ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
THURSDAY – SEPTEMBER 1, 2005
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Elmer W. "Butch" Barron III, Randy Orvis, Barry Elliott-Alternate, John David Aylard, Gerald McCarthy, Neil Gosselin, Jr., Donna Gorney-Alternate, Joanne Shompe-Alternate
Absent: None
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: Kevin Shultz, Jean Aylard, John E. Aylard, Elaine Aylard, Stephen Henry
Chairman Barron calls the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
Chairman Barron polls the members of the board for review of the 08-04-2005 meeting minutes, Barry Elliott motions to approve the minutes as written, 2nd Randy Orvis, no further discussion, all those in favor, all respond I, motion passes.
Paul Esswein addresses the members of the board with regard to receipt of a motion for re-hearing from Alton, N. H., Attorney Arthur W. Hoover, representing Scott and Wendy Drew in their application for a variance for a 3-lot sub-division. Paul Esswein recommends that we schedule a re-consideration hearing to the next Zoning Board Adjustment Meeting of 10-06-2005, all board members agree to this.
Barry Elliott motions to consider the re-hearing motion by Scott and Wendy Drew be placed on the October 6, 2005 Zoning Board Of Adjustment Agenda, 2nd Gerald McCarthy, Randy Orvis abstains, no further discussion, all those in favor, all respond I, motion passes.
6:15 p.m.
Chairman Barron asks if there is any other business that needs to come before the board, no comments heard, Barry Elliott motions to adjourn until 6:30 p.m. 2nd Neil Gosselin, Jr., no further discussion, all those in favor, all respond I, motion passes.
6:30 p.m.
Chairman Barron calls the meeting back to order and begins with a motion to amend the Zoning Board Of Adjustment By Laws to revise the start time of the meeting including the public hearing portion; at present meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. and public hearings begin at 6:30 p.m.; proposed change under Meeting; item 1; page 1; “ Regular meetings shall be held at the Farmington Municipal Offices Building to conduct business and public hearings commencing at 6:00 p.m. on the first Thursday of each month” 2nd Barry Elliott, no further discussion, all those in favor, all respond I, motion passes.
Continuation of Application for Variance By: John D. Aylard (Tax Map R58, Lot #7); Property known as 239 Hornetown Road; To allow the construction of a 2nd home with less than the required 250’ of road frontage; under the terms of Section 3.01 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Randy Orvis and John David Aylard each recused themselves; Chairman Barron seats Donna Gorney for John David Aylard and seats Joanne Shompe for Randy Orvis.
John David Aylard represent and presents for himself in his application for a variance to allow him to go before the Planning Board for approval of his request for a 2-lot sub-division. John David Aylard begins by advising the board members that the parcel of land is 9.69 acres, he feels that the requirement to put in a road with a turn around is excessive. John David Aylard reads through each of the variance criteria and addresses the questions posed, summarizing in a nutshell that his parents and he and his wife cannot see one each other’s houses nor can they see any of the neighbor’s homes.
Joanne Shompe – you have 9.69 acres and 1 house on the property now and you are looking to add a 2nd home, John David Aylard – yes.
Jean Aylard – addresses the board with her input on why they are requesting the variance.
Donna Gorney – questions criteria 3, adding more culverts? Wouldn’t that change the water table and affect other neighbors?
John David Aylard – my mothers’ driveway is 15’ wide and shows Donna Gorney on the map where the plan for the driveway with culverts is.
Neil Gosselin, Jr. – asks who said 50’ wide
Chairman Barron – it is stated in the sub division regulation requirements, granting of a variance or build a road.
Paul Esswein – a driveway can serve 2-lots, but to sub-divide you would have to put in the road.
Chairman Barron asks for any further discussion, Paul Esswein comments that this has been an area of confusion in both the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Planning Board, it has to do with the interpretation of this requirement.
Chairman Barron and Paul Esswein have discussion about the Zoning Ordinance and the Sub-division regulations.
Chairman Barron opens the floor to the public for comment either for or against this application.
Randy Orvis addresses the members of the board as a direct abutter to the Aylard property and states that he is in favor of granting the variance, will not devalue the surrounding properties, John David Aylard has already spent considerable time and money on this project, which began approximately 6-7 years ago. The 250’ of frontage is to maintain a rural atmosphere, you cannot see either one of the properties, and you might get a glimpse during the winter months when the leaves fall.
