CHICHESTER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
MAY 3, 2006
Case #198-Darlene Crosby Map 3 Lot 86B requesting an area variance to Article II, Section Residential to allow a duplex or mother-in-law apartment on 2.115 acres with 300’ frontage located on King Road.
Members Present: Mark McIntosh, Vice Chairman; Stephen MacCleery, ex-offico; Tom Wainwright; Ben Brown; David Dobson; Edward Meehan.
Voting Members: Mark McIntosh, Steve MacCleery, Tom Wainwright, Ben Brown, and David Dobson.
Darlene Crosby was unable to be present but she has given written permission for her son John Daniels and his wife, Emilie, to present the case. They would like to build a duplex, which they have enough frontage for but not enough acreage. A mobile home is currently on this lot with an artesian well and a 1000 gallon septic tank. The existing trailer will be removed and a 3000-4000 gallon septic tank will be added as well as a new artesian well. The duplex would be used for his family and the in-laws. This would not be a rental property.
Ben asked if they had considered a single family unit and a non-permanent mobile home for the in-laws which would not require a variance to do.
John said his in-laws do not want to live in a mobile home and that once they were no longer living there, the duplex would be converted to a single family home.
Steve added that having to convert the duplex to a single family home could be a condition of the variance if it were granted.
John would be willing to sign something in writing stating that the duplex would be converted to a single family home after the in-laws were no longer living there or before the property were ever sold.
Anastasia Hrycuna-Perron, abutter, was asking if there was going to be an apartment in the home with complete kitchen etc. or will this be a shared kitchen & bath with two families living there?
John said that both domains will be separate, a two-family home, in one building.
Steve wanted them to be fully aware if this were granted, upon the sale of the property or the elderly relatives ceasing to reside there this would have to be converted to a single family dwelling. John and Emilie said that would not be a problem.
John’s mother-in-law added that the reason for this request is so it would be financially feasible for him and his family to have a home of their own on his mother’s property. They are helping them out so when they are gone it will be theirs.
Anastasia didn’t feel that this would be feasible to put the money into building an in-law apartment and then take it down. The board explained that a wall dividing the two living quarters would have to be taken down as well as the second kitchen coming out.
Alan Perron, abutter, had a concern about the septic design that would be needed for something like this because of the soil type.
John said that his family of 5 would be living on one side and his in-laws of 2 would be on the other side. A new well and septic would be designed for the 2-family use and would have to be state approved and inspected.
Ben said that he had a real problem with the 2-family home, which doesn’t have enough acreage, when zoning already allows for elderly housing with the temporary use of a mobile home. They could build a single family home with enough living space for everyone without making it into a 2-family dwelling.
Ronald Mattice, abutter, said that the plan of having a duplex is nice but how do you make them convert it into a single family home again? What if the funds are not available for them to do that? Are you opening up a can of worms?
Steve added, as a Selectman, how do you force them to convert the house back to a single family home? It could get very complicated and probably legally costly.
John said that he owned his own company and builds houses so he could convert it back with no problems. The board wanted him to look at the big picture in the event that he had to sell the property after it was already a 2-family dwelling and the burden it would put on the town and the new owners to convert the house back to a single dwelling. John understands that the zoning states you need a minimum of 3 acres for this proposed use but he feels that the land is already big enough as it is.
Steve wanted John to clarify what it was they were actually asking for. Is this going to be a temporary duplex or is it going to be a 2-family dwelling? John said it would be a temporary thing because the zoning says you need 3 acres. Steve added, are you before us for a variance for the temporary use of a 2-family dwelling or are you here for a variance to allow permanent use of a 2-family dwelling because the lot is less than the 3 acres required? They do have other options which are allowed in our zoning, such as the use of a temporary trailer for elderly housing. Even if a well and septic design and the 2-family house they are proposing fit on the lot, it does not conform to the acreage requirements.
Tom had a question pertaining to the application filled out by Darlene Crosby stating that the area variance request was for a duplex or mother-in-law apartment. No where on the application does it state “temporary”. John clarified that it would be changed to temporary once they bought the property from his mother. They would not be purchasing the property if the variance isn’t granted because financially they will be unable to do so.
Steve wanted the applicant and the in-laws to be aware of the impact fees that the town has as well as a waiting list for new construction if this were converted from a single family dwelling to a 2-family dwelling.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Ben said there probably would not be a diminution in the value of surrounding properties because you are replacing the existing structure with a new home.
Steve asked the board if they wanted to ask the applicant if they would be willing to change their application to state temporary housing because right now before us it does not state temporary. The board agreed to ask the Daniels if they would be willing to amend the application. They were in agreement and stated they had the authority, from their mother, to do so.
Emilie Daniels changed the application to read “A variance is requested from Article II, Section R-Residential of the zoning ordinance to permit temporary housing for elderly relations permitted during life of occupant and thereafter converted to a single family dwelling on 2.115 acres and 300’ frontage on Map 3 Lot 86B located on King Road.”
