Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2004
Members present: Daniel Baker; Clerk, Jane Roberts, Edwin Mattson, Coni Porter and Gerald Neiman; Alternate.
Mr. Baker agreed to chair the meeting this evening and opened the meeting at 7:33 p.m. The applicant for the first case was present and Mr. Baker explained the procedure for the public hearing.
Public Hearings
7:30 p.m. Case #04-05: Frank Bateman requests a Special Exception under Article V. Section 127-19 (F) to construct an addition onto the existing building located at 133 Rockwood Pond Road while having less than the minimum required side yard setback. This property is known as Tax Map 38; Lot 4 and is located in the Rural District. - Acting Chairman Baker opened this public hearing at 7:35 p.m. and read the case title aloud. Mr. and Mrs. Bateman were present. Mr. Baker referred the Board to the Table of Standard Dimensional Regulations in the back of the Land Use Regulations manual, and noted that the minimum side yard setback in the Rural District is 20’. Mr. Baker asked the applicant to explain to the Board what he proposes to do.
Mr. Bateman began by providing the Board with some history about this parcel noting that his grandmother owned 89 acres and she settled the division of the land before she passed away in 1962. Mr. Bateman built his house in 1950 and explained to the Board that when the map for the entire parcel was done in 1971 it showed his house, but it had an incorrect number for one side of the lot. Mr. Bateman explained that he has spoken with the people that currently own the abutting property to this side line about this and they were going to pursue doing a lot line adjustment to correct this, but this property is currently in litigation for dissolution. Mr. Bateman explained the land right along this boundary line which is an overgrown drainage trench and there is ledge and a drop
off which make it unsuitable for anything.
Mr. Bateman explained the layout of the house and explained that he would like to put an addition on which would bring it right to this property line. There is exactly 20’ from the house to the property line. Mr. Bateman told the Board that neither of the abutting property owners have a problem with this proposal.
Mr. Baker noted that a letter from Robert Welsh, one of the abutting property owners, was filed this afternoon. Mr. Baker read this letter aloud which basically states that the property known as Map 38; Lot 5 is in litigation and he feels that accurate and current boundary lines must be clear and established. The Board asked Mr. Bateman if he had a survey of the property. Mrs. Bateman showed the Board a plan but it did not have a surveyor’s stamp on it. Mrs. Bateman then spoke of the lot line adjustment that was proposed and explained that this could not be done now because the property is in litigation and this needs to be settled first. Ms. Porter asked if the applicant had anything in writing from the abutter stating that they did not have any objections to this
proposal. The applicant did not.
Mr. Bateman told the Board that he does not view this proposal as a detriment and he is asking for a Special Exception for the side yard boundary which has never had the minimum amount required. Mr. Bateman further explained the division of land noting that after a challenge the land was divided, but it has been a nonconforming lot all this time.
Mr. Bateman showed the Board a diagram that he drew of the house and the proposed addition. This drawing was not filed with the application and Mr. Baker asked Mr. Bateman if he would provide a copy of it for the record. Mr. Bateman said that he would. The application notes that the addition would be 16’x24’ but the drawing shows the addition at 16’x22’ without the porch. Mr. Baker explained to Mr. Bateman that the Board needs to have a dimensionally accurate drawing.
Mrs. Roberts questioned if the addition could go the other way on the house where setbacks would not be an issue, and Mr. Bateman explained where the locations of the well and septic system were and why this would not work. Mr. Bateman added that this is the practical solution and moving the bedroom around does not give them the clearance they need, etc. Mrs. Bateman stated that it seems to her that this proposal would maintain a rural flavor within a rural district. Mr. Baker noted that this proposal could limit what could occur on the property line and that could limit a future owners’ use of the property. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Bateman if he would give any consideration to changing this proposal. Mr. Bateman responded by saying that he does not see how changing this
would change anything with the property line and added that he has been mowing the same path for 50 years. Mr. Baker explained to Mr. Bateman that the Special Exception would stay with the property forever, and he was trying to determine if he would give consideration to the spirit of the chapter and allow an access and a buffer zone noting that going right up to the property line questions if this proposal complies with the spirit of the ordinance.
Mrs. Bateman said that she understood the point about protecting the property for future generations and then spoke about the land again noting the ledge that is 2’ away and that it drops of steeply. Mr. Mattson and Mrs. Roberts asked additional questions about the ledge area. Mr. Bateman said that after the drop off it gets flat and is somewhat swampy, grassy, until it catches up with the drainage ditch. Mr. Bateman added that the footing would probably go on ledge.
Mr. Neiman asked for clarification on the dimensions of the addition. The house is 20’x32’ and the addition would be 16’x22’ without the porch. The application states that it would be 16’x24‘and Mr. Bateman explained that he was experimenting. The total size including the screened in porch would be 16’x28’6”. Mr. Neiman asked Mr. Bateman if he had given any thought to building upwards. Mrs. Bateman stated that they are getting into their senior years and prefer to keep one level, and Mr. Bateman spoke of the front door that was fitted to accommodate his mothers’ walker noting that if either of them ever need to utilize this there would not be problem.
