The Town of Northwood, New Hampshire

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

Mr. Farr welcomes new member Doug Pollock to the board.

ABSENT: Robert Bailey

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

MINUTES:
Jean Lane makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to approve the minutes of December 29, 2008, as amended as follows:
Page 2: Change Roy to Pender
Motion passes unanimously.

APPLICATIONS:
Case#09-01: Butch Dillon, 1351 First NH Turnpike. Map 109; Lot 20. Applicant is seeking a variance to Article 2.02 (B) to permit a second residential structure (an additional residential unit above garage) without subdividing land when only one principal residential structure is allowed per lot. Property is 6.2 acres with 296’ of frontage. (Property currently owned by Andreason Living Trust, William Andreason).

Butch Dillon is present representing Mr. Andreason. Mr. Farr deems the application is complete and explains the process of granting a variance.

Mr. Dillon refers to the septic design and explains that at one point there was a barn on the property that burnt down. He states that Mr. Andreason’s property is along Rte. 4 and he began rebuilding the 24’x24’ barn with a slab with an upstairs level. Now he would like to finish it with a small kitchen and bath. Mr. Dillon notes that the main house on the property needs a lot of work and Mr. Andreason would like to stay in this new proposed area and may eventually refurbish the older home. Mr. Dillon states that Mr. Andreason is in NH about 7 months of the year.

Mr. Dillon explains that portions of the back of the land is wetlands and the town also owns the neighboring property.

Discussion ensues regarding the existing septic system. Mr. Dillon states that the existing system has been in place since the 1900’s and is an old tank. Mr. Pender states that the design provided is for 5½ bedrooms and he notes that there is probably a dry well on the property. Mr. Dillon states that the septic design is in the process of state approval and Mr. Andreason would upgrade the system if required by the board.

A discussion is held regarding the existing cottages on the property. Mr. Dillon states that they are not in use at this time and are in need of repairs. He states that in the early 1900’s Mr. Andreason’s parents used these cottages as rental units during the summer months and conducted site seeing tours.

Mr. Lavigne reads section 2.02 B of the Northwood Development Ordinances and states that if the structure was attached to the existing home it would not be necessary to apply for a variance as there is 6 acres of land. Additional discussion is held regarding residential structures and dwelling units. Mr. Lavigne states that a duplex is allowed in town. Mr. Pender states that the applicant does not meet the frontage requirements for a duplex; it is short by 4 ft.

Mr. Farr asks if there is an issue with the state regarding two structures on one lot. Ms. Smith explains that she does not believe there is an issue; however, the town’s health officer has spoken to her relative to this issue. She adds that there was a legal opinion received many years ago and her interpretation of the opinion is different. Ms. Smith states that the town’s ordinance does not allow two residential structures on one lot. She states that the concept is to spread the structures out. She adds that adding more structures changes the dynamics of residential development, changes the access of light, air, and fire safety. Mr. Lavigne states that the two combined structures would not be that much of an impact. Ms. Smith adds that sales and taxes also become an issue. Mr. Lavigne states that the ordinance is very clear and states that there can only be one residential structure per lot.

Mr. Pollock asks what the original application was submitted for. Mr. Dillon replies the new foundation was existing when he was contacted. He explains that the original proposal was for a two story building; however, the second floor was not going to be finished. Ms. Smith states that the original permit was not for living space. Mr. Dillon provides the original plan from 2002. Mr. Farr calls for a recess. Session resumes at 7:35 and the building permits are reviewed. Mr. Farr states that the 2006 building permit was for a barn. He adds that there was also a permit for a foundation only and that permit was cancelled. Ms. Smith states that the foundation permit from 2002 was replaced with the structural permit, dated June 2006. Ms. Smith adds that she found a letter in the property file from the building department to Mr. Andreason that was written in 2005. The letter stated that the building permit was issued three years ago with no progress, and asked what the intent of the permit and proposal was. Mr. Lavigne notes that the original plan calls the project a barn.

Mr. Farr states that the proposal now is for a full time, one bedroom/one bathroom/kitchen apartment, tied into the current septic system with a separate egress and a shared driveway. Mr. Farr asks if the access will be changed onto Rte. 4. Mr. Dillon states that he and Mr. Andreason have had discussions regarding the location of the driveway. Mr. Dillon has recommended straightening the driveway; however, he is not proposing any changes at this time.

Mr. Pender asks if the abandoned well is used or filled in. Mr. Dillon states that he is unsure if the well has been filled in or not.

