The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Robert Bailey, Tom Lavigne, Nona Holmes, Alternate Jean Lane, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer Dave Hickey, and Board Secretary Lisa Fellows-Weaver. Board Administrator Linda Smith arrives at 8:00 p.m.

ABSENT: Chairman Bruce Farr

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

MINUTES:
Nona Holmes makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to approve the minutes of October 27, 2008, as written. Motion passes unanimously.

APPLICATIONS:
Case#08-19: Bernard & Betsy Dunbrack, 21 Lower Camp Rd. Map 124; Lot 3. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(C)(1), Article 3.02(B), and Article 3.01(B)(2) to permit a two bedroom addition on a .34 Ac. lot where 2 Ac. is required and no road frontage (100’ on private road) where 150’ is required.

The applicants are not present. Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to postpone Case 08-19 to the last case of the evening. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case#08-20: Bulls Gap Development Corp., 81 Oak St. & 68 Pine St. Map 122; Lot 81 and Map 122; Lot 68. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(C)(1), Article 3.02(B), Article 3.01(B)(2) and Article 1.04 (B)(3) to permit a 24’ x 44’ one story three bedroom home and one car garage on a 1.03 Ac. lot where 2 Ac. is required; 150’ of frontage on Oak St. and 100’ of frontage on Pine St., both private roads, where 150’ is required.

Kevin Cole, Lisa D’Aoust, Tom Alliance, and Richard Ladd of RSL Engineering are present. Letters of authorization are reviewed. A balance due is paid. Plans completed by RSL engineering, are reviewed.

Mr. Cole explains that there is 100’ of frontage on Pine St. and 150’ on Oak Street. He states that the course of water on the property will be through the rear of the property. The proposal is explained to be a one story 3 bedroom ranch, 24’ x 44’ with a one car garage under the house.

A discussion is held regarding the wetlands in the area. Mr. Lavigne asks if the stream runs all year. Mr. Cole replies that it appears wet 9 months of the year. Mr. Ladd states that from the foundation to the stream will be 22’ from the closest point and 61’ from the leach field. A waiver from NHDES will be necessary and applied for after ZBA approval.

Mr. Pender asks for a septic plan. Mr. Ladd states that they have not submitted the septic plan to the state.

Mr. Pender asks if the two lots have been combined. Mr. Cole explains that lot 68 has been combined and they will be purchasing lot 81 and will do a voluntary merger. Mr. Ladd states that in the end the lots will be 25,000 sq. ft.

Further discussion is held regarding the process of RSA 674:41 beginning with the planning board. Ms. Weaver states that the planning board has been provided with the information; therefore, the process is in motion.

Mr. Pender asks if there are any abutters. No abutters are present.

Ms. Lane asks if there is an association of the roads in Harvey Lake. Mr. Pender replies that the area is all private roads. Mr. Cole adds that there are no fees associated with this house.

Mr. Cole notes that a retaining wall will be constructed of rocks. Setbacks are deemed to not be an issue.

A discussion is held regarding the variances requested. Mr. Lavigne does not feel that the applicant should be here for Section 1.04(B)(3); no special exception is required. Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, that Section 1.04(B)(3) is not applicable to this case. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to address all three articles for area variances all together. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Area Variance:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Ms. D’Aoust states that this will create affordable single family living.
2. Special conditions exist such that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. Ms. D’Aoust states that a denial would prevent the sale of a home and would have an unbuildable lot. She adds that the lot is a preexisting non conforming lot with only 100’ of frontage on the sides and therefore is unable to meet the acreage requirements for today’s standards. She states that there are no other options for them to be able to meet today’s requirements.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Ms. D’Aoust states that the road is established as a residential neighborhood and the proposed use is for residential purposes.
4. By granting of the permit, substantial justice will be done. Ms. D’Aoust states that granting of the permit will provide affordable single family housing.
5. No dimunition in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered. Ms. D’Aoust states that the proposal will not diminish values of existing properties. The proposal is to build a brand new single family home and the building will improve the values of the area.

Mr. Pender asks for the total square footage. Mr. Alliance replies 1,037 sq. ft. The home is a three bedroom, kitchen, one story, and one bathroom home. Mr. Lavigne states that the lot is a challenge. He sees it to be a very rocky area.

Mr. Lavigne makes a motion to grant the variances based on the fact that all criteria have been met. Jean Lane seconds. Mr. Lavigne states that the topography of the land more so than the size is a challenge. There is a stream area and the watercourse must be maintained. He adds that if the proposal was for a four bedroom, two-story home, the outcome may be different; however, he feels that the proposal is a reasonable use and is not excessive.

A discussion is held regarding the state permit for the shoreland protection act. Mr. Ladd explains that this permit is not necessary for this class of wetlands.

Mr. Lavigne amends the motion to add the following conditions:
The home is a one-story home,
A voluntary merger of lots 68 and lot 81 must be completed,
All state permits to be obtained,
Approval for RSA 674:41 must be obtained though the board of selectmen, All fees to be paid.

