The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

PRESENT: Chairman Bruce Farr, Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Robert Bailey, Nona Holmes, Alternate Jean Lane, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer Dave Hickey, Board Administrator Linda Smith, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver.

Tom Lavigne has recused from voting this evening and is present in the audience with Carol Lavigne.

VOTING MEMBERS: Chairman Bruce Farr, Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Robert Bailey, Nona Holmes, and Alternate Jean Lane.

Case#08-17: Richard Kramer, DAR Homes, 123 Ridge Rd. Map 221; Lot 12. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.02(B) to replace existing structure and permit a 1,120 sq. ft. three bedroom home on a 1.1 Ac. lot where 2 Ac. is required. Property currently owned by Hazel Gould.

Mr. Farr deems the file to be complete. No abutters are present and no correspondence has been received.

Mr. Kramer is present and explains that the property is on Ridge Road. There is an existing mobile home on the property that is just a shell. There is an approved three bedroom septic design.

Mr. Kramer states that the intent is to remove the current mobile home and the sheds, then add a stick built house to the property. He states that the information provided notes a 28’ x 40’, 3 bedroom ranch. He adds that he is here for lot size only and there are no setback issues. Mr. Kramer asks if he could build a 28’ x 34’ cape instead of the proposed ranch. Mr. Farr replies that he is obligated to the maximum square footage requested at this meeting tonight. Mr. Kramer requests that the dimensions listed be amended to not exceed a 28’ x 46’ home with 1,288 sq. ft. He adds that this would allow him to go smaller. Mr. Farr replies that smaller would be fine but no larger than requested. Ms. Smith notes that the public notice stated 1,120 sq. ft. Mr. Bailey asks if the style would still be a ranch. Mr. Kramer replies that he is the builder and would like to market three different styles for the lot; 28’ x 36’ cape, or 28’ x 40’ or 28’ x 46’ both ranches. He explains further that the size difference with the ranch styles is an additional bathroom and all three homes would have three bedrooms as stated by the approved septic design. Motion to support the request to amend the application to not exceed 28’ x 46’ is made by Mr. Pender and Ms. Lane seconds. Mr. Farr notes that he feels that the public notice was adequate; no abutters are present, and no
correspondence has been received relative to the application. The motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Mr. Lavigne asks about the discussion of the square footage. He states that if the applicant should build a cape the square footage would change as a cape has two floors. Additional discussion is held regarding the differences in the styles/structures of homes being proposed; cape vs. ranch.

Mr. Kramer asks about the area variance. Mr. Farr explains that the five conditions are based on the impact of the lot in discussion. Mr. Farr adds that the lot is now not a buildable lot.

Mr. Kramer requests that he be granted to permit a one level ranch style home to be 1,288 sq. ft. or less. The board agrees with the request and the applicant proceeds with variance process. The stamped septic system plan is reviewed for a three bedroom home.

Mr. Farr states that there is no encroachment on the setbacks. Mr. Pender states that since the dimensions have changed from 40’ to 46’ long will there be 6’ on one end or 3’ added to each end. Mr. Hickey states that there is about 40’ to work with on the road end.

A discussion is held regarding the number of bedrooms. Mr. Farr asks how many bedrooms are in the existing mobile. Mr. Kramer is not sure. He explains that he will advertise a two bedroom and three bedroom ranch; however, a two bedroom ranch is not that popular.

Area Variance:
1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values. Mr. Kramer states that he will replace the old mobile home with a stick built house and this will increase the property values.

2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Kramer states that the property is a residence now so nothing will be changing other than the fact that the new home would improve the quality of the neighborhood. Mr. Kramer states that a stick built home quality will last longer than that of a mobile.

3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner. Mr. Kramer states that this is a lot of record prior to the two acre minimum. There is a residence existing on the property and the denial would take away what already exists.

a. An area variance will be needed to enable the proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property. Mr. Kramer states that the lot size is 1.1 – 1.4 acres and is not the minimum required size.

b. The benefit sought by the applicant (can or cannot) be achieved by some other method reasonable feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Kramer states cannot as he is not able to make the lot any larger. Mr. Farr states that the house could be made smaller with 2 bedrooms. Mr. Farr asks why a two bedroom home would not be considered a reasonable use rather than a three bedroom home. Mr. Kramer replies that the average size of today’s homes is three bedroom homes. He adds that the larger ranch size would be a two bath home. Mr. Farr notes that the 1,200 sq. ft. is now a minimum sized home.

4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice. Mr. Kramer states that granting the variance would continue to improve the neighborhood and raise property values without changing the residential density.

5. The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Kramer states that this is an existing lot and not a newly created lot.

Ms. Lane asks if there will be a porch. Mr. Kramer replies that there is a only a small deck proposed.

Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to grant the variance based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met for a 28’ x 46’ one level ranch. Mr. Pender states that this is only a one floor home with 1,288 sq. ft. living space. This allows the builder to add the second bath room. Mr. Bailey states that the size is an average sized home. He adds that there is a three bedroom septic system already approved. Motion passes; 5/0.

Case#08-18: Robert & Rita County, 263 Bow St. Map 230; Lot 47. Applicants seek a variance to Article 3.02(B) to replace existing structure and permit a 1,120 sq. ft. three bedroom mobile home on a 1 Ac. lot where 2 Ac. is required.

Ms. Holmes recuses herself due to possible conflict of interest.

VOTING MEMBERS: Chairman Bruce Farr, Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Robert Bailey, and Alternate Jean Lane.

