Members Present: Jane Roberts, Chairman, Gretchen Wittenborg, Ashley Fletcher, Coni Porter, Dianne Schott, and alternates Carl Goldknopf and Steven Filipi. Susan Silverman, Selectmen’s representative was present.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. Roberts reminded everyone present about procedures for conducting a public hearing.
7:00 p.m. Case # 05-28 Ronald Morey seeks a Use Variance under Article III, Chapter 127-7 A, to convert a cold storage shed to a residence on property located on NH Route 12 South, in the General Industrial District, Map 12, Lot 12.
Roberts read the appeal and asked Ronald Morey, who was accompanied by his mother Theresa Doyle, to present his case. Mr. Morey distributed maps of his property as measured by George Bell to indicate the elevation of the property in relationship to the floodplain. He asked if the Board had seen the memo form Mr. Bell and they indicated they had. He said he wanted to convert the existing cold storage building to a residence.
Roberts read from a decision made by the Board of Adjustment on August 9, 1999 to allow Mr. Morey to construct a cold storage building on the site. The Board specified that the building was not to be used as a residence without further approvals from the town. Mr. Morey said he had been living in it temporarily but was not living there now. He said his circumstances have changed and he is now seeking approvals to convert the building. He said there have been no changes to the exterior of the building, but some sheet rock and electrical work had been done already. He dug a well in 2003 when he was temporarily living there, which Mrs. Doyle pointed out, was also for fire protection purposes.
Mrs. Doyle asked if the Board had seen her list of renovations that will upgrade the building to a residence. They had. She pointed out that Mr. Bell’s memo and map indicated the proposed septic system will be out of the wetlands. It would have to be approved before it can be installed she said.
Schott confirmed that there was no domestic use of the building at this time.
Porter asked if Mr. Morey was asking for a variance for setbacks for the proposed leach field. He said he probably would have to, considering it is approximately 25 feet short on one side. Porter, using a ruler, measured the setbacks. Both Mr. Morey and Mrs. Doyle disagreed with the measurements, saying that the area was legally filled in 1977 and therefore is no longer a wetland. Mrs. Doyle said nothing could ever be built in between the river on one side and the business on the other side of them except a residence.
Porter noted they are in the General Industrial District and it is a very commercial area. This district does not allow residences.
Wittenborg, reading the Morey file said there is a note that no utilities will cross the wetlands. Mr. Morey pointed out the utilities follow the driveway and do not cross wetlands.
Susan Silverman, Selectmen’s representative voiced her concern that the building is in a floodplain and there are wetlands issued to address as well.
Roberts reviewed town regulations regarding building in wetlands and floodplains. Mr. Morey noted that the filled area has been there a long time and has settled. He says the area is no longer wet and is out of the floodplain at least where the leach field is planned. Filipi said the state setback requirements for a septic system and house are 75 feet from wetlands and a waiver from the state would be necessary even if the town waives their setback.
Roberts reiterated that the building was approved and constructed for use as a cold storage unit, and dwellings are not allowed in this district.
Mrs. Doyle said she knew Mr. Morey’s personal financial situation is not relevant to the discussion, but his taxes have gone up and he has two buildings on which she is a co-signer. They cannot afford to pay the taxes.
Roberts asked if the Board needed any more information from the applicant. They didn’t and there being no abutters present, she closed the public hearing. Fletcher said while he was in favor of people being able to use their land the way they want to, he was concerned about Mr. Morey living in that area. Mr. Morey said he’d watched that land for years and it is OK to use. Fletcher said Mr. Morey would probably have to go to the Planning Board too, but it was up to the Board of Adjustment to determine if the use variance could be granted.
Porter noted the location of the property, which is very nearly in the center of the general industrial district. She said the Board had made exceptions in the past on the edges of districts but hasn’t done it in the center of a district. Roberts pointed out that wetlands regulations are to protect wetlands and setbacks there are not the same as property boundary line setbacks. Schott asked if Scott Brook was perennial and Roberts said yes. Schott said that intensifies her concern, noting the wetlands are already compromised by the fill done in 1977. Additionally the proposed leach field and house are both less than 75 feet from the wetlands and the brook. Wittenborg agreed she is still concerned about the floodplain. Fletcher added that the location may be problematic in
securing a mortgage or flood insurance.