Ms. Lane agrees with the amendment and the motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Case#08-21: Fred & Carol Ennis, 62 Shore Dr. Map 122; Lot 33. Applicant is seeking a special exception to Article 1.04 (B)(3) to allow an upward expansion within approximately 7.5’ of the side setback where 10’ is required.

The applicants are not present. Tom Lavigne makes a motion to continue Case 08-21 to the end of the meeting. Nona Holmes seconds and the motion passes; 5/0.

Case#08-22: Peter Aikens, Kramas Ln. Map 102; Lot 9. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01 (C)(1) permit a 1,720 S.F. residence on a vacant lot with no road frontage on a town or state road.

Peter Aikens is present along with his Attorney Tim Phoenix and Steve Oles from MSC Engineers.

Bob Bailey recuses himself for this case. A discussion is held regarding the fact that there are only 4 voting members for this case. Atty. Phoenix states that they will proceed with the case with four members.

Atty. Phoenix states that they are requesting a single variance to permit a home to be built on a lot with no frontage as it is the last lot at the end of a private road. He states that the original variance request was for two variances; one for lack of frontage and the other for undersized lot. He adds that after the application was submitted he had a conversation with Linda Smith who informed him relative to the change in the ordinance in 2000 for lot size when over 80,000 sq. ft. the two acre requirement is not required to be met. Atty. Phoenix states that the lot was approved in 1967 and has been amended with lot line revisions.

Atty. Phoenix provides revised plans. He explains that the new plan shows a revision to the driveway as a result of previous discussions with the Dunleavy’s abutters, as they have requested to have the driveway consistent with the original right of way. The plan is reviewed.

Atty. Phoenix states that due to the fact that this is on a private road, they have filed an application to the selectmen for approval to build on a private road. He adds that an approved septic plan as been provided. In addition, Atty. Phoenix notes that they will need to be in compliance with the shoreland protection act and Mr. Oles has been in charge of this for the property owner.

Atty. Phoenix states that the proposal is for a home with a total footprint of 936 sq. ft., a garage with 576 sq. ft., and a small deck of 208 sq. ft. He explains that the total coverage of the house will be 1,720 sq. ft., total impermeable surface is 3,656 sq. ft.

Atty. Phoenix states that all of the requirements of the ordinances have been met with the exception of the need for the lot to have 150’ of road frontage. He further explains the area and states that there is no where to obtain any frontage as the lot is surrounded by properties. He adds that the lot has been taxed as a building lot since Mr. Aikens has owned it.

The board discusses the new plan as it is new information. Mr. Lavigne states that the new plan does not affect him in any way and is aware of the changes.

Ms. Holmes asks about the deeded right of way. Atty. Phoenix states that the original subdivision plan was provided in the packet, which identifies the right of way as well.

Mr. Lavigne asks when the septic plan was approved. Mr. Oles replies 1996 and adds that an operation approval was obtained in 1998. He adds that the leach field was previously installed and is on site now. There is no tank or pump. He states that the system will be a pump up system. Mr. Oles adds that original design was 360’ of pipe. Mr. Oles adds that the passage was created back in the 60’s to allow the 360’ of pipe. He adds that the well is proposed to be in front of the house.

Discussion ensues regarding the design of the home regarding the basement or slab. Atty. Phoenix states that this has not been determined at this time. He adds that the water table will need to be checked into. Mr. Aikens states that he would like to have a basement and the home would be year round; however, they would not be living in it year round.

Abutters present are Mr. and Mrs. Dunleavy; Shelley Bobowski; Susan
Burt, Sandra Seamans, and George Chapman all are representing their mother Beverly Newell.

Discussion ensues with the abutters regarding the slab vs. foundation. Dunleavy’s explain that they have a full cellar and it does get wet. Mr. Chapman states that the Newell residence is a concrete slab. Ms. Bobowski states that she has a full basement; however, her home is up hill. Atty. Phoenix states that Mr. Aikens will build based on conditions of the property.

Ms. Smith arrives at 8:00 p.m.

Mr. Lavigne asks about the shoreland protection act. He asks about the amount of trees being cut and still proposing to place the house as proposed. Mr. Aikens explains that the land was cleared 8-9 years ago. It is now mostly brush.

Ms. Burt, daughter representing Ms. Newell, expresses concern with the well location. Mr. Aikens replies that they propose to place the well near the front of the house. Ms. Burt states that her mother’s home does not currently have a well. Further discussion is held regarding the septic. Mr. Aikens replies that it is an existing system.