Tom and Carol Lavigne are present representing Mr. and Mrs. County. A letter of authorization is reviewed and pictures are presented.
Mr. Farr deems the file to be complete. No abutters are present and no correspondence has been received.

Mr. Lavigne explains that the lot was created in 1975 and is just over 1 acre. There was a 1975 mobile home on the lot and it has been torn down. There is a garage on the lot. He notes that the lot is in disrepair and they intend to replace the mobile home with a newer double wide mobile home. Mr. Lavigne states that there is a three bedroom septic system that is still functioning; however, a new design has been proposed and approved, should the current system fail. Mr. Lavigne states that there is a well on the lot that the previous owners were using; however, they intend to hook up to the water district.

Mr. Lavigne states that the proposal is to add a new 28’ x 48’ double wide mobile home, ranch style, with a pitched roof, placed on a cement slab. It will be approximately 1,280 sq. ft. with the same number of rooms. Mr. Lavigne states that the old mobile home was 19’ from the lot line and the new home would be placed 29’ from the lot line. There will be no setback issues. He notes that this will be a change of less than 100 sq. ft., or less than 10%.

Mr. Lavigne states that they are changing the property and the proposal will be more appealing than the 14’ x 68’ mobile home that was there. Ms. Lavigne states that they are required to add tie downs as part of the process of placement for safety issues.

Area Variance:
1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values. Mr. Lavigne states that by replacing the 34 year old single wide mobile home with a new doublewide manufactured home, it would enhance the value of the property and have a positive impact on other neighborhood properties. He adds that by granting the variance, the new structure would be more aesthetically pleasing to those traveling down Bow St. and add a positive feel to the surroundings. In addition, he notes that upgrading the property increases the values of surrounding properties.

2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Lavigne states that the purpose of the ordinance was to eliminate overcrowding in residential areas. By granting the variance it would allow for the continued use of the property in the manner in which it has been for the last 34 years; however, a new, updated residential structure would not only be beneficial to the owners, but to any and all visitors, neighbors, and family members who come to the property. He adds that the new home will meet all new safety standards, preserving the public interest.

3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner. Mr. Lavigne states that when the lot was developed, the town did not have a 2 acre minimum in place. This lot is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot that has been used productively for the last 34 years supporting a mobile home with two elderly occupants. There will be no hardship to the town if this residential use shall continue. The hardship is simply that the town now requires 2 acres. This property was adequate for the previous owner’s use in 1975 and it is still adequate today. There would be a hardship for the new owners if they were not able to continue with the use of the property as it has been for the past 34 years because they need a place to live.

4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice. Mr. Lavigne states that to not allow the property to continue in its present condition would be an injustice. Although the 34 year old mobile home could support an occupant, it is old, outdated, and will not allow the owners the benefit of safety features and energy efficiency of a new home. It would be a hardship to the owners to not be allowed to positively impact their lives, their safety, and the safety to anyone who would come into their new home, or onto their property. It would be an injustice since there would be no additional impact on the property, the neighborhood or the town. By allowing the new owners to upgrade this property, substantial justice would be done.

5. The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Lavigne states that the spirit of the ordinance is to eliminate overcrowding to ensure adequate light and air and to allow for adequate septic and water. The property is at least 50% open land and 50% wooded. On the northern side of the property that is principally wooded, there is a stream that runs through it, passing though a culvert under Bow Street on its way to the ocean. He states that he believes that the spirit of the ordinance will be maintained as it has been for the past 34 years. Continuing the current use of this property as a single family residence, with its landscaped yard and appropriately designed new structure will ensure its integrity as well as the integrity of the neighborhood. In closing, he states that by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance has been safeguarded.

Mr. Farr asks if there will be any changes to the density of neighborhood. Mr. Lavigne replies no.

Roy Pender makes a motion to grant the variance based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met for a 28’ x 48’ double wide manufactured home. Jean Lane seconds. Mr. Pender states that this is a wonderful addition to the area and improves the lot. He adds that the current use is residential and will remain as such. Mr. Pender states that the new home is a property improvement. Ms. Lane agrees. Mr. Bailey states that the proposal is a benefit to the neighborhood. Mr. Farr states that there are no changes to the density and no real significant changes other than upgrading the life safety.

Mr. Lavigne notes that the new building has a deck in the back and a landing in the front.

Roy Pender makes an amendment to the motion, second by Jean Lane, to add that there is a back deck proposed to not exceed 12’ x 24’ and a front deck to not exceed 8’ x 10’. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Nona Holmes and Tom Lavigne return as voting members.

MINUTES:
Bob Bailey makes a motion, second by Roy Pender, to approve the minutes of September 22, 2008, as written. Motion passes unanimously.

Correspondence
Ordinances: A memo has been received from the planning board regarding proposed ordinances. Mr. Farr states that the board appreciates being included and requests that the planning board be thanked for the opportunity to participate.

Ms. Smith states that there are not many proposed ordinances. She explains that the planning board is looking into a blasting ordinance and changing the daycare definition from 1 child to 3 child to be consistent with the state’s standard.

GIS Meeting: October 30, 6:30.
Ms. Smith provides an explanation of GIS providing mapping options, data, and assisting office staff abutter’s notices.

Stormwater Buffer Meeting: November 13, 7:00 p.m.

All other correspondence is reviewed.

Adjournment:
Mr. Bailey makes a motion, second by Mr. Pender, to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page