Tom feels that this variance would be contrary to the public interest because the town has already stated in its zoning under Article III, Section E. 3. that a two family building lot must contain a minimum area of 3 acres with minimum frontage of 300’. This lot has only 2 acres. Steve added that the difference is that this is temporary. You could put a trailer on this property for 20 years which the town allows for. Their idea is a new concept. David asked if this were a new concept the board was willing to open the town up to. The question arises as to how to make sure that this is temporary. Tom asked what you consider temporary. Mark added that a lot could happen in 10 years. Zoning could change in 5-10 years. Steve further asked how does the BOA draw
up a condition or contract so that this was temporary. Do we have the authority to do this? Should legal council be obtained? The town should not incur the cost of having a legal document drawn up, they should. Tom sees this as a snowball effect with this request. It does not meet the zoning. A temporary trailer can be put on this lot and thereafter removed. A 2-family dwelling is more difficult and costly.
Steve does not feel that this would be contrary to the public interest because the concept of temporary elderly housing for relatives is allowed. If there were a way of guaranteeing that this use would discontinue and there would be no financial impact to the town for this use to discontinue, it would not be contrary to the public interest .
Ben said he would be more inclined to agree if there was a way of guaranteeing that.
The special condition of the property which makes an area variance necessary is the inadequate land area.
Ben asked, to allow a temporary residence to be built into the home, should a bad situation arise, who would be responsible for enforcing the change back to a single family, and who would be responsible for making the change? It could become the responsibility of the town because the landowners can’t afford it. He can’t see where this is worth it given the fact that our zoning allows for a mobile home to be put on the property for the same purpose. Steve added that the same benefit can be achieved which is allowed in our zoning as stated in Article III, Section C. 3.c.
By granting this variance substantial justice would not be done because the temporary housing of elderly relations is already allowed for in our zoning.
The use contemplated by petitioner as a result of obtaining this variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because the purpose is allowed in Article III, Section C. 3.c. but just not in this manner.
If this request is denied, the petitioner could appeal it and possibly come up with wording that would satisfy the town and town council to reconsider their petition.
At this time Tom Wainwright made a motion to allow Emilie Daniels to address the board. Ben Brown seconded.
In favor-Ben, Tom, Mark, David
Opposed-Steve
Vote was 4-1 in favor.
Emilie wanted to clarify about the suggestion of an attorney drawing up paper work that says that the dwelling needs to be converted back to a one family once the elderly persons are no longer living there. They would not have a problem with that. Also they could have an escrow account with a sum of money that would defray the costs of conversion. All this could be clarified in any legal paper work that needs to be done.
MOTION
Ben Brown motioned to deny the request by Darlene Crosby/John & Emilie Daniels for an area variance to Article II, Section R-Residential for temporary housing for elderly relations permitted during life of occupant and thereafter converted to a single family dwelling with 2.115 acres and 300’ frontage on Map 3 Lot 86B located on King Road 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 of the replacement of the existing structure with a new home.
2. The granting of this variance would be contrary to the public interest because of the zoning stated in Article III, Section E. 3. A two family building lot must contain a minimum area of 3 acres with a minimum frontage of 300’.
3. a. The following special conditions of the property make an area variance necessary in order to allow the development as designed; because of inadequate land area.
b. The same benefit can be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden because the same benefit is allowed in our current zoning under Article III, Section C.3.c. More permanent use of a house trailer or mobile home to an existing residence as a temporary accessory solely for the purpose of elderly housing for relations, permitted during life of occupant, and thereafter removed.
4. By granting this variance substantial justice would not be done because the temporary housing of elderly relations is already allowed for in our zoning.
5. The use contemplated by petitioner as a result of obtaining this variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because the purpose is allowed in Article III, Section C.3.c. but just not in this manner.
Tom Wainwright seconded the motion.
VOTE ON MOTION
Ben Brown-Yes
Tom Wainwright-Yes
Steve MacCleery-Yes
Mark McIntosh-Yes
David Dobson-Yes
Motion carries 5-0. Request is denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly MacCleery, Secretary
Mark McIntosh, Vice Chairman
CHICHESTER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOTICE OF DECISION
MAY 3, 2006
Ben Brown motioned to deny the request by Darlene Crosby/John & Emilie Daniels for an area variance to Article II, Section R-Residential for temporary housing for elderly relations permitted during life of occupant and thereafter converted to a single family dwelling with 2.115 acres and 300’ frontage on Map 3 Lot 86B located on King Road 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 of the replacement of the existing structure with a new home.
2. The granting of this variance would be contrary to the public interest because of the zoning stated in Article III, Section E. 3. A two family building lot must contain a minimum area of 3 acres with a minimum frontage of 300’.
3. a. The following special conditions of the property make an area variance necessary in order to allow the development as designed; because of inadequate land area.
b. The same benefit can be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden because the same benefit is allowed in our current zoning under Article III, Section C. 3.c. More permanent use of a house trailer or mobile home to an existing residence as a temporary accessory solely for the purpose of elderly housing for relations, permitted during life of occupant, and thereafter removed.
