 |
Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: February 19, 2004
Board Members: Present -Jim Poage, Vice Chair; Ross McIntyre, George Hartmann, Tim Estes.
Absent – Walter Swift, Chair
Board Alternates: Present -Alan Greatorex, Tim Callaghan, Jackie Glass.
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Bernie Waugh; Rod Finley, Pathways Consulting; Phil Harrison, Crossroads Academy; George Turner & Greg Hemberger, Banwell Architects.
At 7:30 pm, Vice Chair Jim Poage called the meeting to order. Voted to approved minutes of January 15 on a motion by Ross, seconded by George. Vickie reported that the state will come to look at the Wray property in March or April. Ross asked her to alert the board when they come. Vickie will check on meeting notice requirements. Voted to continue Wray hearing until April 15, on a motion by Jim, seconded by Alan. Vickie said that the Newton/Dickey project applicants have requested that their hearing be continued until March 18. Voted to do so, on motion by George seconded by Ross.
Pathways Consulting, Applicant, Permit Application 03-108, M409/L45
Proposal: build a new 4,100 foot driveway at 216 Dorchester Road.
Jim opened the public session on this case. Rod Finley said that the landowner, Arthur Stout, had asked for an extension because he anticipated that only a minimal board would be present at this meeting. Jim noted that a 42 page report had been prepared for the board by Fountain Forestry, which was not required by the ZBA, but is new evidence, and will take some time to review. Vickie asked for copies for those from the public who had attended the previous hearing.
Rod reported that balloons had been hung at heights of 35' and 80', and that photos had been taken of them. The person who installed them was later unable to see them from a public road. Adair had reported that by mid-day Saturday, Feb. 14, the balloons had popped and remnants were caught in the trees. It is not known how long the balloons survived for this visibility test. Voted to continue the hearing until March 18, on a motion by Alan seconded by Jackie. Bernie Waugh attended, representing David Roby.
Crossroads Academy, Inc., Applicant, Permit Application #03-107, M401/L56
Proposal: build several facilities in a planned development at 101 Dartmouth College Highway.
Jim opened the public session on this case, and said he had reservations about the method used for the calculations. Jim appointed Alan Greatorex to sit as a regular member. At Jim’s request, Rod gave a brief review of the project, including how the calculations were made. He suggested that the question might be whether the residential footprint of the planned development could be distributed in the part of the lot which is in the rural district. Jim pointed out that the ordinance says that planned developments can occur only in the commercial district. Rod suggested a compromise position, of moving the 15% of the residential floor area development into the commercial district. Jim agreed that this would be acceptable. Rod said he thought the school would be amenable, and asked what should be done with the rural
land. Jim suggested building a house, and although this would require subdivision, he did not think the Planning Board would object. Rod noted that if the footprint allowed for lots 7 and 8 were to be excluded, it would cut down on the school’s footprint.
Ross asked why there is a 200' strip of rural district set aside along Shoestrap Road in the zoning ordinance. He suggested that abutters did not want a commercial development across the road. Rod continued that the ordinance says that 15% of the floor area must be reserved for residential use, and that this could be placed in an upper story of the school buildings. Jim said that the space does not have to be built simultaneously, but that a plan is needed for how it will happen. Phil Harrison said he thought that the school could not develop anything on lots 7 and 8 because it had transferred the development rights to the commercially-zoned part of the lot. He felt that the full numbers should be used, and developed only in the commercial district. Jim commented that the
ordinance may be improperly worded, and that its intent is that an experimental subdivision is for commercial property. Ross reviewed the ordinance language. Phil recalled that the Planning Board had suggested that the applicant include the entire lot, including the land west of Hewes Brook which is in conservation, to do the calculations, but that the school had volunteered not to use this because it would result in more development than the school would want. Jim observed that lot averaging works for rural district land, and planned development works for commercial land.
Phil continued that the school plans to build less than what is shown on the sheet, but wants to establish now what it can do on the property. The practical effect of the change in calculation is to tip up the amount of residential space at the expense of school development. Jim said that the Planning Board should revisit the numbers and use those that are consistent with the zoning ordinance. Tim Estes agreed that the rural land should not be included. Vickie reported that town counsel had agreed with Jim’s opinion of how the calculations should be made, and that the rural section could not be included in the calculations. George pointed out that the Planning Board had already established the numbers. Ross agreed that the Planning Board should be asked. Jim said
that the six lots in the commercial district could be used to calculate the development, unless the owners accept the most restrictive district, which is the rural district. Ross suggested that if 15% must be set aside as residential, the ZBA could give the applicant a special exception to develop that in the rural part of the lot. Jim said this would be reasonable, but might require a variance.