Porter moved, Wittenborg seconded and the Board voted to move to a vote on the Use Variance appeal.
(1) There would be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of granting this variance because it may compromise future industrial uses and the ordinance now says residences are not allowed in the general industrial district. Porter, Fletcher, Schott and Roberts agreed. Wittenborg disagreed, adding that she didn’t think there would be any impact on abutters if the variance were granted.
(2) The granting of this variance would be contrary to the public interest because building in a floodplain may compromise the Town’s ability to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. All agreed.
(3)(a) The zoning restriction as applied to the property does not interfere with the reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property within its environment, because the property is already being used as a cold storage building. All agreed.
(3)(b) There is a fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because the area is appropriate for a cold storage unit. All agreed.
(3)(c) The variance would injure the public or private rights of others because the issue may be one of public health and safety. All agreed.
(4) By granting this variance substantial justice would not be done because the applicant is already using his property, and there is a concern about participation in the flood insurance program. All agreed.
(5) The use contemplated by the applicant as a result of obtaining this variance would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because the ordinance does not allow residences in the district, the proposed project cannot meet wetlands setbacks and it is within the 50 year floodplain. All agreed.
7:30 PM Case #05-29: Robert and Charlene Dooley seek a Special Exception under Article VII, Section 127-31.1 to place a second sign for their business, The Itinerant Traveler, on the exterior of the building, located at 10 NH Route 12 South, Map 34, Lot 1.
Wittenborg, an abutter, disqualified herself, and Roberts seated Goldknopf for this case. Roberts asked Mr. and Mrs. Dooley to present their case.
Mr. Dooley distributed photos of the area that illustrated his point that the existing sign is not sufficient to allow people, when traveling along Route 119 especially, to identify their business, to distinguish it from the restaurant next door or to let people know there was even another business on the site. They have designed a sign that is seven feet long by two and a half feet tall, and propose the sign be located on the building wall at the only point where it can be seen from the road if vehicles are parked in front of the building. It has been designed to be in keeping with the historic nature of the town and has been seen by the Historic District Commission and Planning Board, but a special exception is needed to comply with town regulations.
He noted a smaller sign than they’ve designed will be ineffective given the speed of passing traffic and the distance of the store from the road. He noted that other businesses in the area have more visible signs than he does, particularly the gas station on the corner, whose signs can be seen from all directions. He noted he’d like to close the gap between their situation and his.
Porter asked how many sections of the building they rented. They rent two units of the three unit complex. She wondered if they had to give up one unit, which one would they choose. Mrs. Dooley presumed they would keep the end unit, farthest from the restaurant. Porter noted that the wall sign wouldn’t help then. Mrs. Dooley said they could move it if necessary. Roberts pointed out that previous shop renters have had a second sign in front. Mrs. Dooley said their temporary sign, a sandwich board they take in a night, had been destroyed by a truck.
Silverman noted that a business is allowed an entrance sign and Porter, reading from the ordinance, said there is a purpose for the proposed sign. Filipi noted the proposed sign is just barely too long for the wall sign ordinance. Mr. Dooley said another disadvantage of the property is that there is only one side of the building that can be used for signage.
Porter said the aesthetics of an additional sign still concerns her, and wondered if, by granting the exception, the Board would set a precedent.
Roberts asked is they were ready to vote on the mandatory findings. They were. Goldknopf moved, Fletcher seconded and the Board voted to move to a vote on the criteria.
Roberts closed the hearing and the Board proceeded to a unanimous vote of aye on the five mandatory findings for a Special Exception. The Board agreed the proposed sign was in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance; would not be detrimental to the neighborhood; is appropriate to the general business and historic districts in which it is located; complies with all applicable requirements especially since two other town boards have seen the proposed signage; and there are special conditions that warrant the special exception. The Special Exception is granted.
Wittenborg was reseated and Goldknopf left the Board.
Minutes: ~The Board reviewed minutes of the November 22, 2005 meeting. Fletcher moved, Porter seconded and the Board approved the minutes as written.
Porter moved, Fletcher seconded and the Board adjourned at 8:15 PM.
| 
