CHICHESTER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
JULY 20, 2005
Case # 179-Cameron Hebert Map 3 Lot 36 requesting an area variance to receive a building permit on lot that has only a 50’ right-of-way off of Route 4. Lot is currently owned by Thomas & Richard Noonan.
Members Present: Edward Meehan, Chairman; Stephen MacCleery, ex-offico; Jeff Jordan; Mark McIntosh; David Dobson.
Applicant: Cameron Hebert, was not present when public hearing started
Abutters: Janice & Wayne Lafleur, Dayle Johnson
At the last meeting on June 29, 2005 Cameron Hebert presented to the board a copy of RSA 674:41 pertaining to subdivisions and a case Belluscio v. Town of Westmoreland that he felt would help his case. This case was referring to access and a right-of-way. The board read a confidential letter from town council updating them on RSA 674:41 as it relates to this case. Feeling that all testimony had been presented, the board went into its discussion phase.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Board felt there would not be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as this use could possibly increase surrounding property values. Granting this variance would be contrary to the public interest because our zoning states you need frontage on a town maintained road. RSA 674:41 III has been clarified that access to the lot means a street upon which the lot has actual frontage. Some members felt the BOA would be setting precedence because there is absolutely no road frontage on this lot. This lot is not unique. The special condition of this lot requiring an area variance is that it has no frontage on a town maintained road. The cost of a road would make this financially prohibitive. The lot is usable as it sits now, for a wood lot. If this were being used as a
commercial lot the 50’ right-of-way would be adequate but if you are going to use it residentially you need the proper frontage and acreage for the zone. Substantial justice would not be done in this case because the lot is lacking the allowed road frontage town zoning clearly requires. The road was never built when this subdivision was approved years ago. Granting this variance would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because part of the lot is in the commercial zone and there is potential use for that purpose but a residential use is not allowed without frontage on a town maintained road as stated in RSA 674:41 III.
MOTION
It was moved by Jeff Jordan and seconded by David Dobson to deny the area variance request made by Cameron Hebert for Map 3 Lot 36 to obtain a building permit with only a 50’ right-of-way for the following reasons:
1. There would not be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of the granting of this variance because this would not decrease the surrounding property values, it could possibly increase the surrounding property values since another land owner could come before the BOA and seek a variance.
2. The granting of this variance would be contrary to the public interest because our zoning states you need frontage on a town maintained road. RSA 674:41 III has been clarified that access to the lot means a street upon which the lot has actual frontage. Some members felt the BOA would be setting precedence because there is absolutely no road frontage on this lot. This lot is not unique.
3. a. Since the following special conditions of the property make an area variance necessary in order to allow the development as designed; the special condition is that there is no frontage on a town maintained road.
b. The same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden because the cost of a road would make this financially prohibitive. The lot is usable as it sits now, for a wood lot. If this were being used as a commercial lot the 50’ right-of-way would be adequate but if you are going to use it residentially you need the proper frontage and acreage for the zone.
4. By granting this variance substantial justice would not be done because it lacks the allowed road frontage. Town zoning clearly requires frontage on a town road and this lot has none. The road was never built when the subdivision was approved years ago.
5. The use contemplated by petitioner as a result of obtaining this variance would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because part of the lot is in the commercial zone and there is potential use for that purpose. Residential use is not allowed without frontage on a town maintained road as stated in RSA 674:41 III.
Vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion to deny. Motion carries, request denied.
(In order for a variance to be granted, all of the above 5 criteria must be met.)
Respectfully submitted,
Holly MacCleery, Secretary
Chichester Board of Adjustment
| 