Discussion ensues regarding the existing four bedroom home and existing buildings. Mr. Dillon explains that it is an old house in need of repairs. Mr. Andreason lives in the home when he is in NH. Mr. Dillon states that he is unsure of Mr. Andreason’s intent as far as refurbishing the home as well as the other out buildings. He feels that Mr. Andreason would stay in the proposed home while the existing home is being refurbished. Ms. Smith states that she has discussed this question with the building department as there is sometimes some leeway with permits to live in a home while construction is ongoing in another. She adds that she has not received any additional information from the building inspector.

Ms. Smith refers to the cabins on the lot and explains that the town’s abandonment ordinance says that after one year of no activity the structure is deemed to be abandoned, section 1.04(A)(2).

Mr. Lavigne states that the board must consider this case with the highest concentration of possible people that there could be with the worst case scenario being 4 bedrooms and the proposed apartment. Ms. Smith agrees with Mr. Lavigne based on the submitted application. She adds that it may be better to see if it is a viable option for the applicant for a temporary permit or if it may be an option. Mr. Farr states that the board could deny the application and the building inspector could still grant a temporary permit. Ms. Smith states that the board has granted conditional variances for health reasons or if the intent was to stay in the existing structure until the proposed structure was completed, then the pre-existing structure would need to be removed.

Area Variance:
1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values. Mr. Dillon explains that Mr. Andreason has over 6 acres and the property is surrounded by businesses. He states that the proposal for the apartment will not be an impact to the surrounding properties. This is enough land for him to utilize and it has enough land for a larger, and updated septic system.

2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Dillon states that the location already has commercial buildings in the neighborhood. This parcel is 6 acres and Mr. Andreason would like to have the apartment as it would be easier for him to live in.

3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner. Mr. Dillon explains that Mr. Andreason is older in years and this was his parents home. He would like to stay in one while the other is repaired and refurbished.

4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice. Mr. Dillon states that the property is surrounded by commercial buildings; there is enough acreage and Mr. Andreason thought he could do this as the lot did contain additional buildings that were rented out. Mr. Dillon states that Mr. Andreason would like to fix up the out buildings on site as well, if permitted to.

5. The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Dillon states that the property is surrounded by commercial buildings and this proposal would not be an impact to the existing businesses. He notes that the traffic from the one driveway would not be an impact to the properties either.

Mr. Farr states that the written comments on the application note that the proposal will increase the taxes. Mr. Farr explains that the tax impact cannot be considered in the process.

Mr. Lavigne makes a motion to deny the variance based on the fact that criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4 have not been met; only criteria 5 has been met. Mr. Pender seconds the motion. Mr. Lavigne states that the ordinance is very clear and there is no option for the board. He states that the plan provided is a viable plan as it would have an updated septic system. He feels that this would not lessen the values of the neighboring properties and is not unreasonable; however, the board does not have any leeway or options. Mr. Pender states that he understands the proposal; however, down the road this is a 4 bedroom home with a rental property. He states that this is not consistent with the ordinance and there are other options available. Ms. Holmes states that there are other options available for the owner. Mr. Farr states that he would have proposed the same and feels that this is a reasonable request; however, the town’s ordinance is very clear. Mr. Pender states that there is 4 ft. shy for two frontages necessary in order to subdivide. He notes that one septic and well for two properties is allowed in NH. Mr. Lavigne adds that there are other scenarios that could happen to this parcel that would increase the density of this parcel more than what is being asked for.
Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

INTERNAL BUSINESS
Appointment of Members
The secretary notes that terms will be expiring for Mr. Farr, Mr. Pender, and Ms. Lane. All agree to remain as members to the ZBA. Ms. Holmes makes a motion, second by Mr. Lavigne, to recommend the reappointment of Mr. Farr, Mr. Pender, and Ms. Lane. Motion passes unanimously.

CORRESPONDENCE
Information for the upcoming spring Planning and Zoning Spring Conference has been provided. Roy Pender makes a motion, second by Tom Lavigne, to approve any members to attend the conference. Motion passes; 6/0.

All other correspondence is reviewed and no actions are required.

Mr. Lavigne expresses concern with in-law apartments. He feels that it would be a benefit to the town to address this and discuss it with the planning board. He states that the town needs to address the problem noting the highest concentration of people. Discussion ensues and the general consensus of the board is that this issue should be addressed.

Adjournment:
Ms. Lane makes a motion, second by Mr. Pender, to adjourn at 8:37 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 5/0.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Zoning Board Secretary

[ Back ]

top of page