Anthony explains the print provided has not changed by design just smaller square footage. Ms. Smith states that the materials that the board is to vote on should be provided. Mr. Farr asks the board if this is significantly different and if the plan shows accurate info. Mr. Anthony states that the footprint has not changed, the square footage has changed. He states that there was a breezeway proposed that was 2-story, approximately 400 sq. ft.

Atty. Slack states that there is a procedural problem. She states that the abutters have not had the advantage to any notice that this plan was different from the March meeting. They have had no opportunity to review the information. She suggests the board deny the application based on the original plan and a different plan should be provided and have it be presented to the board as a new public hearing. Mr. Anthony states that the plans are significantly the same as the proposal form March and are the exact same. New plans mean additional costs.

Mr. Farr states that Atty. Slack has made some valid points. Mr. Pender agrees. Mr. Farr feels that the board should address the original document that was provided. He notes a shift done by the applicant in order to meet the needs of the area; however, that plan has not been presented to the board tonight.

Ms. Smith states that what the board is voting on should be tied to the building permit. There are some differences. Mr. Copeland states that he denied the application based on the lot size and frontage. He adds that the plans provided work fine for the proposed building and feels that any other plans will not provide anything different. Mr. Anthony asks what the board will allow. Mr. Farr replies that the board cannot negotiate.

Tom Lavigne states that when the board granted a rehearing it was based on hearing new and additional information, not changes in size and square footage. He feels that the board has made a mistake and should have requested a new application since there are new measurements provided. He feels that Mr. Anthony should come back to the board.

Ms. Smith explains the reason why abutters’ notices are sent out. She states that information has changed such as the roof line which now may have an effect on an abutter by interfering with the view. Abutters need to know exactly what is being proposed.

Mr. Farr asks for comments regarding the road frontage.

Mr. Copeland states that the original application notes 26 ft. for the height.

Mr. Anthony states that every lot in Long Pond is 60 ft. wide. He explains that with the design they are only putting in one driveway and are then working with 120’. Instead of two driveways, he adds that he feels that this is a safety feature.

Ms. Smith states that the board has granted relief from RSA 674:41 based on the fact that this is a subdivision plat; however, the applicant still needs to meet the requirements for a variance. Mr. Anthony states that they need the variance from road frontage as the lot is only 60’ wide. He adds that the variance is germane to the project. Mr. Farr asks if there is an association that maintains that road. Mr. Anthony replies yes and adds that they are a member of that association and pay dues to keep the road as an all season road. Mr. Bailey notes that the association should also be noted in the deeds of Long Pond.

Mr. Anthony explains that they own a lot and there are town ordinances associated with the lot. Regardless of the size of the structure, Mr. Anthony states that they meet the criteria for setback requirements for the substandard lot and should be able to build.

Mr. Farr states that the board granted the rehearing as a courtesy. He explains that the attorney for Mr. Anthony noted that the board allegedly made an error in law, or didn’t apply the conditions correctly and did not provide all of the information. Mr. Farr states that he has not heard any different information tonight than what was provided at the original case. He suggests that the board deny the variance as it does not meet the conditions. He explains that the house is too large for the lot and there is too much impact. However, what has been suggested tonight as a plan is more acceptable to the neighborhood than the previous plan; however, it is not the application before the board this evening.

Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to deny the variances for road frontage and lot size, based on the fact that conditions 1, 2, and 5 have not been met; public interest, unnecessary hardship, diminution of properties. Mr. Pender states that the public has an interest with the houses in the area. The conditions are that the lot is the same as the rest of the neighborhood and the proposal is a very large structure and is not going to be consistent with the neighborhood. He adds that the diminution is the large building built in this place will affect surrounding properties and the property values.

Recess at 8:20 p.m. 8:30 session resumes.
Mr. Lavigne states that he is not comfortable with voting on anything concerning this case due to the fact that information has changed from the original application. He states that there have been changes made to the square footage and there are some ambiguous figures and he is not comfortable as the figures are not accurate. He notes that the original application shows differences in height and total square footage. Mr. Anthony states that the request is to add 360 sq. ft. of living space to the camp. He expresses concern with the costs of the applications.

Ms. Holmes asks how the board can grant anything for under sized lots on private roads as the board has recently denied four other cases that have not met the standards. Mr. Pender states that the differences are the road. He explains that this road is a maintained, approved, gravel road, not a logging road. Mr. Farr states that the road is an approved road and there is an approved plan.
Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case#08-13R: Stephen V. Anthony, applicant, Map 206; Lot 53, 195 Long Pond Rd. Property owners are Paul & Victoria Lesnyk. Applicant seeks an appeal for 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 states that nothing has changed on this lot. He explains the proposal is to build a new home on lot 53 and they are requesting relief from road frontage and lot size. Mr. Farr asks if the board has granted relief from RSA 674:41 and Mr. Anthony replies yes.

