Chichester Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Members Present: Chairman Mark McIntosh, Benjamin Brown, Richard Millette, David Dobson, Stephen MacCleery Sr., and Secretary Jamie A Pike.
Others Present: Thomas Houle, Allen Mayville, James Plunkett, Jeff Andrews, Doug Hall, Tim Ordway, Tim Bernier, Curtis Coleman
Chairman McIntosh called the meeting to order at 7:01pm.
Chairman McIntosh introduced the members of the Board and provided the rules for the guidance of the hearing.
Pursuant to RSA 673:11 Chairman McIntosh appointed Mr. MacCleery as a voting member for the purposes of this hearing.
Case# 2014-A: Coleman Concrete Inc. The applicant seeks a Special Exception from Section 503.1 of the Chichester Building Code to construct two Silos of 60 feet where a height limit of 35 feet is imposed.
Tim Bernier, engineer and Curtis Coleman, owner; were present to speak on the merits of the proposal.
Mr. Bernier presented an overview of the proposal. The property has historically been occupied by a commercial use with an existing wood structure. The applicant is proposing a concrete mix plant with two silos that range between 55 and 60 feet. These silos are steel structures.
Section 503.1 of the building code requires that structures be less than 35 feet but also allows for a special exception for silos which may be granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The site is located in the Commercial Zone and the proposed layout meets all setbacks, and is over 300 feet from the nearest residential use. Use will not require any municipal services. Mr. Bernier has previously spoken to the Fire Chief and reported that their only requirement was accessibility for access purposes by firefighting equipment. The facility will receive its access via Route 4. Mr. Bernier is currently working with the DOT on a driveway permit. The proposed use will not have any adverse impacts to the environment and meets all the EPA industrial storm water management requirements. There are no products used in the
proposed use with significant impacts to water resources.
Wade Harris of Harris Family Furniture asked a number of questions of the applicant. – Questions include of where silos would be located and how tall. The silos will be approximately 60 feet each and to the rear of the property. What facilities will there be for parking? The delivery trucks will be parked in the existing building that formerly housed the sawmill. As there is extremely limited visitorship of this type facility, other parking is primarily for staff and there are 14 spaces designated for such near the plant. The existing driveway will be used. Mr. Harris has a concern of safety where his property also receives a lot of tractor trailer deliveries and traffic tends to violate lanes. The proposed driveway will be designed so tractor trailers are not violating any lanes while
entering or exiting the property. Mr. Brown asked what the height difference is between the roadway and the site of the silos. The site is located 10 feet above the grade of the roadway, and there is significant tree line of tall pines between the roadway and the site. Mr. MacCleery asked if this mash plant was similar to the one in Epsom. Mr. Coleman said the plants were similar.
Jeff Andrews asked what other long term plans were for the property; a quarry? Mr. Coleman said there are currently no other long term plans. Mr. Andrews also asked what other facilities were operated by Coleman Concrete throughout the state and what has their history with the EPA. Mr. Coleman commented that they own several other facilities within the state and to date have never had any issues with the EPA. Mr. Andrews questioned if there would be any recycling of waste/wash water. Mr. Coleman stated that while there are no plans for recycling of water, there will be no storm water discharge from the site. Mr. Hall stated that he felt the 35 foot height limit was for the purposes of keeping structures low throughout the Town.
Board discussion.
Mr. MacCleery stated that he remembered that the 35 foot height limit was established for the purposes of fire safety as the Town does not own a ladder truck and does not believe that this structure type and use poses an issue of major fire concern. Mr. Brown concurs. Mr. Millette asked about noise and dust migration from the site. Mr. Coleman stated that most of the dust created is kept within the confines of the mash plant and that a noise study will be submitted to the Planning Board on February 6th.
Being no further discussion, Mr. Brown made a motion and seconded by Mr. Millette to grant the Special Exception based on the following findings:
(A) The special exception is specifically authorized by this ordinance where Section 503.1 of the Building Code specifically refers to silos as being eligible for relief.
(B) The proposed use will not be injurious or detrimental to the neighborhood where the silos will not be located closer than 300 feet from a boundary of a parcel used for residential dwelling where 15 feet is allowed by zoning and the silos will not be located closer than 110 feet from a residential zoning boundary where 100 feet is required.
(C) The proposed use will not make an excessive demand on municipal services the proposed silos will not require any municipal services, and that the silos are constructed out of steel and will store only nonflammable cement.
(D) The proposed use will not generate traffic volumes that will overburden existing roads and highways where the facility will access Route 4 (Dover Road). The driveway will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of and with approval of the NH DOT.
(E) The proposed use will not have any adverse impact on the natural environment where the facility will control, treat, and maintain strict industrial stormwater management facilities in accordance with State and Federal EPA requirements.