Mr. John Holman told the Board that he had two concerns; first he had a question about the number of bedrooms and septic load, which has been answered, and secondly, he has a concern about the building being only a foot or so from the property line without having a survey done. Mr. Holman stated that he thinks that having pins put back in and ribbons run should be a consideration in this because it is so close. Mr. Holman added that if a boundary line is incorrect and later discovered it could be a problem. Mr. Bateman said that he intended to have Mr. Goodrich do this. Mr. Mattson stated that he was concerned about the letter that was filed by the abutter today.
Mr. Bateman told the Board that they have given this a lot of thought and he offered to try and get something from the abutters in writing. Mr. Baker said that that would be good if he could do that and reminded Mr. Bateman that the Board has to hear the case on its merits. Ms. Porter suggested that the Board conduct a site walk and the Board agreed that it would be beneficial for them to see the area themselves. The Board briefly discussed the time frame in which they have to act on the application and Margo noted that they have fourteen days to make a decision after the public hearing is held. Mr. Neiman added that this could be extended if the applicant was agreeable. Mr. Bateman told the Board that he would like for them to go out and see the area and he did not have a
problem with continuing the hearing.
Coni Porter moved that the Board request an extension in time to make a decision on the application with the approval of the applicant, for the purpose of conducting a site walk and to allow the applicant time to obtain other information from the abutters. Jane Roberts seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Acting Chairman Baker closed this public hearing at 8:18 p.m. and continued it to the next meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Baker told the applicant that as soon as the Board decided when they could perform the site walk, he would be contacted by Margo.
7:50 p.m. Case #04-06: Amy Calandra requests a Special Exception under Article V. Section 127-19 (F) for a reduction in the 100’ minimum front yard setback for Self Storage Units she is seeking to construct on property located on Rt. 12 South, Tax Map 12; Lot 7-2 located in the General Industrial District. – Acting Chairman Baker opened this public hearing at 8:18 p.m. and read the case title aloud. Amy Calandra and Paul Grasewicz were present.
Mr. Baker explained the Board’s procedure to Mrs. Calandra and asked her to present her proposal to the Board.
Mrs. Calandra explained to the Board that she is looking to purchase land from Mr. and Mrs. Conte on Rt. 12 South, and she would like to put a 100’x40’ mini warehouse for self storage units there. Mrs. Calandra noted that this parcel has been before the Board on several occasions, most recently being the greenhouse/worm farm proposal that they approved last May. Mrs. Calandra added that she met with the Planning Board for a Preliminary Consultation and Chairman Silverman had asked that she have the wetlands on the property delineated, which Paul Grasewicz has done for her.
Mr. Grasewicz provided the Board with a Site Plan for this proposal and explained to the Board that due to the location of wetlands, they need to bring this forward towards the road. Mr. Baker asked that one copy of this plan be made part of the record.
The Board noted that there is a minimum 100’ front yard setback in the General Industrial District and questioned what is being proposed for the setback. Mr. Grasewicz explained that there would be a 25’ wide area going around the building for access; it was noted that this is the minimum width for access, and the plan shows the existing grading only and does not show and proposed grading. There are wetlands behind where the proposed building would go as well as being on the side and some in the front. The building would be 59’ from the right of way and 112’ from the edge of the pavement. Paul noted that the parcel consists of 32 acres and there are wetlands in the rear of the property as well. Some of the wetlands may be dry in another month or so.
Mr. Neiman asked if there is a minimum size in order to be considered wetlands and Mr. Grasewicz said that there is not in this state or by the Federal Government. Mr. Neiman then asked about the 100’ setback and clarified that it is supposed to run from the edge of the right of way. Mr. Neiman then asked if there were any local requirements with regards to wetlands and setbacks. Mr. Grasewicz explained the wetlands application process noting that anything within 75’ of wetlands needs approval and is subject to the wetlands ordinance. Mr. Grasewicz noted that the State of New Hampshire only becomes involved if wetlands need to be filled in which is a minimum impact expedited application.
Mrs. Roberts confirmed that the use would be for storage and there would be electricity but no well or septic. Mrs. Roberts questioned the number of units and Mrs. Calandra said that she is looking at about 40 although that is not definite. She does know the amount of square footage that she wants.
Ms. Porter questioned lighting and Mrs. Calandra said that she would keep it as minimal as possible and noted security and visibility. The visibility issue is for security reasons as Mrs. Calandra wants this seen from the road. Ms. Porter asked if there would be a gate there and Mrs. Calandra said that she is not planning on having one. Ms. Porter confirmed that the applicant wants high visibility and noted that she understands that the town wants to maintain rural character. Mrs. Calandra said that this was mentioned when she met with the Planning Board. Mrs. Calandra then mentioned the unsightliness along Rt. 12 and explained that she plans to do some nice landscaping there and that it would be attractive. Mrs. Roberts questioned what landscaping would be done and Mrs.
