NOTICE OF DECISION
Chichester Zoning Board of Adjustment
You are hereby notified that the appeal of Joseph Austin for a variance to article III, section P/c. wetlands of the zoning ordinance has been GRANTED, subject to the conditions listed below, by the affirmative vote of at least three members of the zoning board of adjustment.
Ben Brown motioned to change the wording on the application to read, “A variance is requested from article III, section P/c. wetlands, of the zoning ordinance to permit a driveway with associated drainage.” Steve MacCleery seconded. Motion was agreeable with applicant Joseph Austin. Vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.
Ben Brown moved to grant the motion for a variance of the amended application because all 5 criteria have been met as addressed in the application with the following changes:
Question 3. a. The word “property” was changed to “home”.
Question 3. b. The first instance of “property” was changed to “home”.
Question 5. The last instance of “property” was changed to “home”.
Diana Calder seconded. Vote was 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.
Facts supporting this request and motion:
1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because driveways and roads are already in existence, which give access from Route 4.
2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because it would not create any noise, fumes, light, excess traffic or be detrimental to the use or development of adjacent or neighboring properties.
3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because
a. The zoning restriction as applied to the property interferes with the reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment such that denial of this variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because the home cannot be accessed without a variance.
b. That no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposed of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because as currently written the 100’ buffer denies access to the home due to the wetlands crossing the property.
c. The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others since wetlands would still remain on the property.
4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because it would allow the owner access to his property that presently has no access with this current regulation.
5. The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because the 100’ wetland buffer was not established to deny property owners access to their home.
__________________________________ ___________________
Edward Meehan, Chairman Date
Chichester Board of Adjustment
Note: The selectmen, any party to the action or any person directly affected has a right to appeal this decision within 30 days from the above date. See NH Revised Statutes Annotated, Chapter 677, available at the Selectmen’s Office. This notice has been placed on file and made available for public inspection in the records of the ZBA on May 24, 2004. Copies of this notice have been distributed to: the applicant, Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, Town Clerk and Building Inspector.
| 
