Members Present: Jane Roberts, Chairman, Jack Ernst, Steve Filipi, Coni Porter and Gretchen Wittenborg.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM
Public hearing: Case #06-14. Harold Ramsey appeal for a Special Exception to return a single family dwelling to its original two family status on property located at 348 Route 119 W, Map 28, Lot 28, Residential District.
Mr. Ramsey told the Board that when he bought the property he was told it had been a two-family home at one time. He renovated the dwelling and now wants to return it to two-family status. He said he had no documentation that it was a two-family home. The house has ten rooms. Mr. Mattson, abutter, indicated that he thought the building had been occupied by two brothers and their wives twenty years ago, noting that he recalled there were two separate entrances.
Mr. Ramsey plans no external changes to the building, but does plan to put a small deck and stairway on the back as a second means of egress serving the upstairs apartment, if he is allowed to make it a two-family dwelling.
Filipi is concerned about the septic system and asked if it could support a two-family home. Mr. Ramsey said he’d had it pumped when he first bought it and repaired baffles in the tank at that time. He didn’t know the capacity of the tank. Mr. Mattson added he too is concerned about the septic system and its impact on his lawn. He suggested he would be willing to put in a new septic system if the existing one is not adequate. He will consult with a septic system designer about the system.
Members of the Board noted that to secure a building or occupancy permit standards for egress and the septic system would probably have to be met.
Ernst asked if there was enough parking to accommodate two dwellings. Town ordinance 127-22 C. calls for two parking spots for each dwelling unit. Mr. Ramsey thought there would be enough room for parking, especially if he demolishes the dilapidated garage that is on the property.
Filipi raised the question of the trailer on the property. It is a grandfathered use of the property. Mr. Ramsey renovated it and it is currently rented. At some point in the future he will have to remove it, noting it is very old.
Wittenborg said she was still troubled by the lack of evidence that this was once a two-family dwelling. It was noted that the Board can grant a special exception to allow a two family home in the residential district.
There was some discussion about whether to have Mr. Ramsey settle the septic system issue first or to grant the special exception with conditions. Mr. Ramsey said he could not proceed with the septic system without assurance that he could renovate the dwelling.
Mr. Mattson said he had no problem with a two-family home as long as the septic system is adequate.
Wittenborg moved and Ernst seconded a motion to grant the special exception for a two-family dwelling with the following conditions:
1) The septic system has the capacity to support a two-family home;
2) There is space enough for four parking spaces, per town ordinance.
The Board proceeded to a vote on the Mandatory Findings. The Board of Adjustment shall not issue a Special Exception unless, without exception, it shall find that the proposed use:
(1) Is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. All agreed.
(2) Will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place. All agreed.
(3) Is appropriate for the site in question. All agreed.
(4) Complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter. All agreed.
(5) With respect to dimensional requirements establishes that there exist special conditions that make the meeting of these requirements unduly burdensome. Not applicable.
The Special Exception was granted with the attached conditions.
Public hearing: Case # 06-11. James Dunton appeal for an Area Variance to build an attached garage that encroaches on the front setback of his property located at 15 Webb Hill Road, Map 27, Lot 03, Rural District.
Mr. Dunton told the Board he wanted to construct the garage to make it easier to access and clean his cars and equipment and to get them further away from the road.
Roberts, who had seen the property, as had two other Board members, asked if Mr. Dunton was planning to build some kind of retaining wall to keep the slope from eroding into the road. Mr. Dunton said he would have to dig the slope back some to put in the garage and planned a retaining wall behind the garage. When asked why he can’t build the garage back further from the road, he replied that there is ledge very near the surface. The septic field is to the far left of the property. The abutter on the left is a good distance away but the abutter on the right is quite close. The breezeway and garage will be to the left of the house.
Porter asked if the garage could be made smaller. Filipi said he didn’t like to build them smaller than the 24 X 24 dimensions of the proposed garage. Ernst agreed.
Filipi said that if Mr. Dunton planned to pave the driveway in the future, he would be creating more water running into the road and suggested talking with the road agent about ditches and culverts.
Ernst wondered why the breezeway had to be 18' long. Filipi noted that the length of the breezeway would have very little impact on the distance of the garage from the road. Wittenborg agreed, adding it looked like a reasonable use of the property.
Wittenborg moved and Filipi seconded a motion to grant an Area Variance to build the breezeway and attached garage in accordance with the dimensions on the diagram attached to the application. The Board proceeded to a vote on the mandatory findings for an area variance. The Board of Adjustment found that all of the following conditions were present:
For Area Variances:
(1)There would not be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of granting this variance. All agreed.
(2) The granting of this variance would not be contrary to the public interest. All agreed.
(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. All agreed. They noted the ledge behind his home and proposed location of the garage is a limiting factor.
(3)(b) The same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden. All agreed, citing the ledge again.
(4) By granting this variance substantial justice would be done. All agreed.
(5) The use contemplated by the applicant as a result of obtaining this variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. All agreed.
