CHICHESTER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
JUNE 17, 2009
Case #222-Scott & Pamela Tepper, Map 5 Lot 15, request for a Use Variance to allow four (4) apartments where three (3) currently exist. Property located on Main Street.
Members Present: Richard Millette, Tom Wainwright, David Dobson, Stephen MacCleery, ex-officio. Tom Wainwright was sworn in as an alternate member by Selectman MacCleery.
With the passing of Chairman Ed Meehan and the absence of Vice Chairman Mark McIntosh it was moved & seconded to have meeting chaired by Steve MacCleery. Vote was unanimous.
Scott Tepper presented his case stating that his present building has three (3) rental units in it. He feels it would be a good use for the carriage shed to add a one (1) bedroom apartment and that it wouldnít tax the septic in any way. He has plenty of room for parking, about 12 cars, as well. The barn that was formerly on the property has fallen down and is being disposed of. Zoning doesnít allow for rental units in the RA zone but building has been there and used as a rental property for more than 30 years. He would like to preserve the old building and maintain its character. The property has 5.46 acres. He spoke with several abutters and they had no objections to his plans. (No abutters/public were present)
Scott could not find a design for the septic from the state but believes it was redone in 1989. When he purchased the property there were nine (9) bedrooms in it. With the remodeling there are currently seven (7). If variance is granted there would only be a total of eight (8).
BOARD DISCUSSION
Surrounding properties would not be diminished because the footprint of the building is not being changed and the exterior is being enhanced. The property will be modernized.
It would not be contrary to public interest because it is currently an apartment. No one present to object. The footprint of building is not being altered. Finished project will have fewer bedrooms then when purchased. Expansion will only have 8 bedrooms. It will increase value to property and therefore increase tax base to the town.
It would be contrary because the building already exceeds the permitted uses for the zone.
Zoning restriction interferes with the reasonable use of the property because apartment building is in the RA zone, property is 5.46 acres, and because of the design of the lot there would be limited agricultural uses. This is the remaining homestead of the original farm.
There already is a reasonable use of the property. It has 3 rental units currently. He would like to have full use of the existing structure. It is unreasonable that the carriage house would be used to house carriages.
Uniqueness is that the property canít be used as a multi-rental, which it is being used as, in the RA zone without the variance.
Minimum lot size & frontage are met in the RA zone and at the present time there is no viable Ag. enterprise on this property.
A variance would not injure the rights of others since the rural character of the property will be kept. He is just making improvements to existing structure without changing the style or footprint.
Justice would be done because town would generate more revenue with little or no impact to town services by adding a one bedroom apt. to the existing structure.
There is no record of septic on file. Applicant should submit verification that there is adequate septic & well. Condition could be put on notice of decision. Applicant should have to prove adequate septic before permit is given by the building inspector.
This would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance since we believe the lot can provide adequate water, sewer, parking, & general requirements for the RA zone.
It would be contrary to allow a fourth rental unit in the RA zone.
MOTION
Tom Wainwright moved to grant the request to Map 5 Lot 15 for a Use Variance to allow four apartments where three currently exist 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 the footprint of the building is not being changed & exterior is being enhanced; property will be modernized.
2. The granting of this variance would not be contrary to the public interest because it is currently an apartment. Public/abutters not present to object. Also, the footprint of building is not being altered. Finished project will have fewer bedrooms then when purchased.
3. a) Since 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 because of the zoning restriction (apartment building in the RA zone with 5.46 acres) and the design of the lot, there would be limited Ag. uses for this property. This is the remaining homestead of the original farm.
b) There is not a fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because minimum lot size & frontage are met in the RA zone and at the present time there are no viable agricultural enterprises on this property.
c) The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others since it keeps the rural character of the property. Just making improvements to existing structure without changing the style or footprint.
4. By granting this variance substantial justice would be done because the town would generate more revenue with little or no impact to town services by adding a one (1) bedroom apartment to the existing structure.
5. The use contemplated by petitioner as a result of obtaining this variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because it is our belief the lot can provide adequate water, sewer, parking, & general requirements for the RA zone.
Motion was seconded by David Dobson. There was no discussion on the motion.
VOTE ON MOTION
David Dobson ñ Yes
Richard Millette ñ No
Tom Wainwright ñ Yes
Steve MacCleery ñ Yes
Motion carried 3-1.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly MacCleery, Secretary
Stephen MacCleery, Acting Chairman
Chichester Board of Adjustment
| 