George Chapman expresses concern with the wetland and the water flowing onto his mother’s property and flooding the slab. They have had some issues with the recent storms. Steve Oles explains that with the NHDES rules they are not able to add any fill. He states that the grade that exists must remain as they are not able to change the grade. Mr. Chapman describes the course of drainage and the water levels. He states that he is concerned with the runoff from fields and flooding. Atty. Phoenix states that it is hard to say what site work would occur; however, Mr. Aikens would like to avoid cutting trees and his general experience would be that all issues will be addressed so that they are in compliance with the town and state regulations. He adds that they will make sure to make the neighbors comfortable, so that there are not any unnecessary hardships created.

Mr. Chapman asks if the house will be built back from the high water mark or the existing water mark. Mr. Oles replies that they are building 50’ back from the designated hydric A soils, which is the 75’ state setback requirement for areas that are wet more than 10 days out a month. Mr. Chapman states that there is a swamp and Mr. Oles replies that the wetland is a hydric B wetland, which fluctuates. He further reviews the plan. Atty. Phoenix adds that the state will determine everything is in compliance when they apply for the shoreland protection permit.

Ms. Burt asks an additional question relative to the location of the well. Mr. Oles states that the well must be 75’ away from the septic. He requests permission to view and locate Ms. Newells well and septic and then the well could be further back as long as it is not outside the property lines. He further explains the process of locating the septic and well.

Mr. Dunleavy thanks Mr. Aikens for the change regarding the driveway and asks about the right of way. He explains that the driveway is through their right of way and he expresses concern with the heavy equipment. He asks if there is a plan should there be any damages to the private right of way. Additional discussion is held regarding a maintenance agreement. Atty. Phoenix states that is a reasonable request and adds that Mr. Aikens will have an incentive to keep and maintain the area as this is the access to his lot. Mr. Caldwell explains that there is no written agreement of an association; however, home owners pay a fee to have the road maintained and plowed. Ms. Smith states that the discussion is a civil matter. She explains that as far as the board is concerned any agreement between the parties is a civil issue; it would not be affiliated with the town unless wording was provided in writing and made a conditional approval.

Mr. Pender notes that the plan does not show a surveyors stamp or a stamp from a wetland scientist
Ms. Bobowski states that the pond is just beyond the leach field. She expresses concern with the existing pond and requests that precautions be taken to maintain the hydrology.

Mr. Oles provides a copy of the septic approval. Mr. Hickey states that this is the original approval and the leach field was installed. Mr. Oles adds that an operational approval was obtained by the state. Mr. Hickey states that he was not provided with that document, he only has the approval of construction. He adds that there should be one in order to proceed with the project. Mr. Oles provides a copy of this as well.

Additional discussion is held regarding the septic system. Mr. Oles explains that no foundation or tank is required, the system just needs to be installed, back filling can occur after the operational approval is received. He adds that the operational approval is to make sure the leach field is built to design standards; pipes or a chamber system is then installed and inspected by a NHDES inspector.

Further discussion ensues regarding a statute of limitations. Mr. Pender states that he believes there is a time limit on septic systems. He would be more comfortable if a current approval for the septic system were to be provided to the board along with a surveyor’s stamp on the plans. Additional discussion continues regarding additional information being necessary to continue with the case. The board requests the following additional information be provided:
• wetland scientist stamp
• surveyor’s stamp
• letter to be provided from either the health officer or from NHDES stating that the approval of the septic operation and system is still valid.
• well location be delineated
• setbacks delineated on the plan
• number of bedrooms noted on the plan
• note number of stories of living space
Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to continue this case to December 29. Atty. Phoenix agrees to the continuance. Motion passes unanimously 4/0.

Bob Bailey returns to the board as a voting member.

Case#08-19: Bernard & Betsy Dunbrack, 21 Lower Camp Rd. Map 124; Lot 3. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 3.01(C)(1), Article 3.02(B), and Article 3.01(B)(2) to permit a two bedroom addition on a .34 Ac. lot where 2 Ac. is required and no road frontage (100’ on private road) where 150’ is required.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Nona Holmes, to dismiss the case without prejudice. Discussion is held relative to the fact that there is a representative for the applicants who was not included in the application for notification. The motion and second are withdrawn. Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Jean Lane, to continue the case to December 29. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

The applicants are not present. No correspondence has been received. Jean Lane makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to continue the case to December 29. Bob Bailey seconds. Mr. Lavigne expresses frustration that the applicants did not communicate to the board that they would not be present. He states that there has been no administrative error and feels that the case should be dismissed. Ms. Lane withdraws her motion and Mr. Bailey withdraws the second.

Tom Lavigne makes a motion, second by Bob Bailey, to dismiss the case without prejudice. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Correspondence
All correspondence is reviewed and no actions are necessary.

Mr. Lavigne notes that Doug Pollock who has been attending past meetings has expressed an interest in becoming an alternate member to the board. The board is receptive to recommending Mr. Pollock as an alternate member and the board will discuss the recommendation process further at the next meeting.

Adjournment:
Ms. Lane Bailey makes a motion, second by Ms. Holmes, to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 6/0.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page