(F) The proposed use will not adversely affect Chichester's groundwater resources where the facility will comply with all state and local environmental protection regulations which are in place to prevent impact to groundwater resources.
A roll call vote was taken. MacCleery, Aye; Brown, Aye; McIntosh, Aye; Dobson, Aye; Millette, Aye.
Motion carries.
Case # 2014-B Coleman Concrete Inc. The applicant seeks a variance from Article 3 Section 7 of the zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a conveyor (structure) with in 100’ of a zoning district boundary.
The variance is requested because there is a conveyor proposed that brings the sand and stone to the silo (mash plant). The length of the conveyor is relative to the height of the silo. There is a zoning boundary that divides the property in half. The conveyor is proposed to be approximately 50 feet from this zoning boundary. The ordinance requires that any structure associated with an industrial use to be 100 feet from this boundary. The applicant believes the conveyor would be reasonably defined as a structure as it is attached to another structure that is attached to the ground. The uniqueness of the property is that the lot extends 500 beyond this zoning boundary line. Mr. Bernier briefed the Board on the facts that support the granting of the variance.
Mr. Brown noted that the existing building is closer to the zoning boundary line than the proposed conveyor. Mr. Millette asked if the house and barn will remain following development of the parcel. Mr. Bernier explained that the area of the mash plant will be subdivided from the primary parcel along with another lot. There will be two lots that remain in the possession of MTS.
Mr. Hall expressed his sympathy with the applicant with reference to the setback and the extensive land beyond the zoning boundary line, but believes there needs to some forethought of future development. Abutters? Mr. Coleman stated that he would agree to condition that there would be no sale of the property. It was also noted that the property cannot be used residentially as MTS filled the area extensively with the materials they were processing which are not suitable for residential uses.
Mr. Andrews asked about water reliability of the site. Mr. Coleman stated that all his other plants are supplied by onsite wells and has not had a problem. If the worst case scenario were to occur, water could be stored in a tank on the premises to supply the mash plant.
Being no further discussion, Mr. Brown made a motion and seconded by Mr. Dobson to grant the variance based on the following findings:
1. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the current zoning boundary passes through the middle of the subject parcel, the closest residential use boundary is over 300 feet away and over land that is owned by the applicant and that no new structures are proposed in this area.
2. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because the proposed structure is over 390 feet to the closest boundary line of a residential use in the residential district and no new buildings are proposed in this area.
3. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because the property is subdivided by the zone boundary. The result imposes a 100 foot building setback to property owned by the applicant effectively protecting them from themselves.
4. If the variance were granted, the value of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because the proposal best utilizes the property, maintains a substantial buffer to existing residential uses. Relocating the proposed conveyor would route the delivery trucks closer to the property line for a longer period of time. The proposed layout provides the least impact on abutting properties.
5. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because;
a. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because the general purpose of the ordinance is to establish a 100 foot setback from structures from existing and potential residential uses. As the zone line passes through the parcel, there exists a 500 foot setback that cannot be used for commercial structures and preserves the intent of the ordinance; and
b. The proposed use is a reasonable one because the only structure in the setback will be the conveyor. The new building will be outside the 100 foot setback. If the plant was flipped over to accommodate the setback for the conveyor, the trucking would need to utilize the building setback having a greater impact on the residential zone.
A roll call vote was taken. MacCleery, Aye; Brown, Aye; McIntosh, Aye; Dobson, Aye; Millette, Aye.
Motion carries.
Other business:
The Board received a letter from the Planning Board requesting a formal statement of opinion upon the proposed signage amendment. The Board stated that while they are not in position to provide a formal opinion as to favorable or not-favorable of the proposed ordinance, their recent variance approvals with respect to signage clearly speak for themselves.
A motion was made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mr. Millette to enter into a non-public session pursuant to RSA 91-A to discuss pending litigation. A roll call vote was taken. MacCleery, Aye; Brown, Aye; McIntosh, Aye; Dobson, Aye; Millette, Aye. Motion carries.
A motion was made by Mr. MacCleery and seconded by Mr. Brown to exit the non-public session. A roll call vote was taken. MacCleery, Aye; Brown, Aye; McIntosh, Aye; Dobson, Aye; Millette, Aye. Motion carries.
No decisions were made.
Chairman McIntosh adjourned the meeting at 8:12pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jamie a Pike Not approved until signed.
Mark McIntosh
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of Non-Public Session
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Members Present: Chairman Mark McIntosh, Benjamin Brown, Richard Millette, David Dobson, Stephen MacCleery Sr., and Secretary Jamie A Pike.
A motion was made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mr. Millette to enter into a non-public session pursuant to RSA 91-A to discuss pending litigation. A roll call vote was taken. MacCleery, Aye; Brown, Aye; McIntosh, Aye; Dobson, Aye; Millette, Aye. Motion carries.
Mr. Pike distributed the Superior Court filing made by Mr. Giuda as an action against the Board regarding their granting of a variance for Chichester Commons LLC.
A motion was made by Mr. MacCleery and seconded by Mr. Brown to exit the non-public session. A roll call vote was taken. MacCleery, Aye; Brown, Aye; McIntosh, Aye; Dobson, Aye; Millette, Aye. Motion carries.
No decisions were made.
Respectfully submitted,
Jamie a Pike Not approved until signed.
Mark McIntosh
Town of Chichester
Zoning Board of Adjustment
54 Main Street
Chichester, New Hampshire 03258
(603) 798-5350 Fax (603)798-3170
Notice of Decision
You are hereby notified that the request from Coleman Concrete, Map 4 Lot 154, for a Special Exception from Section 503.1 of the Chichester Building Code to construct two silos of 60 feet where a height limit of 35 feet is imposed has been GRANTED, based upon the following findings, by the affirmative vote of three members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
(A) The special exception is specifically authorized by this ordinance where Section 503.1 of the Building Code specifically refers to silos as being eligible for relief.
(B) The proposed use will not be injurious or detrimental to the neighborhood where the silos will not be located closer than 300 feet from a boundary of a parcel used for residential dwelling where 15 feet is allowed by zoning and the silos will not be located closer than 110 feet from a residential zoning boundary where 100 feet is required.
(C) The proposed use will not make an excessive demand on municipal services the proposed silos will not require any municipal services, and that the silos are constructed out of steel and will store only nonflammable cement.
(D) The proposed use will not generate traffic volumes that will overburden existing roads and highways where the facility will access Route 4 (Dover Road). The driveway will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of and with approval of the NH DOT.
(E) The proposed use will not have any adverse impact on the natural environment where the facility will control, treat, and maintain strict industrial stormwater management facilities in accordance with State and Federal EPA requirements.
(F) The proposed use will not adversely affect Chichester's groundwater resources where the facility will comply with all state and local environmental protection regulations which are in place to prevent impact to groundwater resources.
______________________________________
Mark McIntosh, Chairman
______________________________________
Date
Note: The selectmen, any party to the action or any person directly affected has a right to appeal this decision. See New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, Chapter 677, available at the Chichester Town Offices, 54 Main Street. This notice has been placed on file and made available for public inspection in the records of the ZBA on the ________ day of ________, 2013. Copies of this notice have been distributed to: the applicant, Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, and Town Clerk.
_____________________________________
Jamie A Pike, Secretary
Town of Chichester
Zoning Board of Adjustment
54 Main Street
Chichester, New Hampshire 03258
(603) 798-5350 Fax (603)798-3170
Notice of Decision
You are hereby notified that the request from Coleman Concrete, Map 4 Lot 154, for a Variance from Article 3 Section 7 of the zoning ordinance to permit the construction of a conveyor (structure) within 10’ of a zoning district boundary has been GRANTED, based upon the following findings, by the affirmative vote of three members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
1. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the current zoning boundary passes through the middle of the subject parcel, the closest residential use boundary is over 300 feet away and over land that is owned by the applicant and that no new structures are proposed in this area.
2. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because the proposed structure is over 390 feet to the closest boundary line of a residential use in the residential district and no new buildings are proposed in this area.
3. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because the property is subdivided by the zone boundary. The result imposes a 100 foot building setback to property owned by the applicant effectively protecting them from themselves.
4. If the variance were granted, the value of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because the proposal best utilizes the property, maintains a substantial buffer to existing residential uses. Relocating the proposed conveyor would route the delivery trucks closer to the property line for a longer period of time. The proposed layout provides the least impact on abutting properties.
5. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because;
a. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because the general purpose of the ordinance is to establish a 100 foot setback from structures from existing and potential residential uses. As the zone line passes through the parcel, there exists a 500 foot setback that cannot be used for commercial structures and preserves the intent of the ordinance; and
b. The proposed use is a reasonable one because the only structure in the setback will be the conveyor. The new building will be outside the 100 foot setback. If the plant was flipped over to accommodate the setback for the conveyor, the trucking would need to utilize the building setback having a greater impact on the residential zone.
______________________________________
Mark McIntosh, Chairman
______________________________________
Date
Note: The selectmen, any party to the action or any person directly affected has a right to appeal this decision. See New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, Chapter 677, available at the Chichester Town Offices, 54 Main Street. This notice has been placed on file and made available for public inspection in the records of the ZBA on the ________ day of ________, 2013. Copies of this notice have been distributed to: the applicant, Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, and Town Clerk.
_____________________________________
Jamie A Pike, Secretary
| 
