Zoning Board of Adjustment

Minutes

August 22, 2011

Official as of September 26, 2011

Vice-Chairman Roy Pender calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

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

VOTING MEMBERS: Vice-Chairman Roy Pender, Tom Lavigne, Nona Holmes, and Alternate Doug Pollock.

ABSENT: Chairman Bruce Farr, Robert Bailey, Alternate Jean Lane, and Alternate Curtis Naleid.

MINUTES
Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Mr. Pollock, to approve the minutes of April 25, 2011 and May 23, 2011, as written. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

APPLICATION
Case #11-03: Cheff Builders, LLC (Jeff White), Elm St. Map 123; Lot 22. Applicant is seeking variances to permit construction of single family residence. Variance to Article IV, Section (B)(1)(b)(2) and (c), 150’ of frontage is required, (lot has 50’ frontage on a private road); and Article IV, Section (B)(2)(b), lot of 0.11 acres, where 2 Ac. is required. (Property currently owned by Jack Downing).

Jeff White, Cheff Builders, is present along with Chuck Sergeant. Mr. White states that the property is owned by Jack Downing. A letter of authorization has been received and Mr. Pender reads the letter into the record, allowing Mr. White to represent Mr. Downing.

Mr. White explains that he is in the process of purchasing this parcel from Mr. Downing. He states that Mr. Downing applied for a building permit and was denied due to the fact that the lot is a non-conforming lot. He states that they are seeking a variance to build a two bedroom home on the lot, which is approximately 5,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Pollock notes that the septic plan does not show adjacent properties or adjacent septic systems. Mr. White states that the plan shows the lot on the uphill side and the approximate location of where the septic system is. He adds that all of the lots behind this lot are owned by town as well as the lot next door.

Mr. Pollock asks if the plan submitted to the state shows the neighboring septic systems. Mr. White replies that he does not believe it needs to as long as it is within a certain footage.

Further discussion is held relative to the area. Mr. White states that there is no house on lot 51 and only believes that one adjacent lot has a septic system. Mr. Lavigne states that the board wants to make sure that the well and septic are within the radius requirements. Mr. White refers to the plan and explains that there are different soil types on this lot; however, according to the septic designer, the lot will support a two bedroom septic system. He states that there are poorly drained and very poorly drained soils indicated on the property.

Ms. Holmes notes that there is a camper currently on the property. Mr. White states that Mr. Downing will remove the camper once the property is sold. Mr. White adds that he believes that there is noone living in the camper.

Ms. Smith states that she has looked in the abutting property files and it does not appear that there are any septic systems on the neighboring lots. She states that the state is the permitting agency and if the plan was made by a licensed designer and the state has approved the plan, then the applicant has met all of the necessary requirements. 

Further discussion ensues regarding the test pits. Mr. Pender stated that the engineer has indicated that there is a silty, fine, sandy, loam beyond 46 inches, which meets the criteria of an acceptable system.  

Mr. Lavigne asks why there are lots in this area that are owned by the town. Ms. Smith states that the town typically owns property because of tax collector’s deed. She adds that the standard practice is if the town property is sold and the lot is substandard, two acres or less, generally the lot is offered to abutters and sold with the condition that the lots must be merged and cannot be a separate building lot.

Variance Criteria
1. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.  
Mr. White states that he does not believe that this will be contrary to the public interest because the variance will allow for a single family home to be built in an area with similar homes. He states that the proposed home is a starter home for a small family. He adds that the area consists of similar homes. 

2. The use must not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
Mr. White states that similar homes exist in this area and have received variances. 

3. Granting the variance would do substantial justice.
Mr. White states that this home will help a young family afford a starter home in a neighborhood of similar homes. 

4. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values.
Mr. White states the proposed building will be similar to those already existing in the area. He states that this home will increase other people’s home values.

5. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the owner.
  *Special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area are as follows:
Mr. White states that similar homes have been built in the Harvey Lake subdivision. He adds that some of the existing homes are larger than the  proposed home.
  *The proposed use is a reasonable use because:
Mr. White states that the variance will allow for a family home to be built in a family neighborhood.

