The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

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

ABSENT: Robert Bailey, and Alternate Joseph Knox, who is unable to attend due to the death of a family friend.

MINUTES:
Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to approve the minutes of June 16, 2008, as written. Motion carries; 5/0.

Doug Pollock is present as an interested party in becoming a board member.

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

Mr. Lavigne notes that that there is a full board of 5 members and asks Mr. Farr if the board will proceed with only 4. Mr. Farr replies that the board will consist of 4 members this evening.

Rehearing Requests for the following cases:
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.

Case #08-08: Jon Hendrick, 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 notes that Mr. Hendrick has provided one packet for all three noted cases. He explains that the request of Mr. Hendrick is for the board to review all three cases with the same documentation for each case. Mr. Farr explains that the process for granting a rehearing would be if the board made an error in law or if there is now new information that was not previously considered. Mr. Farr notes that in the information provided by Mr. Hendrick, 5 points are addressed.

Mr. Lavigne states that it is his understanding that in order to proceed with a rehearing the board would have made a noticeable mistake or new evidence that has not been considered would be presented to the board. He states that nothing new has been presented. He states that what has been provided is documentation noting 5 different reasons why Jon Hendrick feels that the board did not make the correct decision. Ms. Holmes states that the information provided is the same information that was previously presented.

Mr. Lavigne states that the only item that may possibly be considered is if the board acted illegally and/or unreasonably. Mr. Farr states that this statement is relative to having four board members. He explains that the board did not act illegally and he asked Ms. Lane to step aside as she had expressed positive feelings for the applicant and may have some difficulty being impartial with the Hendrick cases. Mr. Farr states that he respects Ms. Lane’s professionalism and it was better for her to agree to disqualify herself if there was a question in the ability to vote impartially. He notes that it is difficult in a small town and knows that this was a difficult decision. Mr. Farr states that nothing was illegal and feels that this was not unreasonable. He adds that this did not affect the outcome of the case. He states that there was a quorum present of at least three members and in addition, the board asked for another member and Joe Knox was appointed by the selectmen for these cases. Mr. Farr states that he does not share Mr. Hendrick’s concern that the board acted unreasonably or illegal, and no evidence has been shown for this issue.

Mr. Pender refers to an attached letter provided with the request for rehearing submitted by Mr. Hendrick. Mr. Farr reads the letter, which mentions a road maintenance agreement that is being proposed by Jon Hendrick. Ms. Smith states that this letter was not a part of the original record. The letters date reflects the original hearing date. She adds that Mr. Hendrick may have referenced the document at the hearing; however, it was not evidence that was provided. Mr. Farr recalls asking about a road agreement; however, does not recall any discussions of such. He adds that this letter does not affect his decision of the vote and does not feel that $200. for this length of road is a significant amount of money for road maintenance. Mr. Pender states that this is the only new item provided and he does not feel that this constitutes new evidence. Mr. Farr agrees. Mr. Pender adds that he does not know who these people that are noted on the letter. He asks how the board knows if they did sign this. In addition, he states that there are no initials provided noting that they are willing to support such an agreement and there is nothing provided to prove that the writer signed or submitted this letter. He feels that this is not sufficient new evidence.

Ms. Smith states that a typical road maintenance agreement would be a legally binding document typically created by an attorney and recorded at the registry of deeds. She adds that she does not believe a letter would serve as such for a legally defendable road maintenance agreement.
Mr. Farr refers to the letter of request from Mr. Hendrick and addresses each of the points as follows:

2a. Practical Difficulty and Unnecessary Hardship. Mr. Farr states that several times Mr. Hendrick stated that the police chief believes the road is an all season road. Mr. Farr reads the letter from the police chief noting that he has driven the road on several occasions and the road is in good condition. Mr. Farr notes that the letter is not dated. He adds that this does not display the definition of an all season road and no evidence has been provided that the road will be maintained year round. Mr. Farr states that he disagrees with comment 2a.

Mr. Farr also notes that the letters from the logger and the fire department, which state that the road must support a 55,000 pound truck. Mr. Farr explains that Mr. Hendrick claims that the board did not consider the fact that Mr. Leighton is a road contractor and has created such a road. Mr. Farr adds that Mr. Leighton is a logger and his letter stated that he has hauled stone and gravel over the road to allow for his logging equipment weighing 55,000 lbs. to travel over the road. Mr. Farr states that no specifications for the road have been provided, noting that the road is up to year round conditions and that it would support a fire truck.

2b. Structure related to existing or proposed streets. Mr. Farr states that the board addressed the argument of a fire station as opposed to a private residence. He adds that this is not new information.

2c. Official Map and Master Plan. Mr. Farr refers to the town’s official map and adds that the board has already agreed that this does not distort the official map and as far as the Master Plan, the proposal is in conflict to the town’s Master Plan.

2d. Future Purchasers Hardship and Undue Financial Impact. Mr. Farr states that the town safety departments have expressed at town meetings that equipment must be purchased to access private roads. He notes the evidence in the Harvey Lake area, Gulf Road, and Long Pond area, which all have private roads that impact the town and the town’s emergency equipment.

3. and/or. Mr. Farr states that the board’s attorney has noted that the “and”, is simply just an “and” and the board disagrees with the “and/or” argument.

4. Mr. Hendrick noted that the board had a motive to prevent development. Mr. Farr states that there is no evidence in any of the board’s discussions that the board or any of the members of the ZBA has stated that they do not believe in development. Mr. Farr states that this board has been liberal in granting variances. Therefore, this is not the case and the board has met the state statutes.

5. Safe Access. Mr. Farr states that Mr. Hendrick did not provide evidence in the letters from the fire and police chiefs that the road is an adequate road for all season use.

In closing, Mr. Farr states that he does not feel that an error in law has been presented or any new evidence has been provided. He feels that the board should not grant the rehearing requests. Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Mr. Lavigne, to deny the rehearing requests for the Hendrick cases; 08-06; 08-07; and 08-08, based on the fact that no new evidence has been provided. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Ms. Smith explains the notification process of the denied applications. She states that a notice of decision (NOD) is completed for every decision the board makes, and is sent certified mail to the applicant, and if the request is approved then the document is recorded at the registry of deeds. She notes that all rehearing documents for the above cases have been recorded as the notices are notice to future property owners.

Internal Business:
Budget: Ms. Smith states that the board’s budget is extremely tight due to legal costs, and legal notices because of the number of cases. She adds that the original budget was cut back from prior years and some lines are now over expended.

Adjournment:
Mr. Pender makes a motion, second by Mr. Lavigne, to adjourn at 7:20 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page