George moved to ask the Planning Board to review the numbers, noting that the ZBA would have to accept the result. Ross seconded the motion. Alan asked the applicant’s view. Phil said that the school would prefer to work through the process rather than wait for a Planning Board meeting. Tim suggested conditioning the numbers approved by the Planning Board. Jim pointed out that the applicant is asking for 4-5 things which do not turn on the numbers, and that a lower number could be approved and a new one written in if it changes after Planning Board review. George withdrew his motion in favor of a new one by Ross: that the ZBA grant special exceptions and a variance with the understanding that the project could lead to a gross floor area not less than 84,000sf, subject
to further review by the Planning Board which could result in different numbers.
Jim pointed out that the parking lot is an appropriate use in the rural district but that different lot coverage would be required. Greg Hemberger said that the lot coverage is tight, and that the school needs a clear reading of the maximum allowable development in each area. Phil said that 90,000 sf is shown on the plan, and that the most constraining aspect for the school is lot coverage. Tim suggested building in the commercial district, and that the drive is acceptable in both districts, and doesn’t count in the rural district. Ross advised using the rural district for institutional use with a special exception.
George moved to grant a special exception under Section 4.50 for a Planned Development using figures provided by the applicant, provided that the Planning Board review once more those submitted figures. The issue to be reviewed is whether or not the rural district should be included in the total lot size upon which the figures are based. Ross seconded this motion, and it passed unanimously.
Ross then reviewed Walter Swift’s memo about the project. Alan recalled that when the Dartmouth College Highway project was developed, buildings could be approved as they came in. Ross observed that an educational institution is good business for the town. He also said that this is the area set aside for commercial development, and that if it is taken, there may be pressure for spot zoning, against which the board must be vigilant.
Phil asked that the request for a special exception for institutional use include both the rural and commercial districts. Members agreed. Tim Estes moved to grant a special exception for development of institutional use in the commercial and rural districts on the property, under Article IV Table 4.1. Ross seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Access ways are proposed within the shoreland and wetland conservation districts, but George noted that there are no buildings proposed for these areas. Alan pointed out that some wetlands resulted from excavation during construction of Route 10, and are artificial. Jim advised recognizing that they are wet now. He moved to grant a special exception to permit access ways as shown on the submitted proposal, intruding on the wetlands and shoreland conservation districts, under sections 4.61B3 and 4.63B3, recognizing that those drives meet the conditions of section 4.54 for drives, and will be designed with best management practices for storm water runoff and erosion control. There do not seem to be reasonable alternatives to the placement of these drives. Alan seconded this
motion and it passed unanimously. Tim moved to amend this motion to include the proposed well location and bridge crossing, and the water line under section 4.61B4. George seconded this and it passed unanimously.
Regarding the request for a variance under section 7.22 for the parking lot, Jim noted that it intrudes only on the front road setback and does not intrude into any conservation districts. In the commercial district, the front setback is 150' from Route 10. The existing parking lot at the school is about 60' from the right of way. The proposed lot is 50-80' from the right of way. The variance is proposed to build a parking lot for 44 cars within the front setback, and the lot is expected to be used only for event or overflow parking. Jim continued that conditions to consider are screening from Route 10 and lighting. There is currently dense natural vegetation there, which should be retained during construction, or re-established if it cannot be saved. The parking lot should
be placed as far from Route 10 as possible, without intruding into the wetland buffer. Rod said there are as yet no plans for lighting, but that the project will have to meet site plan regulations. Jim advised that a condition be that lighting must be approved as part of the site plan. Alan said that the proposed views will not be contrary to the public interest, and that the proposed parking lot location is practical, especially since it is to be below grade and so less visible. Jim added that this location will not intrude upon the short supply of buildable area, and is better than requiring cars to park along Route 10. Tim Estes moved to grant a variance for construction of the parking lot in the front setback, which meets the conditions of section 10.50. George seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Findings of fact include that the board took into consideration and acknowledged receipt of plans that included promises regarding public access to and use of the trails and
bridge to be built on the land. Tim noted that a snowmobile trail passes across the property, and asked the applicant to work with the Lyme Pinnacle Snowmobile Club on the future of the trail. Conditions will include that the actual construction is subject to site plan review, including access ways, bridge, and parking lot. The Planning Board will confirm or recalculate the numbers governing lot coverage, building footprint, and gross floor area.
Tim Callaghan asked about plans to reclaim the gravel pit. Rod said that the Planning Board regulates this, and that some of the pit is within the wetland buffers. He will need to come back to the ZBA for this portion because this aspect was not included in the posted notice for the meeting.
Meeting adjourned 9:27 pm.
Respectfully submitted, Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| |