The Area Variance was granted.
Minutes: Filipi moved, Wittenborg seconded and the Board approved the minutes of the August 22, 2006 meeting as written. Porter abstained.
Public hearing: Case # 06-12. David Brooks, Administrative Appeal of Planning Board decision approving a three-lot subdivision located on East Lake Road and Howeville Road, Map 21, Lot 36, Rural District.
Roberts noted the appeal contained five grounds and the ZBA had authority to hear only the three based on the town ordinance, 127-9, 127-16.1 D (1) and (3). Grounds having to do with the subdivision regulations are appealable only to the Superior Court. The deadline for a Superior Court appeal is 30 days after the decision, which was August 31, 2006.
Mr. Brooks told the Board he didn’t realize that the Board couldn’t hear an appeal based on the subdivision regulations. Regarding the other three issues, he said the property has two dwellings on it, and the wetlands were not accurately delineated by a licensed wetlands scientist. The Board clarified that prior to subdivision approval there were two dwellings on one property. The property was subdivided into three lots, two of which have one dwelling each on them. The other lot is land only.
The wetlands were delineated by a qualified engineer and the plan was approved by the Planning Board.
Mr. Brooks noted that he was ‘thinking down the road’ but has no problem with the subdivision now. Mr. Brooks withdrew his appeal application. Roberts clarified that the time limit for an appeal to the Superior Court has elapsed.
Livestock ordinance: Matt Buonomano was asked to give the Board a report on his presentation to the Planning Board regarding the livestock ordinance. He thought it went well, that the Planning Board was receptive. He felt they were surprised to hear about the effect the setbacks have on small properties. He learned that almost everyone in town who keeps animals is in violation of the ordinance in some way. He noted that the Planning Board had discussed whether or not chickens and other small animals would be included in the ordinance and said they didn’t want to regulate small animals. There is a lot of confusion about how the regulation is applied.
Mr. Buonomano was confused by a statement Terry Silverman made that it was the zoning board’s job to permit variances and exceptions. Mr. Buonomano feels the ZBA can’t relax setbacks. He thinks it’s the language in the ordinance that needs to be relaxed. Wittenborg thinks the whole concept needs to be revisited in light of the increased emphasis on agrarian efforts in NH. She said new people often want suburban amenities and, at the same time, want to raise a steer in their back yard. She attended the Planning Board presentation and didn’t get a clearer idea about the ordinance. She doesn’t think the ordinance works and is hard to apply.
Ernst noted that there should be a distinction made between a nuisance problem and a zoning ordinance.
Public hearing: Case # 06-13. Joseph Brazeau appeal for an Area Variance to construct an addition on a non-conforming structure located at 340 East Lake Road, Map 7, Lot 7, Rural District.
Mr. Brazeau said he wanted to build a wooden deck with a screened enclosure in front of his camper in Laurel Lake Campground. It will be built so it can be disassembled when they move the camper, which serves as their seasonal cottage. He said it is cheaper than purchasing a screened tent-like porch. Wittenborg clarified that the Brazeaus did not own the land under their camper. They lease the site on a yearly basis and can use it between April and October.
He plans to build wooden sides on the structure and screen in the rest. He had a similar structure at the last campground they were in and will use the lumber from that structure with changed dimensions. The proposed structure will be 10 X 30.
Wittenborg questioned why the Board was hearing an appeal on a temporary structure.
Mr. Cal Linkenhoker, campground manager, responded to a question from Roberts about campground regulations. He said they intended to run a campground not a shanty-town. He said Mr. Brazeau was before the Board because his structure would be too close to the road. He said he didn’t have a problem with a screen porch but this structure has wooden sides.
Wittenborg suggested it was possible for the Board to grant an Area Variance and then the campground could enforce their own regulations. Ernst asked if it is a portable structure, would there be a problem with it. Wittenborg suggested putting down pallets with an awning over them and screening draped on the sides. She said it’s the permanent nature of the structure that is problematic.
Wittenborg asked if the Board could hear Matt Buonomano’s opinion even though he was not seated as an alternate. Roberts agreed. Buonomano said it sounded like a setback issue and the Selectmen denied a building permit based on the setback violation.
Filipi asked why the dimensions couldn’t be changed to make the structure smaller and therefore stay outside the setback. He said he personally thinks that since Mr. Brazeau has options, a variance is not necessary. He said Mr. Brazeau can proceed without a variance if he makes the structure smaller.
The Board agreed they would deny the appeal with the structure as presented in the application. Porter articulated two choices: Mr. Brazeau can withdraw his application and change the dimensions to stay out of the setback and get a building permit from the Selectmen or the Board can vote to deny his appeal.
Mr. Brazeau withdrew his appeal. The Board expressed its hope that Mr. Brazeau will not have to pay another building permit fee. They also said they would waive any application fee if he should have to apply to the ZBA in the future on this issue.
Wittenborg moved, Ernst seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM.
| 
