 |
Lyme Planning Board Minutes
December 9, 2004
Board Member & Staff: Present: Freda Swan, Dave Swanz, Jeanie McIntyre, Jack Elliott, Pete Bleyler, Dan Karnes, and Victoria Davis Absent: Dan Brand
Public: David Roby, Sr.
Freda Swan opened the meeting at 7:30 PM.
Item 1: Approval of Minutes: Jeanie McIntyre made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 11, 2004 meeting. Pete Bleyler seconded the motion, and unanimous approval followed. Jeanie McIntyre made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 23, 2004 meeting. Pete Bleyler seconded the motion, and unanimous approval followed.
Item 2: Informal Meeting with David Roby, Sr.; Subdivision Status of Map 410, Lots 4 & 5: David Roby, Sr., representing his son and daughter-in-law who are the current property owners under the name Deerlove Realty Trust, came to the Planning Board. He requested the Board make a statement that a 1979 subdivision of Map 410, Lots 4 & 5 is void. He had previously made a written request on November 18, 2004 to the Planning Board.
On July 17, 1979, the Planning Board approved a crude sketch of a subdivision making two lots currently shown on the town’s Tax Map 410 as Lots 4 & 5. David Roby, Sr. had been the Planning Board Chair at the time, and he had signed the sketch and in the conditions referred to a “30 acre parcel, more or less” and a “15 acre parcel, more or less.” The sketch also noted, “being surveyed.” The minutes of the July 17, 1979 Planning Board meeting were reviewed, and they also indicated that the subdivision had been approved. An unrecorded survey map of the property was found dated August 27, 1979 showing two lots of 26.5 acres and 17.9 acres. This map was revised on May 1, 1990 to indicate that the 26.5 acre lot had been placed under conservation
easement. This map was signed by Freda Swan, Planning Board Chair on February 12, 1991 after the notation, “This does not represent a subdivision.” This map was then recorded on February 13, 1991.
On July 15, 1999, David Roby, Sr. was given a permit to build a driveway to a house site as well as build a pond on lot 5. On December 11, 2002, David Roby, II was given a permit to build a house on lot 5. On September 1, 2004, David Roby II, applied for a building permit to place a “carriage shed” on lot 5 right at the boundary with lot 4. However, he submitted a map showing the lot boundary in a new location which would place the house and proposed carriage shed on lot 4 so the 35’ property line setback requirement would not be an issue. He purported that lot 5 was intended to be 15 acres more or less, and he re-drew the boundary line to give the lot less acreage than shown on the tax map or survey. The town sent information to Town Counsel, Walter Mitchell who responded
by letter dated September 16, 2004 stating he could “see no basis” for the Roby conclusion to move the lot line. Victoria Davis, Planning & Zoning Administrator denied the application and suggested they reapply and request a variance.
On September 9, 2004, David Roby, II reapplied and also applied for a variance to locate his proposed “carriage shed” five feet from the lot line. On October 21, 2004 the ZBA reviewed the case and determined they should do a site visit. On October 23, 2004, the ZBA made a site visit to the property. By phone, the Robys indicated to Victoria Davis that a couple of the ZBA members had not seemed positive about granting a variance. On October 27, 2004 David Roby, II withdrew his application stating, “we believe that the division line between the Conservation Easement area and the balance of the property is not the lot line established by the 1979 subdivision of our property….”
More recently, David Roby, Sr. contacted the Planning & Zoning Administrator to say he does not believe the subdivision was legal because Sylvia Stockmayer had abandoned her intent to subdivide the property by not submitting the survey map which is dated August 27, 1979. It was noted that there had been no Planning Board approval condition requiring Sylvia Stockmayer to submit the survey. The Subdivision Regulations at the time had required that the applicant submit three “black and white” copies of the map; mylars may not have been required by the Registry of Deeds at that time. Town Counsel, Walter Mitchell had advised by phone that though the Town had not recorded the plan, this did not make the subdivision invalid. David Roby, Sr. stated it would not harm the town or the
neighbors to void the subdivision and make this one lot instead of two lots. When it was suggested that a merger of the two lots could solve the problem, David Roby, Sr. stated he would then lose the “lot of record” status which would allow a subdivision without reducing the lot size for conservation districts and the potential of developing a second building lot on the property. There was also a question about a lot line adjustment when dealing with a conservation easement on a separate lot.
