CHICHESTER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2010
Case # 228-Richard & Cheryl Noonan, Map 3 Lot 36 seeking a variance to Article II, Section D.3 (b) to permit their travel trailer as an “accessory uses & buildings” on their property.
Voting Members Present: Ben Brown, Vice Chairman; David Dobson; Richard Millette; Steve MacCleery; Mike Paveglio, ex-offico.
Alternates Present: David Hartley, Tom Wainwright.
Applicants: Richard & Cheryl Noonan
Abutter: Doreen Lehoullier
Mrs. Noonan stated that their purpose is to do agriculture on their property and they would like to have the camper remain as an accessory use. She is still planning on being on the property planting crops and feels it would be more efficient to be sanitary. They don’t have a well or source of water but the camper has water storage. The Building Inspector suggested they by-pass getting a building permit and go directly to the BOA for a variance.
Mrs. Lehoullier was concerned about the use for the building she saw on the property as well as septic issues.
Mrs. Noonan explained that the camper was on the property presently and had green bags for waste material which is taken from the site and brought home with them and put in the trash. Some trees were taken down already but the rest will remain. Tom Noonan, co-owner, is building a screen house on the property. The lot is 10 acres which is owned by both Richard & Tom Noonan. They are classifying the trailer as an accessory use. The original property, before it was subdivided, was a farm and they would like to continue raising agricultural products on it. They use the trailer during the day to clean up in and change their clothes. Mr. Noonan cuts wood and is cleaning up the land.
Steve MacCleery stated that the original farm had a residence on it at one time. This property does not.
David Dobson questioned if there needs to be a residence on the property to have accessory buildings.
Ben Brown referred to the definition of Accessory Uses & Buildings on pg. 54 of the zoning as being “subordinate building or use associated with, incidental to and on the same lot or site occupied by the primary building unit.” The trailer could potentially be used if there were a primary building. There is no primary building for an accessory building to go to.
BOARD DISCUSSION
David D. feels this would not be contrary to public interest because of the location of the property. He does not see how this violates the objective of the ordinance. It doesn’t threaten the health of the public. Under “structure” in zoning it states anything constructed; this is constructed on wheels.
Ben stated that denial would not cause an unnecessary hardship; it would just be an inconvenience. The zoning objective is you can’t have an accessory building without a primary one. Anything that can be taxed is considered a structure.
Steve added that if the lot had a residence this wouldn’t be a problem. One neighbor already has concerns about the use of the property. Pg. 17 & 18 of the zoning refers to backlands and their purpose and permitted uses. This lot has a right-of-way but no town maintained or state road frontage. A trailer is not a structure according to zoning. I see this as a backdoor way for a dwelling. You can get a building permit for a structure; this is a portable living quarters. They could use the same sanitary procedures in a shed that you get a permit for.
*The BOA would like the Planning Board to review pg. 18 of the zoning under Backlands b) Permitted Uses which states “wood lots and related farming or forestry for homeowners use.” Backlands/back lots can’t have houses on them so shouldn’t homeowners be changed to landowners?
Mike suggested that they could haul the trailer on and off the property every time they went to the lot; that would be allowed.
It seems to be the consensus of the board that this lot is more applicable to backlands. Under backlands a structure is allowed for agricultural purposes; however, is a travel trailer a structure? Manufactured homes have to be on a foundation or slab with the tires taken off.
1) This would be contrary to public interest because temporary dwellings are not allowed; this is not a buildable RA lot. It violates the objective of the RA zone where the accessory building must be subordinate to a primary building that does not exist.
2) Spirit of the ordinance would not be observed because the intent is to have a primary building before an accessory building.
3) Substantial justice could be done by granting the variance. The loss to the individual outweighs the gain to the general public. Substantial justice would not be done by granting the variance because there is nothing unique to this piece of property.
4) Values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because there is no impact to them. Applicant states the property would be used in accordance to permitted uses i.e. farming & forestry. Values of the surrounding properties would be diminished by putting a travel trailer on this lot.
This comes down to life safety. Buildings are on town maintained roads so they are accessible by fire & medical personnel, this one would not be.
5) There is not a substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific application to the property because the special condition is: this is a back lot that can’t be built on. This will protect soils from intensive uses and by putting a trailer on this lot it will not detract from the rural character.
This is a back lot where agriculture and forestry are allowed, they just can’t use this trailer as an accessory building. This is still usable land for farming.
a.There are restrictions on all lots in town. There is nothing unique about this property; there are other back lots in the area so there is a fair and substantial relationship between the purpose of the ordinance and the specific application. Denial of the variance would not cause an unnecessary hardship.
b. The proposed use is not a reasonable one because it does not fall under Article II, Section D. 3. (b).
MOTION
Steve MacCleery moved to deny the request of Richard & Cheryl Noonan, Map 3 Lot 36, for a variance to Article II, Section D. 3. (b) to permit their travel trailer as an “accessory use” on their property for the following reasons:
1. Granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest because temporary dwellings are not allowed. This is not a buildable RA lot. It violates the objective of the RA zone where the accessory building must be subordinate to a primary building that does not exist.
2. The spirit of the ordinance would not be observed because the intent is to have a primary building before an accessory building.
3. Granting the variance would not do substantial justice because there is nothing unique to this piece of property.
4. The values of the surrounding properties would be diminished by putting a travel trailer on this lot.
5. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would not result in unnecessary hardship because:
a. There is a fair and substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because this back lot is no more unique than any other back lot in the area.
b. The proposed use is not a reasonable one because it does not fall under Article II, Section D. 3. (b).
Motion was seconded by Mike Paveglio.
VOTE ON MOTION
Steve MacCleery – Yes
Ben Brown – Yes
Richard Millette – Yes
Mike Paveglio – Yes
David Dobson – Yes
Motion carries 5-0. Request is denied.
It was moved, seconded and voted 5-0 to reaffirm the BOA’s Rules Of Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly MacCleery, Secretary
Benjamin Brown, Vice Chairman
Chichester Board of Adjustment
| 
