Members Present: Jane Roberts, Chairman, Steve Filipi, Ashley Fletcher, Coni Porter and Gretchen Wittenborg.
Others present: Alternate Matt Buonomano and Selectmen’s representative Andy Clukey.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM
Public hearing continued: Case #06-07, Lon Caracappa appeal for an Area Variance to encroach on side setback by constructing a deck on property located at 319 West Lake Road, Rural District, Map 24, Lot 3-03.
Roberts reported that the Board did a site walk of the property and asked Mr. Caracappa to revise his plan to be more in conformance. She thanked him for redrawing the plan and for getting it to the Board in a timely fashion for review.
Wittenborg stated she thought the new plan looked good; now only the loading ramp, an 8 X 9 foot section of deck, is in the setback rather than the whole deck. Porter clarified that rear and side yard setbacks are 20 feet.
Filipi questioned whether section 127-14, home businesses, applies to this case, and if the ZBA should consider it in decision-making. The section refers to storage and screening stored material from public view. He said that while the current abutter may not object to this storage, a future abutter may. Mr. Caracappa said the surface of the ramp is flush with the grade on the high side and about 3 feet above grade on the low side, putting it just a little lower than the top of the stone wall at that point. Roberts clarified that there were no plans to screen or enclose the deck. Wittenborg noted that the only part of the deck the Board could request be enclosed is the ramp, since it is the only part of the deck now in the setback. Porter added that if equipment storage becomes an eyesore, it
will most likely be on the deck proper, which is not in the setback.
Roberts clarified that this was not a home business and therefore what is stored on the property is not the Board’s concern. Mr. Caracappa said it was not his intention to jam equipment on the deck; he’s making it large so there will be an ease of movement. Porter stated that she feels Mr. Caracappa has addressed the Board’s concerns and revised his plans accordingly.
Porter moved, Fletcher seconded and the Board proceeded to a vote on the area variance.
The Board voted on the criteria for granting an area variance, finding:
(1) There would not be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of granting this variance. Four ayes, one no vote. Filipi feels there might be a negative impact on property values if equipment stored becomes an eyesore.
(2) The granting of this variance would not be contrary to the public interest. Four ayes, one no vote. Filipi voted no for the above reason.
(3)(a) An area variance is necessary in order to allow the applicant to use the property as proposed because of the special conditions of the property. Unanimous aye vote. The Board agreed the grade and width of the property necessitated a variance.
(3)(b) The same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden. Unanimous aye vote.
(4) By granting this variance substantial justice would be done. Unanimous aye vote.
(5) The use contemplated by the applicant as a result of obtaining this variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Four ayes, one no vote. Filipi stated he would have felt differently if this was a strictly residential storage issue, but Mr. Caracappa had indicated that he planned to store equipment associated with his business.
The Area Variance granted by the Board.
Minutes: The Board reviewed minutes of the May 9, 2006 meeting. Two changes were made at the request of the persons quoted. Fletcher moved, Wittenborg seconded and the Board approved the minutes as amended.
The Board reviewed minutes of the June 13, 2006 meeting. Wittenborg moved, Fletcher seconded and the Board voted to approve the minutes as written.
Administration: Six Board members indicated they will attend the first lecture in the annual Municipal Law Lecture Series, held on October 4, 2006 in Jaffrey. Members will meet at Town Hall at 6:30 and car pool to Jaffrey. Two members will attend all three lectures.
Public hearing: Case #06-09, Tehmasp Kothavala seeks an Area Variance to encroach on the front setback by constructing an addition to his home on property located at 536 Fullam Hill Road, Map 8, Lot 45-03, Rural District.
Roberts called the case and stated that the plan indicates that existing front steps jut out 6 feet from the front of the house and they will be replaced by an addition that will jut out about 6 feet from the house. The house itself was built prior to zoning and is sited wholly within the 75 foot setback now required in the rural district.
Mr. Kothavala indicated that the breezeway on the side of the house is the actual entrance to the house and will be modified somewhat to continue as such.
Mr. Kothavala said he couldn’t put the addition on the back of the house for several reasons. There is already an addition there; heating and plumbing utilities are located in the back wall; there is a chimney on the wall and there is a walk-in basement in the back. He said it wouldn’t be feasible financially to put the addition on the back.
Porter said the area was very rural with this small cluster of homes. She asked if the Kothavala house, with the addition, would be the closest to the road. Mr. Kothavala thinks one other home is as close. Porter clarified that the two large trees in front will not be removed by the construction. Mr. Kothavala said the trees will stay and his home can really only be seen from one neighbor’s home.
Porter asked about the frontage road, if there were any plans to widen the road. Mr. Kothavala noted there was very little traffic on the road currently, and that the town was ‘hard pressed to pave it, never mind widen it.’
Filipi asked where the front boundary line was, encouraging Mr. Kothavala to get an exact measurement so there would be no question of his violating the terms of his variance.
Porter noted that the property was very well kept and it was clear the Kothavlas were upgrading the home with this addition and their landscaping.
Wittenborg moved, Porter seconded and the Board proceeded to vote on a motion to grant an area variance permitting the Kothavalas to put an addition on the front of their home. The permitted addition is 27 feet wide and 7 feet deep, including the overhang.
The Board voted on the criteria for granting an area variance, finding:
(1)There would not be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of granting this variance. Unanimous aye vote.
(2) The granting of this variance would not be contrary to the public interest. Unanimous aye vote.
(3)(a) An area variance is necessary in order to allow the applicant to use the property as proposed because of the special conditions of the property. Unanimous aye vote.
(3)(b) The same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden. Unanimous aye vote.
(4) By granting this variance substantial justice would be done. Unanimous aye vote.
(5) The use contemplated by the applicant as a result of obtaining this variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Unanimous aye vote.
The Area Variance was granted by the Board.
Porter moved, Fletcher seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 PM.
| 