David Roby, Sr. stated his attorney Bernie Waugh had told him the case was a “slam dunk.” The Board responded that if Town Counsel could be convinced that the subdivision was invalid, they did not need to see this case again.
Item 3: Zoning Amendment Review: Town Counsel Jae Whitelaw had reviewed the zoning amendments and made several comments. The Board reviewed each of amendments even though several had been voted to public hearing to discuss Town Counsel’s comments. The attached draft amendments reflect these changes. Minor changes were made to Amendment #1 including the change of “Outdoor Recreation” to “Outdoor Recreation Activities.” Amendment #2 was amended to strike the retroactive sentence since Jae Whitelaw pointed out that subdivisions already have this protection under RSA 674:39. Amendment #5 had been added to show the revised Table 4.10. The Board determined that the table should not be shown, but rather express the changes in the explanation
narrative. Sections 4.46 Conversions and 4.49 Planned Development had been revised by Freda Swan, Jack Elliott, and Victoria Davis as Amendments #6 & 7. Minor changes were made to these proposals. Amendments #8, 9 and 11 were amended to reflect Town Counsel advice. An administrative amendment will be made to Amendment #10 and all the conservation district sections of Article IV which do not require a vote. Amendments #12 will be amended for the first of Town Counsel’s recommendations to add “institutions,” but not the latter suggestion which gives more latitude than the Planning Board had intended. Town Counsel advised to completely strike Amendment #13 as there is no legal basis to double the application fee as a penalty for building without a permit. However, the Board will wait until the public hearing to give time to double-check this advice. Amendment #15 was amended to correct “special
exception” to “conditional use approval.”
Jeanie McIntyre made a motion to send the revised Amendments #1, 2, and 3 to public hearing. Dave Swanz seconded the motion, and unanimous approval followed. Dave Swanz made a motion to send the revised Amendments #5, 6, and 7 to public hearing. Jeanie McIntyre seconded the motion, and unanimous agreement followed. Jeanie McIntyre made a motion to take the revised Amendments #8, 9, and 11 to public hearing. Dave Swanz seconded the motion, and unanimous approval followed. Jeanie McIntyre made a motion to take the revised Amendment #12 to public hearing. Dave Swanz seconded the motion, and unanimous approval followed. Jack Elliott made a motion to take the revised Amendment #15 to public hearing. Jeanie McIntyre seconded the motion, and unanimous agreement followed.
Item 4: Other Business: Victoria Davis reported that Crossroads Academy had requested a meeting in January to come in with a Preliminary Site Plan Review application. The application has not been submitted. The Board determined that they would not set aside an evening in January for the school, but if they submitted a complete application, the Board would hear the case in a time frame required by law. In the meantime, it was recommended to suggest a February date for the hearing.
The Board discussed a new law which allows the Board to take a warrant article to town meeting to gain the right to require Preliminary Subdivision applications. The Board determined they did not wish to pursue this.
Victoria Davis asked if the Board felt the Curt Vinson building at 8 On the Common needed a Site Plan Review. Curt Vinson said he did not believe he needed Site Plan Review, but rather a Special Exception. However, once the zoning amendments are posted to give the Planning Board Conditional Use Approvals, it is not clear if a Special Exception would be appropriate. The Board determined Curt Vinson should come to the Planning Board after town meeting.
Victoria Davis stated she had given a list of Planning Board required fire protection to Mike Hinsley, Fire Chief. Jeanie McIntyre requested something in writing about the Estes subdivision fire protection. The Board had required a pond at this subdivision, but the pond had silted in. The Estes worked with Mike Hinsley and apparently will be using the Colgan pond for fire protection.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Submitted by,
Victoria Davis
Planning & Zoning Administrator
Tentative Meeting Agenda for January 13, 2005:
7:30 PM Review & approve minutes of December 9, 2004 meeting
7:40 PM Zoning Amendments Public Hearing
9:00 PM Informal with Alison Wagner; Map 402, Lot 15
| |
