ANTRIM ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
October 4, 2005 meeting
Members Present:
John Kendall Len Pagano Tim Quachenbush Frank Scales Don Winchester
Member Absent
Doug Crafts Carol Court Paul Young
Public Attendees:
Richard Mailloux John Hanson Donna Hanson Bill Prokop
In the absence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, Mr. Vasques assumed the Chair and opened the meeting at 7:00 PM by designating Mr. Quachenbush to sit for Mr. Winchester. Members reviewed documentation submitted on the applications to be heard. At 7:15 PM, he introduced the Board members and explained the procedure to be followed for public hearings. He then asked Mr. Hanson to present his application.
Mr. Hanson read from a prepared letter which outlined their need for an Accessory Living Unit. A copy of the letter is on file #2005-11ZBA. The dwelling would be for his mother –in-law who is legally blind. Mr. Hanson presented a plot plan showing the proposed location of the unit. There is a very limited building envelop between the 100 foot setback from the high water mark and the easement for the PSNH power lines. The only other possible location for the unit would be on the other side of the power lines, a distance of over 150 feet. They had investigated converting the garage into the accessory unit but had been advised by a contractor that there was no exterior exposure and the ceiling height would not be adequate. Another possibility would be to attach the unit to the end of the house off the garage; however, this would
exacerbate the drainage problem because of the way the land is sloped. Based on what they proposed for the location, it would be necessary to connect the accessory unit with a 62 foot long breezeway in order to meet the ordinance requirement that at least one common interior access between the principal dwelling unit and the accessory living unit be provided. Mr. Hanson was asking for a variance to this requirement arguing that such a long breezeway would adversely affect the architectural style of the main house and would interfere with the drainage. Mr. Kendall asked for clarification of the ordinance for accessory living units and Mr. Vasques explained that it came about because there were no provisions for apartments in the Lakefront Residential and Rural Conservation Districts. This deprived homeowners in these districts from constructing apartments so they could care for elderly or infirmed family members, resulting in the need to place them in nursing homes which they may
not be able to afford. Mr. Pagano asked if it would be feasible to place it within the 20-sideline set back. The house already encroaches on the sideline setback and an addition would be right on the property line. Members discussed the need for the common interior access. The consensus was that since the ordinance did provide for an accessory living unit to be a detached structure (dependant on lot size), the common interior access would not be mandatory in all instances. Members concurred that a 62-foot long breezeway did not make sense. They reasoned that such a long breezeway would not be necessary if it were not for the restrictive building envelope. Mr. Scales asked if the Hansons had investigated Antrim Village as a possible residence. Mr. Hanson replied that they had but there was a two-year waiting list. The possibility of placing the unit on the other side of the PSNH easement was discussed. This was felt to be impractical because the utilities would have to be extended a
much greater distance to meet the requirement that utilities must not be separate from the main dwelling. A letter supporting the application from Mr. Proctor, an abutter to the south of the Hansons was read. Mr. Mailloux who lived one lot away from the Hansons said that he supported the application.
Mr. Winchester joined the meeting at this point and Mr. Vasques relinquished the Chair to him. Mr. Winchester then appointed Mr. Quachenbush to sit for Mr. Young. Mr. Scales called for a roll call vote on the five conditions necessary to grant a variance to Article XIII, paragraph 6.g (the requirement for a common interior access). Mr. Quachenbush seconded the motion which passed.
1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values. Role call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Quachenbush – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
2. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest. Role call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Quachenbush – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because of special circumstances of the property that distinguish it from other properties similarly zoned. Role call vote Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Quachenbush – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
4. Granting the variance would do a substantial justice. Role call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Quachenbush – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
5. The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Role call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Quachenbush – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
Accessory Living Units are permitted by Special Exception. Mr. Vasques read the six conditions to be met for the Board to approve a special exception. Mr. Scales moved that a single roll call vote be taken on all six conditions. Mr. Pagano seconded the motion which passed. Roll call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Quachenbush – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye. The Secretary polled the members to see if anyone would have a nay vote on any off the individual conditions. There was none. The Secretary declared that the Special Exception was granted. The Hansons were advised that a building permit was required before proceeding with construction.
The next order of business was the application of Mr. Mailloux to place a landing (deck) for his dock which would be within the 100 foot setback of the high water mark. Mr. Mailloux presenting drawings showing the size of the deck to be 128 square feet and it would be set back approximately 26 feet from the high water mark. The height of the deck would be less then one foot. Mr. Pagano asked why there was documentation in the file from DES regarding violations of wetland permits and a notice to cease work on a dock. Mr. Vasques explained that since the Board had to rule on the application, the members should be aware of the situation with the State. He went on to say that what was going on with the State had no bearing on a decision to be made by the Zoning Board providing that the Board not approve anything which would be in violation of State statute. It was determined that the deck was smaller than the 150 square feet permitted by the State and was beyond the 20 foot from the
reference line required by the State. Mr. Prokop commented that the deck being requested did not violate any town or State regulations and was in keeping with allowing owners of lakefront property reasonable use of the land. The Hansons, although not direct abutters, were neighbors and were in support of the application. Following some discussion, the members concurred that the Board could rule on the matter despite the fact there were issues to be resolved with the State as these issues had no bearing on what would be approved by the Board. Mr. Kendall moved for a roll call vote on the five conditions required to grant a variance to construct the deck within the 100 foot set back from the high water mark. Mr. Scales seconded the motion which passed.
1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values. Role call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Quachenbush – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
2. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest. Role call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Quachenbush – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because of special circumstances of the property that distinguish it from other properties similarly zoned. Role call vote Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Quachenbush – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
4. Granting the variance would do a substantial justice. Role call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Quachenbush – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
5. The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Role call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Quachenbush – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye.
Mr. Mailloux was advised that his application had been approved and that he would have to obtain a building permit before building the deck.
Mr. Scales made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 30, 2005 meeting which was seconded by Mr. Kendall and passed. Mr. Scales moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Quachenbush seconded the motion which passed. Mr. Winchester adjourned the meeting at 8:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul L. Vasques, Secretary
Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment
| 