Mr. Lavigne states that the ordinance is clear that if the lot is too small then you should not be able to build on it. He adds that the ordinance also says that if the road is not a town approved road then you should not be able to build on it. He states that the variance process shows why the applicant should be allowed to build on this lot. Mr. Lavigne asks if this is a reasonable use and adds that if you cannot build the minimum, and a two bedroom home could be considered minimal, then what else could be built on this lot. He adds that a two bedroom mobile home could be placed on the lot if it could fit on the lot. Mr. White asks what the difference is between a two bedroom home and a two bedroom mobile home as both still need a two bedroom septic design. Mr. Lavigne states that this proposal is for a house that has a nice foundation and will last for a long time. He states that the applicant has stated that this new home would increase the neighbor’s homes values. He states that he is not sure that is the case; however, in his opinion, it certainly will not diminish property values. Mr. Lavigne adds that the lot size is minimal and many of the lots have been combined; with abutters on both sides there is nothing that can be done to increase the lot size. He states that the proposal is able to fit into the lot size.

Ms. Smith states that the property card indicates lot 52 is unbuildable and is 25% wet. Mr. Lavigne states that he can see by the septic design that the area in the rear of the property is noted as being poorly drained, meaning wet. He adds that there could not be a house built there. Mr. Lavigne states that his question was why the town owns it and if anything could be built behind the proposed lot. Ms. Smith states that the town maintains a policy that it is not likely that there would be anything other than open land on the lot. 

Mr. Lavigne makes a motion to grant the request for a variance for Article IV, Section (B)(1)(b)(2) and (c), 150’ of frontage is required, (lot has 50’ frontage on a private road); and Article IV, Section (B)(2)(b), lot of 0.11 acres, where 2 Ac. is required, based on the fact that all 5 criteria have been met. Ms. Holmes seconds.

Mr. Lavigne states that the applicants request is reasonable; the 2 bedroom home proposed is really minimal and it is affordable. Ms. Smith mentions that in a previous case a condition was added that the basement area would not be converted to living space. Mr. White states that this house is proposed as a split level home and there is a possibility of using the lower level as a game room or play room. He states that you can not have any more than two bedrooms in the house as the house is only approved with a 2 bedroom septic. He explains that with this style of house it is an opportunity to utilize the bottom level as alternative rooms. 

Mr. Lavigne makes an amendment to the motion, second by Ms. Holmes, to add a condition that the basement level will not be used for bedrooms.

A discussion is held regarding the porch/deck area proposed. Mr. White explains that the porch area has been moved so that it is within the setbacks. The plan provided is reviewed. Mr. Lavigne states that the deck is off the rear of the property, or the 26’ side of the house, where the septic tank is.  

Mr. Lavigne amends the motion, second by Ms. Holmes, to add a condition that the applicant provide to the town, certification from a NH licensed surveyor, that building footings meet all setback requirements as shown on the plan, (certified plot plan). 

Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

BUDGET
Ms. Smith explains that the department’s budget needed to be provided early  this year. She states that she spoke to the chairman and due to the early submittal date, he did not want to call a special meeting for the budget review and opted to level fund the budget. She states that at this point the board can make changes based on uses over the past few years. She states that it is hard to predict the number of cases that may be heard. 

A discussion is held regarding the legal lines. Ms. Smith states that the board did have some legal costs this year and the costs were higher than in recent years. She states that all legal funds are now combined in one legal line under the board of selectmen. She adds that legal costs are shown as an expenditure within the department’s budget, where the funds are expended for tracking purposes. There is $1 in the line to keep the legal line open.

Ms. Smith refers to the postage line and states that it may be reasonable to reduce this line. She states that there is $750 budgeted in the line and she suggests that it could be reduced to $500 with the understanding that the work would still need to be done and the line may be over expended. Mr. Pender states that the demand is less and agrees with Ms. Smith’s suggestion. 

Mr. Pollock notes that the board is now able to pass legal fees onto the applicants. 

Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Mr. Pollock, to proceed with the budget as proposed, level funded. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

CORRESPONDENCE
Local Government Center information is provided for the upcoming Law Lecture Series.

All other correspondence is reviewed.

ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Lavigne makes a motion, second by Ms. Holmes, to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Respectfully submitted
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary