ANTRIM ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 24, 2008 Board Meeting
Members & Staff Present: Diane Chauncey (Staff), Doug Crafts (Member)
Ron Haggett (Alternate), Bradley Houseworth (Staff), John Kendall (Chair),
Len Pagano (Member), Frank Scales (Alternate), Paul Young (Vice Chair)
Don Winchester (Alternate)
Member & Staff Absent: John Giffin (Member)
Public Attendees: Fred Blair (Blair & Bristol Construction, LLC, Builder for the Gobbos)
Mark Mervine (Applicant)
Stephen Noble (Neighbor to Planchet)
Gloria Planchet (Applicant)
Chair Kendall convened the meeting at 7:15 PM, introduced himself, the board members, and the staff; and appointed Mr. Haggett to sit for the absent Mr. Giffin.
Gobbo, Linda Drake & Paul, File #2008-08ZBA (continued from June 10, 2008): Chair Kendall continued the public meeting at the request of Kenneth & Linda Drake Gobbo for an area variance from Article VIII, Section C.3 to permit the expansion of an existing non-conforming structure within the one hundred foot (100') front yard setback from the high water mark of Gregg Lake on property located at 179 Gregg Lake Road (Tax Map 101, Lot 48) in Antrim, NH 03440, located in the Lakefront Residential District. He requested Mr. Houseworth review the packet of information and elaborate on what had occurred thus far. Mr. Houseworth read the public notice aloud, reviewed the materials in the packet, and recommended that the Board review, vote, and treat the request as two (2) separate and independent
area variance requests:
1.) A vertical extension of the roof line an additional nine (9) feet in height, to accommodate a new second floor on the existing, nonconforming structure; and
2.) A horizontal expansion of the nonconforming structure with the construction of a new deck on the lakefront side of the structure, extending an additional eight (8) feet within the fifty (50) foot front yard setback and the one hundred (100) foot high water mark setback from Gregg Lake.
Mr. Houseworth then read the five (5) criteria questions for an area variance from the application and the answers, which the Gobbos had completed. The three (3) Blair/Bristol Construction designs have been revised and amended since the last Board meeting. Each of the three drawings shows the specifics of the expansion. Chair Kendall asked for questions from the Board for the applicant. Chair Kendall asked Mr. Blair if he would like to add anything. Mr. Blair felt hat his drawings answered any questions.
Deliberation: Mr. Haggett moved to vote on the 5 criteria and treat it as one variance, with a condition that the deck be no greater than eight (8) feet closer to the water. Mr. Crafts seconded the motion. Mr. Pagano wanted a clarification of the status of the lot and its setback from the lake. Mr. Houseworth explained that the lot is non-conforming because of its size and the structure is non-conforming because it is within the Town of Antrim's one hundred (100’) foot setback from the high water mark of Gregg Lake. There was a short discussion concerning the nonconformities and whether to treat the area variance request as two (2) separate requests (the roof expansion and the deck). Mr. Haggett withdrew his motion. Mr. Young made a motion that the two (2) area variances be voted on separately: 1.) for a
vertical extension of the roof line an additional nine (9) feet in height, to accommodate a new second floor on the existing, nonconforming structure; and 2.) for a horizontal expansion of the nonconforming structure with the construction of a new deck on the lakefront side of the structure, extending an additional eight (8) feet within the fifty (50) foot front yard setback and the one hundred (100) foot high water mark setback from Gregg Lake. Mr. Kendall seconded the motion. The roll call vote was as follows:
#1- For a vertical extension of the roof line an additional nine (9) feet in height, to accommodate a new second floor on the existing, nonconforming structure.
1. The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
2. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed
3. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship as follows:
a. An area variance is needed to enable the applicant's proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
b. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously
agreed
4. Substantial justice is done: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
5. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
The area variance request to permit a vertical extension of the roof line an additional nine (9) feet in height, to accommodate a new second floor on the existing, nonconforming structure was GRANTED without conditions.
#2 - For a horizontal expansion of the nonconforming structure with the construction of a new deck on the lakefront side of the structure, extending an additional eight (8) feet within the fifty (50) foot front yard setback and the one hundred (100) foot high water mark setback from Gregg Lake.
1. The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
2. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest: Mr. Pagano, nay; Mr. Kendall, nay; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, nay; Mr. Haggett, aye. Three to two (3/2) disagreed – DENIED.
3. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship as follows:
a. An area variance is needed to enable the applicant's proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
b. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance: Mr. Pagano, nay; Mr. Kendall, nay; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Three to two (3/2) agreed.
4. Substantial justice is done: Mr. Pagano, nay; Mr. Kendall, nay; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Three to two (3/2) agreed.
5. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance: Mr. Pagano, nay; Mr. Kendall, nay; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Three to two (3/2) agreed.
The area variance request to permit a horizontal expansion of the nonconforming structure with the construction of a new deck on the lakefront side of the structure, extending an additional eight (8) feet within the fifty (50) foot front yard setback and the one hundred (100) foot high water mark setback from Gregg Lake was DENIED because one of the five criteria was passed in the negative. Unfortunately, Mr. Houseworth, in error, miscounted the votes and announced that the area variance had been granted. Upon later discussion, it was realized that an error had been made by the staff in this decision. All criteria need to be agreed upon in the affirmative. The Area Variance for #2 was DENIED.
A Notice of Decision for #1 and #2 will be sent to the applicant, signed and endorsed by the Chair, within thirty (30) days. The Board thanked Mr. Blair for his time and patience with this matter.
Mark L. & Barbara B. Mervine, File #2008-09ZBA, Area Variance Request: Chair Kendall opened the public meeting at the request of Mark & Barbara Mervine for an area variance request from Article XVII, Section C.1 to construct a foundation and basement on an existing non-conforming structure within the one hundred (100') foot setback from the high water mark of Pierce Lake on property located on 11 Boulder Drive (Tax Map 214, Lot 61) in Antrim, NH 03440 in the Lakefront Residential District and the Shoreland Protection District. He and asked Mr. Houseworth to read aloud the public notice and to review the packet of information. Mr. Houseworth read the 5 criteria to be met to grant the area variance request with the applicants’ answers to each question. Mr. Houseworth said
that all certified letter receipts had been returned from the abutters’ list. He stated that it is his understanding that the Mervines’ construction of a new foundation will not be an expansion of the existing footprint of the structure, but may involve an overall height increase of the structure of approximately two (2) feet.
Chair Kendall asked Mr. Mervine if he would like to speak to the request. Mr. Mervine explained that he had bought the property one year ago. The home was built in 1964 and needs improvement. The structure is presently on support piers, exposing the utilities of the dwelling to the elements, and needs a proper foundation. His goal is to elevate the building above the present level and pour a solid foundation with eight (8’) foot high walls.
Public Hearing: Chair Kendall opened the public hearing and asked if there were any letters submitted either for or against the proposal. Mr. Houseworth said there were none. Mr. Bruce Lydon had come to the Town Hall but he did not object. Chair Kendall asked if any abutters present would like to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. Noble (an abutter) said that the area variance should be passed because it would give the home a larger living space and would make the dwelling and neighborhood more visually appealing. Chair Kendall asked if there were any abutters against the proposal. There were none. The Board had a short discussion concerning the height of the new foundation. Mr. Young suggested to the Chair that perhaps the structure may need to be raised more than the proposed two (2’) feet.
Chair Kendall said that the foundation walls should be no higher than eight (8) feet. Mr. Pagano said that it should be granted high enough so that the applicant does not come up short. Chair Kendall asked if there were any further comments from the public attendees and as there were none, he closed the public hearing.
Deliberation: Mr. Young moved to grant the area variance as presented by the applicant and to allow the overall structure to be increased by up to four (4’) feet if necessary. Mr. Pagano seconds the motion. The motion is discussed and rewritten to say: “A motion to grant the area variance request to construct a foundation & basement on an existing non-conforming structure with the following two (2) conditions: 1) the foundation walls shall be restricted to a maximum height of eight (8’) feet; and 2) the overall height increase of the structure shall not exceed four (4’) feet.”
The roll call vote was as follows:
1. The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
2. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed
3. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship as follows:
a. An area variance is needed to enable the applicant's proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
b. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed
4. Substantial justice is done: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
5. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
The area variance was granted with the two (2) above mentioned conditions. A Notice of Decision will be sent within 30 days, signed and endorsed by the Chair, with the applicable conditions.
Paul A. & Gloria Planchet, File # 2008-10ZBA; Area Variance Request: Chair Kendall opened the public meeting at the request of Paul & Gloria Planchet for an area variance from Article XVI, Section C.1. to permit the reconstruction of a deck and conversion to a three-season porch on an existing non-conforming structure within the one hundred foot (100') setback from the high water mark of Pierce Lake on property located at 150 Pierce Lake Rd. (Tax Map 206, Lot 67) in Antrim, NH 03440, located in the Lakefront Residential District and the Shoreland Protection District. He asked Mr. Houseworth to read aloud the public notice and to review the packets with the members. Mr. Houseworth read the five (5) criteria to be met to grant the area variance request and the answers that were supplied by
the applicant. The applicant’s letter of intent for the property was read, along with an email from the NH DES Shoreland Protection Outreach Coordinator (Mr. Aube) explaining the State’s shoreland regulations as related to decks and porches. The applicants’ sketches of the proposed deck and porch were reviewed. All abutter certified letter receipts were returned, and there were no letters of concern or in person comments submitted to the staff regarding this application.
Chair Kendall asked if there were any questions for Mr. Houseworth or Mrs. Planchet. Some of the following issues were discussed:
· The plans did show how the existing roof would interface with the new roof.
· The Town of Antrim’s one hundred (100') foot shore line setback and the fact that the majority of the property is within this setback.
· The deck, which was destroyed by winter snow, will be reconstructed in the exact same footprint and a portion of it converted into a three-season, open porch.
· Erosion control measures should be in place and concern for potential water quality degradation
Mr. Houseworth explained that a screened in, open porch proposal would not require a NH DES shoreland waiver because an open porch is treated the same as a deck, however it would still require a new NH DES shoreland permit if constructed after July 1, 2008. He stated that the open porch could not be enclosed in whole or in part with glass or any other material designed or intended to provide a weather-proof barrier without further approval from NH DES. It would be best to use the State of NH definition of an open porch. Erosion control measures should be installed in accordance with Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Public Hearing: Chair Kendall opened the public hearing and asked if there were any abutters present to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. Stephen Noble (neighbor) spoke in favor of the design but had a concern with the Planchets’ septic system. Chair Kendall said that the septic system is not a part of the ZBA's jurisdiction. Chair Kendall asked if there were any abutters to speak in opposition to the proposal. There were none. Mr. Noble questioned the requirements of the Shoreland Protection Act and the necessity for a new shoreland permit. Mr. Houseworth reiterated that a State shoreland permit will be required if construction occurs after July 1, 2008. Chair Kendall closed the Public Hearing.
Deliberation: Mr. Young felt that the roofline, as discussed, should be a part of the motion. Mr. Crafts felt that there should be conditions on the deck's construction. Mr. Houseworth suggested using the State of NH's definition of an open porch. Mr. Kendall repeated his concerns for proper erosion control measures to be installed throughout the construction of the project.
Mr. Haggett made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions:
1. The three-season porch shall be an open porch*, as defined by NH DES rules - Chapter Env- Wq 1402.21 (Shoreland Protection Definitions), and shall not be permanently enclosed in whole or in part without further approval from NH DES.
2. During reconstruction of the deck and conversion to an open porch, the applicant/ builder shall properly install and utilize BMPs (Best Management Practices – i.e. silt fences, hay bales, etc.) to minimize soil disturbance, control erosion, and prevent negative impacts to the waters of Pierce Lake.
Mr. Young seconded the motion. After some discussion, the motion was amended by Chair Kendall to include a third (3rd) condition: that the area of the three-season open porch will not be greater than twenty four (24’) feet long by nine (9) feet wide, in order to match the length of the existing dwelling. Mr. Young seconded the amendment and motion. The roll call vote was as follows:
1. The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
2. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest: Mr. Pagano, nay; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Four/one (4/1) agreed.
3. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship as follows:
a. An area variance is needed to enable the applicant's proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
b. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance: Mr. Pagano, aye; Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
4. Substantial justice is done: Mr. Pagano, nay; Mr. Kendall, nay; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Three/two (3/2) agreed.
5. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance: Mr. Pagano, nay; Mr. Kendall, nay; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Crafts, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Three/two (3/2) agreed.
The area variance was granted with the three (3) conditions mentioned above. A Notice of Decision will be sent within 30 days, signed and endorsed by the Chair, with the applicable conditions.
Chair Kendall called a 5-minute recess at 8:25pm. The Board reconvenes at 8:35.
