Town of Fitzwilliam, NH - ZBA Meeting Minutes 12/12/06

Public hearing: Case # 06-18 Carol Langer administrative appeal of Historic District Commission decision denying approval of signage on a canvass awning on the old schoolhouse, located at 22 Route 119W, Village Center Business and Historic Districts.

Roberts opened the hearing by reiterating the history of the case, which first came to the attention of the Historic District Commission informally in the spring of 2006. An application was formally heard by the Historic District Commission at their September 14, 2006 meeting, after Ms. Langer had already installed an awning with an identifying sign. The Commission ruled on the case at their October 12, 2006 meeting, and a letter was sent to Ms. Langer stating that the Commission approved the awning but did not approve the signage on it. She was asked to have the signage removed from the awning within 60 days.

Wittenborg read item 2 of the appeal that referred to a conversation in the spring of 2006 that Ms. Langer had with John Fitzwilliam, who was vice chairman of the Commission at the time. Ms. Langer states that Mr. Fitzwilliam told her that he would bring the matter up to the Commission. She states that following the next Commission meeting he told her that the Commission would not require a review or application. She states she then contracted with a firm to install the awning. Wittenborg asked Mr. Fitzwilliam about the statement.

Mr. Fitzwilliam stated he did bring materials to the Commission for informal review, but there was no application and the Commission did not hear the case. They did, however, express the opinion that they did not like the proposed awning, which Mr. Fitzwilliam conveyed to Ms. Langer. He stated she told him she would install it anyway. Mr. Fitzwilliam said he also told her that she could argue that the awning was not a permanent part of the building. He recalled that it was the shape of the proposed awning that was problematic, looking rather like a restaurant chain awning. He does not recall any signage on that proposed awning, which was rounded on the front rather than flat like the current awning. However, he said the signage on the awning identifies a building and is not a business sign, which may fall between the cracks of the town sign ordinance. Ms. Langer has two building identification signs now, a free standing hanging sign near the road with a business sign beneath, and the awning sign.

Wittenborg said her home has a name but she does not have a sign identifying it, but if she did it would still be a sign. She read the purpose of the sign ordinance; “…to protect and improve community appearance…” and “to provide opportunity for signage while at the same time assuring that signs should not destroy or detract from scenic vistas, compete unnecessarily with the natural environment or proliferate in number. The Historic District Commission is charged with reviewing and approving all signs prior to placement, per town ordinance 127-31.2.

Porter clarified that the application came to the Commission after the awning and sign were installed. Mr. Fitzwilliam replied that was correct, adding the Commission was bending over backwards to approve the canopy since it was installed to protect the building entryway from the weather, but noted the canopy is not an integral part of the building.

Roberts noted Ms. Langer was remiss in not coming to the right board for an application. Ernst asked Mr. Fitzwilliam how Ms. Langer’s sign was different from the sign on Mr. Fitzwilliam’s building. Mr. Fitzwilliam said the sign referred to is grandfathered, and was made in the 1850s when the building was constructed. It was restored and installed prior to his purchase of the property.

Porter said that as a graphic designer and graphic arts teacher she researched the font used in the Langer sign and it is a modern font, designed to look old. Mr. Fitzwilliam added that the “Antiques” sign on the side of the Langer building is also grandfathered, and he believes it was installed in the early 1960s. Porter added it uses a font created in the 1820s.

A member of the public noted that it seems that if one wanted to do something, one would file an application to do it. Ernst agreed that was the process, but noted that the conversation in the spring between Ms. Langer and Mr. Fitzwilliam may have clouded that. Mr. Fitzwilliam repeated that he told Ms. Langer that the Commission didn’t like the awning; but feels he may not have said enough, not insisting that she contact the Commission to get an application.

Buonomano asked if the awning was in fact a sign. Wittenborg felt it was. Wittenborg moved and Porter seconded a motion to deny the administrative appeal. Buonomano voted to deny saying there is no mention of the sign in her statement, nor does it seem signage was mentioned in the materials informally presented to the Commission in the spring. Porter voted to deny based on the facts presented, that Ms. Langer added the awning and sign on her own volition without a permit. Wittenborg voted to deny saying the awning is a sign that does not comply with the sign ordinance. She said the Commission had reviewed the application, approving the awning and denying the sign; there was nothing in the Langer materials that would necessitate changing the decision. Ernst voted against the motion. The administrative appeal was denied.

Public hearing continued: Case # 06-16 Scot Sanderson appeal for Area Variance to replace nonconforming garage with larger garage on property located at 70 Keene Ave., Map 23, Lot 23, Rural District.

Mr. Sanderson was not present. Mr. Hagstrom presented the plan and a new drawing with dimensions and elevations requested by the Board. The proposed garage will be 18 feet tall at the peak and has the same pitch as the current one car garage. The current garage is 12 feet high at the peak. He estimated that the building next door, referred to at the last meeting, is about 26 feet high.

Porter asked how close the new garage will be to the boundary. It is two feet from the line, the same as the existing garage. She asked if the plan was to demolish the existing garage and build the new garage on a slab. Mr. Hagstrom agreed, saying the owner wanted it on an Alaskan slab. He said the existing garage is really old and in poor shape.

Wittenborg said the applicant is asking for a variance to extend the nonconforming use – this Board would be approving a variance for a nonconforming use that will run forward with the land. She added that she continues to be concerned with the density in the area having an impact on safety, particularly fire safety.

The Board clarified setback distances and Wittenborg noted the front corner of the proposed garage will be about 27 feet from the other side boundary. Porter added her concern that distances are too close for fire equipment. Mr. Hagstrom thought there was room for fire trucks, noting there is parking space all around the neighborhood.

Porter read from Land Use Ordinance 127-2, Purpose: “to promote and conserve the health and welfare of the inhabitant of the town; to secure safety from fire…..; …to conserve the value of land and buildings; ….to avoid undue concentration of population;…” She would not like to see a large garage go up there because the Board would be approving a nonconforming use that is more nonconforming that the original.

Buonomano said that the lot is so small that all uses would be nonconforming. He added that the ZBA is here to protect owners’ reasonable use of their property and he feels this garage is a reasonable use. He said he’d walked the neighborhood and it doesn’t seem to him to be a safety issue.

Wittenborg referred to LUO 127-36 B, which states “a nonconforming structure can be altered, reconstructed, extended or structurally changed, provided that such … change conforms to all the dimensional requirements of the chapter.” She thinks that the new garage would not change the nonconforming aspect of the existing garage and would conform to all other dimensional requirements.

Buonomano moved, Wittenborg seconded and the Board moved to a vote on the application for an Area Variance. Voting on the Mandatory Findings, in accordance with Article IX, Section 127-42 E, they found:

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. Buonomano agreed, Ernst agreed, Wittenborg agreed, Roberts agreed, Porter disagreed.

3.b. The same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden. Buonomano agreed, Ernst agreed, Wittenborg agreed, Roberts agreed, Porter disagreed.

5. The use contemplated by the applicant as a result of obtaining this variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Buonomano agreed, Ernst agreed, Wittenborg agreed, Roberts agreed, Porter disagreed.

The Area Variance is granted in accordance with Article VII: Section 127-36 B to construct a garage on property located at 70 Keene Avenue on Laurel Lake, Map 23, Lot 23 in the Rural District. The 24 foot by 24 foot garage is not to exceed 18 feet in height at the peak.