Calandra said that she would leave some trees and put in some shrubbery and plants, and she would not touch the wetlands.
The distance from the pavement to the building was confirmed to be 112’ and the road frontage is 435’. The Board discussed that this is a 32 acre parcel and questioned what the remaining land was like. The Board then discussed if this could go elsewhere on the property. Mrs. Calandra explained that she doesn’t want to have to go back several hundred feet and noted costs associated with having to do this; constructing the driveway, gravel, possible ledge and running electrical line. Ms. Porter asked if the woods; the current buffer, would be kept from the edge of the pavement to the building. Mrs. Calandra said that her sign would play an important part and that there are a lot of wetlands in the front which she could not touch.
Mr. Baker confirmed that the property owners did sign the application and Margo explained that the page that they signed was faxed through the realtor. There were no further questions from the Board. Lastly, Mrs. Calandra told the Board that she has decided that the name would be Fitzwilliam Self Storage and not the name indicated on the plan. Mr. Baker closed this public hearing at 8:40 p.m. and asked the Board if they were prepared to vote on this application this evening. The Board agreed that they were and Ms. Porter asked for discussion amongst the Board members first.
Ms. Porter questioned if anyone felt that there was a potential problem with the rural character, and noted that this proposal is a low impact use of the land. The access around the building was mentioned and Mr. Grasewicz said that paving would prevent erosion from going into the wetlands. Mr. Baker said that this is in the General Industrial District and he associates rural with the Rural Zoning District. Mrs. Roberts said that it seems to her that this would be an improvement over some of the other places along Rt. 12 and Mr. Neiman noted that it is an allowable use, and the application for the Special Exception is for the setback. Mrs. Calandra told the Board that she did look into another parcel that was already cleared but the price was out of the question. Mr. Neiman
added that he wished he could understand what usage could be made of the remaining acreage and noted that there is only so much you can do with a piece of land like this. The Board proceeded to vote on the mandatory criteria and found that the proposed use:
1. Is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter – The Board voted unanimously that this proposal is in keeping with the purpose and intent of this chapter and noted that it is an allowable use in the General Industrial zone.
2. Will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place – The Board voted unanimously that this proposal would not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood with Gerald Neiman noting that this is a good use for the General Industrial zone and that the area has some wonderful views and woodlands as well as some industrial blight. Jane Roberts noted that this would be an improvement.
3. Is appropriate for the site in question – The Board agreed unanimously that this proposal was appropriate for the site.
4. Complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter – The Board agreed unanimously that this proposal complies with the requirements for a Special Exception.
5. With respect to dimensional requirements establishes that there exist special conditions that make the meeting of these requirements unduly burdensome – Gerald Neiman stated that he believes that because there are considerable limitations to the access of this property including surface water, ledge and road frontage, the limitations on the setbacks of the code are unduly burdensome. Coni Porter said that it doesn’t make sense to put this business further back than it needs to be. The Board voted unanimously that there are special circumstances surrounding this proposal in meeting the dimensional requirements, which make meeting these unduly burdensome.
Edwin Mattson moved to grant the Special Exception for Amy Calandra for property known as Tax Map 12; Lot 7-2 located on Rt. 12 South in the General Industrial District. Jane Roberts seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Mr. Baker told Ms. Calandra that she will receive a notice of decision in the mail.
Administrative Work
*** Review and approve April 13, 2004 Meeting Minutes – Gerald Neiman moved to accept the minutes of April 13, 2004 as written. Jane Roberts seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
*** Election of Officers – Mr. Baker told the Board that they need to elect officers to which Ed asked Mr. Baker if he would consider being the chairman. Dan explained that he is out of town a lot for his job and he feels that the chairmanship requires someone that is able to do some research and leg work and have the time to put into it and he really does not have that kind of time. Dan added that they really need to find someone that is in town more and has the time to put into it. The Board agreed to think about this and discuss it at their next meeting.
Margo asked the Board who she could contact if something came up and Dan offered to be the contact temporarily but again told the Board that he is not able to be the Chairman.
Coni Porter told the Board that she has spoke with Carl Goldknopf and he would like to attend a meeting before committing to becoming a Board member. Margo told the Board that she has been told by several people that Gretchen Wittenborg is interested as well. The Board asked Margo to Provide the Selectmen with Gretchen and Carl’s names for appointment.
Dan second
Correspondence
*** Notices of Decision issued by the Planning Board – Reviewed
The Board scheduled the site walk for the Bateman application for next Tuesday evening at 6:00. The Board will meet at the Town Hall at 5:45 p.m. Margo noted that she needs to be back at the Town Hall to prepare for a Planning Board meeting at 7:00 p.m.
The Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margo M. Best
Administrative Assistant
Land Use Boards
| 