4. By granting this variance substantial justice would not be done because the temporary housing of elderly relations is already in our zoning.
5. The use contemplated by petitioner as a result of obtaining this variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because the purpose is allowed in Article III, Section C. 3.c. but just not in this manner.
Tom Wainwright seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Request is denied.
____________________________________
Mark McIntosh, Vice Chairman
____________________________________
Date
Note: The Selectmen, any party to the action or any person directly affected has a right to appeal this decision within 30 days from date of decision. See NHRSA, Chapter 677, available at the Town Hall. This notice has been placed on file and made available for public inspection in the records of the BOA on 5/8/06. Copies of this notice have been distributed to the applicant, Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, Town Clerk, and Building Inspector.
CHICHESTER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
MAY 3, 2006
Case #197-Edwin N. & Virginia Sanborn III, Map 1 Lot 10 seeking an area variance to Article III, Section E. to permit a subdivided lot having less than 200’ road frontage located on Blackman Road.
Members Present: Edward Meehan, Chairman; Stephen MacCleery, ex-offico; Mark McIntosh, Vice Chairman; David Dobson; Tom Wainwright; Ben Brown.
Voting Members: Ed Meehan, Steve MacCleery, Mark McIntosh, David Dobson & Tom Wainwright.
Attorney Gregg Lewis presented the case for the Sanborn’s. The Sanborn’s would like to subdivide their existing lot creating two lots. The lot with frontage on Short Falls Road would have 284’ and the other lot with frontage on Blackman Road would have 188’ which is 12’ short of the required 200’. A plan was brought before the Planning Board which configured the road frontage with non-contiguous frontage to allow for the 200’. They were told by the PB that the lot would require contiguous road frontage. There is a house and 3 out buildings currently on this lot. The driveway is on Blackman Road and the property has existed in its present condition with 188’ of road frontage since 1904. The abutters on either side of this lot would
not be able to give them additional frontage because of their driveway and existing buildings. Even though the town map shows steep lands, the lot is not very steep. The town map also shows that this lot has 210’ of frontage on Blackman Road but the survey states 188’. The access to this lot has been there for years with no congestion problems. The property surrounding this lot is conservation and the road is scenic.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The board felt there would not be a diminution in the value of surrounding properties if this were granted because this is an established residence that has been using existing driveway and frontage since 1904.
The variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the continued use of this frontage, even as a smaller lot, would not be contrary to the Preamble under Article I of the zoning ordinance.
Ben felt the special condition of this lot is the 188’ of frontage already there which has been the lots long standing access. Ed added that is would be difficult to do a lot line adjustment with the abutters to come up with 12 additional feet. Steve also added that the special condition to this variance is that this is a pre-existing lot. This is a lot of record which does not conform to the ordinance. This current frontage has existed and been used as access to the property for over 100 years.
The same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method because the lot on one side does not have enough frontage on its own to give any more for a lot line adjustment. Lot line adjustments from abutters are not feasible due to existing structures on the abutter’s property and limited frontage on the adjacent lot.
Mark feels substantial justice would be done because no changes will be made along the road frontage and the lot has existed for years as is. Ed added that the lot is legally large enough to be subdivided. It only lacks enough road frontage because accommodations cannot be made to increase the frontage to 200’.
Ben stated the use contemplated by petitioner would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because the anticipated residential use is allowed in current zoning.
MOTION
David Dobson moved to grant the area variance requested by Edwin & Virginia Sanborn III to Article III, Section E., frontage requirements, to Map 1 Lot 10 to permit a subdivided lot with less than 200’ of road frontage located on Blackman Road 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 is an established residence that has been using existing driveway and frontage since 1904.
2. The granting of this variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the continued use of this frontage, even as a smaller lot, would not be contrary to the Preamble under Article I of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. a. The following special conditions of the property make an area variance necessary in order to allow the development as designed; this is a lot of record which does not conform to the ordinance. The current frontage has existed and has been used as access to the property for over 100 years.
b. The same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden because lot line adjustments from abutters are not feasible due to existing structures on the abutter’s property and limited frontage on the adjacent lot.
4. By granting this variance substantial justice would be done because the lot is legally large enough to be subdivided, it only lacks enough road frontage because accommodations cannot be made to increase the frontage to 200 feet.
5. The use contemplated by petitioner as a result of obtaining this variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because the anticipated residential use is allowed in current zoning.
Motion seconded by Ed Meehan.
VOTE ON MOTION
Tom Wainwright – Yes
Steve MacCleery – Yes
Ed Meehan – Yes
Mark McIntosh – Yes
David Dobson – Yes
Motion carries 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly MacCleery, Secretary
Chichester Board of Adjustment
Edward Meehan, Chairman
Chichester Board of Adjustment
| 