Elaine Aylard – would like to point out that the 50’ wide requirement would make the house visible and cut into the wetlands area and make it unattractive.
Chairman Barron reads through each of the criteria and takes comments from the board members on each one.
1) The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because:
Gerald McCarthy motions to approve this criteria, 2nd Neil Gosselin, no further discussion, all those in favor, all respond I, motion passes.
2) Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:
Gerald McCarthy agrees, but helps the public interest to maintain the 250’ frontage on a 10-acre parcel gives family a chance to have home on the back lot.
3) Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because: (a) & (b)
Chairman Barron addresses this comment, Joanne Shompe states the driveway will be longer and wider, Neil Gosselin, Jr., comments that it would destroy the wetlands area and that would be a tragedy.
4) Granting the variance would do substantial justice because:
Neil Gosselin, Jr., - if they were to go ahead with the 80’ turn circle it would financially be unjustified for the applicant.
5) Neil Gosselin, Jr., - no one is here to disagree, only 1 abutter and he is in agreement to the variance.
6) Chairman Barron – agrees
7) All agree
Neil Gosselin, Jr., motions to accept / grant the variance of John David Aylard, 2nd Joanne Shompe, Gerald McCarthy motions to make a friendly amendment to formally send correspondence recommending to the Planning Board to review and makes revisions between the Zoning Ordinance and Sub-Division Regulations as there are conflicts with 2 houses on 1 lot; Neil Gosselin, Jr., rejects this friendly motion, 2nd Joanne Shompe, no further discussion, all those in favor, all respond I, motion passes.
Application for Variance By; Route 11 – Ridge Road Farmington, LLC (Tax Map R50, Lot #47-3): Property known as NH Route 11; To allow parking within the front setback of the building, under the terms of Section 2.08 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Barron recuses himself from this application and Vice Chairman - Gerald McCarthy positions himself to hear the applicant and seats Barry Elliot in place of Chairman Barron.
Attorney Craig Salomon represents for the applicant Route 11 – Ridge Road Farmington, LLC opening his presentation by defining 2 commercial buildings on commercially zoned property, 1 building being located on the West side, and under section 2.08 parking should be located in the side or rear of the buildings, however the topography of the lot is the reason to have parking in front. There will be landscaping around, that the Planning Board would direct if the Zoning Board of Adjustment grants the Variance. Attorney Salomon turns the discussion over to Randy Orvis who describes the plan on the easel and where and why the practicality of the parking was derived, particularly for turning radius for large trucks. They have moved the building from the 1st rendition and made smaller; now 300’ long versus 350’ long and 40’ deep versus 60’ deep. Parking is still located in the front, but is now behind the setback line, there is not anyway to put the parking in the rear, the loading
docks would have to be out front and parking in rear, we feel the slight view of cars behind the landscaped front area is better esthetically than loading docks with large trucks in the front. To accomplish this parking in front behind the setback line we had to cut 7000 square feet of space from the building.
Joanne Shompe – asks about the truck traffic turning; Randy Orvis explains how the pattern will flow and shows on the plan on the easel where the turn around will be. Joanne Shompe also questions the parking for customers and tenants and the possibility of them backing out into the street. Randy Orvis explains the 2 accesses that will be coming in from Route 11 as well as noting that they have accounted for the future of a parallel access road as previously noted by Gerald McCarthy.
Attorney Salomon now addresses the board; taking them back a bit to the 1st meeting in May where they requested relief from 2.08 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance and the denial letter of the same. Attorney Salomon feels 2 things are important here; (1) there request is consistent with the ordinance and (2) it is in the publics interest to grant this Variance; we have redesigned the building by shrinking and pulling it back.
Attorney Salomon defends each of the criteria and discusses each of those definitions with emphasis on the Spirit of Intent – Use Variance.
Neil Gosselin, Jr., ask last time you were here, what was the distance from the parking spot to the edge of the road?
Randy Orvis – 50’ now was 20’ to 24’.
Barry Elliott – from the state R. O. W.
Gerald McCarthy – 100’ from center of road now, 50’ to what now?
Randy Orvis – edge of R. O. W. to the closest point of any parking space.
Donna Gorney – would like to hear from any abutters.
Abutter (did not identify – if did, Secretary did not hear) – I feel the loading docks would not look to good out front, would like to see a one-way in and one-way out.
Stephen Henry – I live almost next door to proposed small building, cannot come up with any logical objections.