Paul A. & Gloria Planchet, File #2008-11ZBA (Special Exception): Chair Kendall opened the public meeting at the request of Paul & Gloria Planchet for a special exception from Article XI-A, 10.d to build a 10' x 15' accessory structure within the one hundred foot (100') setback from the high water mark of Pierce Lake on property located at 150 Pierce Lake Rd (Tax Map 206, Lot 67) in Antrim, NH 03440, located in the Lakefront Residential District and the Shoreland Protection District. He asked the Town Planner to read aloud the public notice and to review the information in the members’ packet. The six (6) criteria for the granting of a Special Exception were read, with the applicant's answers to each. In addition, the three (3) additional special exception criteria of
Article XI-A-10 were read with the Planchets’ responses. Mr. Houseworth said that all abutter certified letter receipts had been returned and there were no letters of concern or in person comments submitted to the staff regarding this application.
Public Hearing: Chair Kendall opened the public hearing. Mr. Haggett asked if the structure would be constructed on a slab. Mrs. Planchet said that it would not. Chair Kendall asked Mrs. Planchet to describe what she thought the building would look like. She described it as a gable-roofed building that would store water accessories, like her paddleboat, life jackets, oars, etc. Mr. Pagano asked about the grading of the structure's site and the possible removal of vegetative matter. He said that from the septic plan drawing, it appeared that the parcel sloped and it would not be possible to level the building without extensive site work and ground disturbance. A lengthy discussion ensued concerning the following: potential disturbance of the vegetated buffer of the first twenty (20) feet of the
shoreland; the parcel's steep sloping and terrain; the State's Shoreland Protection Act regulations; the proximity of the proposed accessory structure to the water; the hardship factor; the installation of a possible decorative retaining wall; turning the building 90°; the spirit of the ordinance; and location and impact. Mr. Pagano motioned to close the public hearing. Mr. Crafts seconded the motion, which unanimously passed. Chair Kendall closed the Public Hearing.
Deliberation: Mr. Young made a motion to grant the request but place the structure 90° (from what it was shown on the plan) and in the best optimal orientation. There was no second to the motion. Chair Kendall deemed the motion out of order. The placement, grade of the parcel, the Shoreland setback, and the spirit of the ordinance were discussed again. The special needs of this location were clarified. Mr. Young made the following motion, which was seconded by Mr. Haggett, amended by Mr. Young, and then seconded again by Mr. Haggett: To grant the special exception request with 3 conditions: 1.) the accessory structure shall be placed a minimum of twenty-five (25) horizontal feet from the high water mark of Pierce Lake; 2.) the accessory structure shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet
from the side property line; and 3.) the accessory structure shall have a maximum area of one hundred and fifty (150) square feet. The roll call vote was as follows:
1. The proposed use may be similar to one or more of the uses already authorized in the district and is an appropriate location for such a use: Mr. Pagano, aye: Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Craft, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
2. Such approval would not adversely affect the neighborhood, nor otherwise be injurious, obnoxious, or offensive: Mr. Pagano, aye: Mr. Kendall, nay; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Craft, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Four/ one (4/1) agreed
3. The use will not create excessive traffic congestion, noise, or odors in the neighborhood where it is proposed: Mr. Pagano, aye: Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Craft, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed.
4. Such approval would be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance: Mr. Pagano, nay; Mr. Kendall, nay; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Craft, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Three/two (3/2) agreed.
5. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use: Mr. Pagano, aye: Mr. Kendall, aye; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Craft, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Unanimously agreed
6. The proposed special exception is listed in Article XI-A10.d., and must meet all three (3) conditions of that article:
1.) The location and construction of the structure is consistent with the intent of the ordinance to maintain a vegetated buffer: Mr. Pagano, nay: Mr. Kendall, nay; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Craft, nay; Mr. Haggett, aye. Three/two (3/2) agreed.
2.) The structure is required as a shelter for humans, equipment, or firewood: Mr. Pagano, aye: Mr. Kendall, nay; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Craft, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Four/ one (4/1) agreed.
3.) The structure is usually customary and incidental to a legally authorized use located within the shoreland district: Mr. Pagano, aye: Mr. Kendall, nay; Mr. Young, aye; Mr. Craft, aye; Mr. Haggett, aye. Four/ one (4/1) agreed.
The Special Exception was granted with the three (3) conditions mentioned above. A Notice of Decision will be sent within 30 days, signed and endorsed by the Chair, with the applicable conditions.
Mr. Crafts made a motion to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by Mr. Haggett, and unanimously approved by all members. Chair Kendall adjourned the Board meeting at 9:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane M. Chauncey
On Behalf of the Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment
| 