A discussion is held regarding the square footage. Mr. Lavigne asks if there are any changes. Mr. Farr notes that the footage is different; 2,160 was proposed and now 1,944 is presented as living space. Mr. Copeland explains that when applicants comes in for building permits and are not sure as to the size, he requests that they apply for the larger structure and smaller is always ok; however, if larger than applied for they would need to reapply.

Mr. Lavigne states that the rehearing was granted based on the possibility of a procedural error. He asks if there is anything new presented tonight that was not in the application from March. Mr. Anthony replies no and adds that NHDES does not have any concerns with lot 53. He adds that they are willing to move the home further back for abutters; it is not in the line of site now but would volunteer to move it.

Mr. Lavigne asks if there is any living space on the lot at this time and Mr. Anthony replies no there is only a shed existing at this time.

Atty. Slack states that this is a rehearing of the application presented in March and denied in March. No additional information should be presented or any changes in the plan; it should be if the board made an error in law or legal issues should be the only items reconsidered. She states that this should be the same application and same plan from March.

Mr. Farr asks the applicant as to what the board did incorrectly. Steve Anthony replies that both lots were addressed together and in his opinion it is hard to distinguish what mistakes the board made or didn’t make. He adds that the plans submitted were denied and during the last meeting the issue that was stressed was that the home proposed for lot 54 was not proportionate to the lot size. In the spirit of that, lot 53 was not allowed as much time and there were frustrations at that time of the meeting. He adds that when building things on two lots side by side there is a 10-15% savings. Mr. Anthony states that they are here tonight and meet the setback requirements and the Shoreland Protection Act is not an issue. He explains that the lot is 298 ft. long and 60’ wide; it is large and the closest neighbor’s lot is only .8 acre larger. There is a large home there as well off the water. He states that they will move the house back and that is not a substantial change with the plan. Mr. Schreiber states that their home is only 1300 sq. ft.

Mr. Farr states that he is prepared to here the case. Mr. Lavigne states that he has no objection to rehearing the case as nothing has changed. Mr. Bailey states that usually when the board rehears a case there is something different presented to the board. He states that there is nothing different and asks how the board can have a different decision. Mr. Anthony replies that the explanations of the conditions will be different. Ms. Holmes states that she is willing to rehear the explanations. Mr. Pender states that if there is nothing changed and the board has not made an error, he does not want to hear the case again.

Atty. Slack states that with the interest of due process for both sides, she states that the board is obligated to hear the case based on the fact that the board granted the rehearing for the applicant and abutter’s comments based on the criteria with the burden on applicant that they must show that they meet the conditions. She adds that it is then the board’s decision to determine if the information is different than last time.

The board agrees to proceed and hear the case.

Mr. Anthony states that he is proposing a mechanical room and a closet area over the garage, no bedrooms. He adds that he has included these areas as living space.

Mr. Farr asks if there are setback issues and Mr. Anthony replies no. There will be a shared septic from next door. The well is located on lot 53. Mr. Anthony states that the lot has a lot of ledge and there is no place to put the septic on lot 53. He notes that the neighbor’s well is close. He explains that the proposal is for a 2-story house, 2 bedroom home; open concept.

There are no questions from the abutters relative to the proposal.

Mr. Farr states that the board will address both variances together, lot size and road frontage.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Anthony
states that the new home will meet all codes. All life safety and setback requirements will be met without variances except for the well radius. As far as the road, there is an association managed road with year round access. He adds that the road area in front of this lot this is the best stretch of road.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the
ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Anthony states that due to the special conditions of the lot, they are proposing to place leach field on lot 54. The proposed structure meets all setback and height requirements. The road is a maintained year round road maintained by an association, to which they pay dues.

3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Anthony states that the existing use of the property meets similar uses of the properties in Long Pond. He states that the proposal will be keeping in the overall landscaping of the area and is not out of the boundaries. He feels that this proposal is well fitted for the community and the spirit of the area. The road is maintained by a homeowner’s association. They are proposing one common driveway. The area has a year round access and they meet all setbacks and requirements of the CSPA.

4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Mr.
Anthony states that setbacks will be met without any variances. There is more than ample road frontage for easy access for services and the road is maintained.

5. No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be
suffered. Mr. Anthony states that the new construction will add value to
the neighborhood. It will be equal in design and style to the area. It will be a benefit to the environment and community and will be the best use of the land. In reference to the road frontage, the road is a maintained road by a homeowner’s association and is maintained by dues.