Gerald McCarthy – would you allow parking in from of building?
Neil Gosselin, Jr., - Asks Paul Esswein – did not abide by future development of road previously, now they have added that parallel access requirement, I do not have any objections now that they have made that change.
Joanne Shompe – would agree.
Neil Gosselin, Jr., - Asks Attorney Salomon would it be bad to have entrances at top of buildings? Randy Orvis interjects that entrance must be 2-way; and that actually they are allowed 3.
Attorney Salomon states he tried using criteria as noted on page 28.
Gerald McCarthy reads through each of the criteria; and takes comments from the board members on each one.
(1) benefits public interest; no board comments.
(2) not contrary to public interest; Donna Gorney thinks it is.
(3) result in unnecessary hardship; Barry Elliott the zoning restriction does interfere with property.
Donna Gorney – if we denied, it would cause unfair burden. Barry Elliott – agrees that the project is laid out and a fair relationship to project. Neil Gosselin, Jr., - the loading docks in front would hinder incoming traffic.
(4) Barry Elliott – would do substantial justices for the community; i.e. tax dollars, jobs, etc.
(5) Barry Elliott – not exactly sure if it is a conflict with the spirit of the ordinance, feels best scenario not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Gerald McCarthy – agree.
Neil Gosselin, Jr., motions to accept / grant the variance as presented, 2nd Barry Elliott, Gerald McCarthy has one other questions pertaining to the pitch of the parking lot, Randy Orvis replies 100’; Gerald McCarthy then questions again and Randy Orvis replies from the road to the back is 120’, from the road to the front is 100’; no further discussion, all those in favor, all respond I, motion passes.
7:45 p.m.
Application for Variance By; Kevin Shultz (Tax Map R45, Lot #2): Property known as 37 Dubois Lane; To approve a variance for a sub-division with less than the required 500’ of frontage under the terms of Section 3.02 of the Zoning Ordinance; frontage is short by 5.74’.
Chairman Barron returns to the board and unseats Joanne Shompe and Barry Elliott.
Kevin Shultz presents for himself; he opens his presentation noting that he owns the 19 acre parcel and he is asking for a 5.74’ of road frontage variance to allow the establishment for sub-division to create a 2nd lot, I am proposing a 1.5 acre lot of the 2-lot sub-division; presently there is 1 house on the lot now. I would be bringing PSNH down the road, this would assist a neighbor down the road who does not have electricity, I am trying to maintain a natural look to the area.
Chairman Barron calls for comments from the public either for or against the application.
Abutter Tom Dubois – I own land at end of road, I have seen the plan and think the plan should go, this has been a sore spot for along time and thinks it’s a good plan and supports the approval.
Chairman Barron asks Town Planner Paul Esswein for his input; frontage is really not a bearing to the sub-division as it is across the river, a private drive and excess of 500’ required.
Randy Orvis – questions 494’ total frontage – is that from survey or what the deed calls for? Kevin Shultz – I did have it surveyed, spent 1 year pulling all together to be able to bring a plan of good effort before the board.
Barry Elliott – couple of observations, I did take a ride out that way and there is quite a bit of land that is posted.
Kevin Shultz – I post in the hunting season for the safety of my family.
Barry Elliott – from the road you can see lots being sliced off. Paul Esswein addresses this concern – there have been several proposals to the Town of Farmington to turn over land to conservation land that does abut this property and that would alleviate the future development.
Gerald McCarthy questions the posted side, Barry Elliott – it’s on the riverside, Randy Orvis responds that the fish and game stocking procedure of the river when the land is posted and not posted.
Chairman Barron reads through each of the criteria and takes comments from the board members on each one.
Neil Gosselin, Jr., motions to accept / grant the request for variance, 2nd Randy Orvis, no further discussion, all those in favor, all respond I, motion passes.
8:05 p.m.
Gerald McCarthy requests that Paul Esswein, Town Planner write a memo explaining the issue in the confusion of 3.01 of the Zoning Ordinance and the sub-division regulations of less than 3-lots you do not need road frontage.
8:10 p.m.
Neil Gosselin, Jr., motions to adjourn, 2nd Randy Orvis, no further discussion, all those in favor, all respond I, motion passes.
APPROVED AS WRITTEN 10-17-2005
________________________________________ ___________________________
Elmer W. “Butch” Barron, III, Chairman Date
Farmington Zoning Board Of Adjustment
| 