Ellen Schreiber states that the overall development is excessive for the lot. She explains that the proposal with the two parcels added together will be 88 linear feet. She feels that there is an overall impact with both lots and it does change the character; negatively. Mr. Schreiber states that the septic plan that was approved is directly opposite to his property.

Ms. Lesnyk states that the trees that were removed were damaged, old trees. She explains that they will be replanting trees and plan to make the property a premier property.

Atty. Slack states that the burden is on the applicant to present sufficient evidence to meet the criteria. She states that they have not met any of the 5 criteria. She explains that as far as the public interest, to meet the setback requirements does not mean that the variance will be granted for minimum road frontage. She states that the purpose of the regulation for frontage is to protect the character of the neighborhood and the scale of the proposed development is so far above the neighboring properties. She adds that the Schreiber’s lot is a double lot with 120’ of frontage and is a much smaller square foot building. She refers to the garages as noted by Mr. Schreiber in that they are on double lots in this area, not 60 ft lots.

Atty. Slack states that under special conditions, meeting the setback requirements and because the road is maintained, has nothing to do with the purpose of the 150’ frontage requirement. There are no special conditions that have been described that make the lot distinguishable from any other lot on the road.

As far as the spirit of the ordinance, Atty. Slack explains that the purpose of the regulation must be met and asks the board if they have been presented with facts that indicate applying the regulation to the property is unfair in some way. She states that it is not unfair and applying the regulation again advances the purposes as described in the town’s ordinances to maintain the character of the neighborhood, lack of over crowding, and public safety.

Atty. Slack states that a part of substantial justice is if there is a benefit to the general public by adhering to the regulations. The scale of the proposed development is so much larger than what exists in the neighborhood.

As far as the values of surrounding properties, Atty. Slack states that the issue is if the proposal will diminish neighboring properties and there is evidence that it would.

Atty. Slack understands the emotional attachments to the property; however, she notes that others in the neighborhood have attachment to their properties as well. She feels that the applicant has not met his burden to present evidence to all of the 5 criteria.

Abutter Crystal Chloros explains homes in the area and some are over 2,000 sq. ft. She feels that the building as proposed is not out of character. There are many homes that are close to each other and are good sized. This proposed structure is not out of character and not out of scale. She refers to the substantial loss to the individual and the gain to the public. She feels that this has not been substantiated as the owners have waited decades to build. The loss is substantial to them if they cannot develop it after 40 years of ownership. With the gain to the public, Ms. Chloros states that the landscaping proposed would add value and will be beautify the area. She asks how it can be judged since the project is not completed.

Mike Travis states that he combined three lots. He feels that the proposal is inconsistent and he combined his lots so that there would not be a house across the street with stripped trees and stripped of the character. He adds that the trees are part of the neighborhood and character of the area. He explains that waterfront properties in terms of valuations may be affected due to privacy impacts.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to deny the variances for road frontage and lot size, based on the fact that conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 have not been met; public interest, unnecessary hardship, diminution of properties. Mr. Lavigne states that there has been nothing different than what was presented at the last meeting. This lot is a pre-existing non conforming lot with no frontage on a town approved road; however, it is on a road that has been in existence for a long time. The lot is an undersized lot. He explains that he is not denying the applicant’s right to build on the lot; however, asks if this plan of 1,944 sq. ft. of living space is a reasonable use. He feels that the proposal is an excessive use. He adds that sharing the driveway is a good idea as it has a lesser impact on the land. The same with the septic system and adds that the state has approved it. Mr. Lavigne states that the issue is the size of the property, not the location.

Mr. Pender agrees and reiterates Mr. Lavigne’s comments as does Ms. Holmes.

Mr. Farr states that the applicant has a right to do something. He states that the road is a maintained road and accessible year round. He feels that it meets the standard for reasonable frontage to get to the house and back, with emergency access. Mr. Farr states that he feels that the applicant meets the conditions relative to the road; however, the house as proposed for 1,900 sq. ft. is more impact than it needs to be as a right to use the property. The garage impacts the neighbors.

Mr. Bailey provides some history of the area. He explains that the lots were divided into 60’ lots, sold as a package deal with new construction of “A” frames. Many of these have been built and they were not sold as year round homes. He states that these lots were for smaller homes and the board is making problems for future residents if they approve the larger homes.

Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Anthony reads a portion of the March 31, 2008 minutes where an applicant requested a variance on a lot of .33 acres. The proposal was for an 1,800 sq. ft. home and he was granted the variance. Mr. Anthony states that he read his answers verbatim to those answers. Mr. Farr states that this is a different property and the board has provided a different judgment.

Correspondence
A handout regarding the revisions of the Shoreland Protection Act is distributed.

Adjournment:
Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Mr. Pender, to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page