 |
Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: January 15, 2004
Board Members: Present - Walter Swift, Chair; Jim Poage, Vice Chair; Ross McIntyre, George Hartmann, members; Tim Callaghan, Jackie Glass, alternates; Absent - Tim Estes, Alan Greatorex.
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Bayne Stevenson, David Rayment, Clyde Cook, Robin Burdette, Jean Stevenson, David Hewitt, Kate Hewitt, Rod Finley, Hebe Quinton, Ellen Mulvihill, Rob Titus, George Turner, Greg Hemberger
At 7:30 pm, Chairman Walter Swift called the meeting to order. Voted to approved minutes of December 18 on a motion by Ross, seconded by George. Voted to continue Wray hearing until February 19, on a motion by Ross, seconded by George.
Bayne Stevenson, Applicant, Permit Application 03-047, M405/L36
Proposal: add single family residential unit in existing barn and add a septic system at 729 River Road.
Moved to reopen the hearing in public session. Ross stepped down on the decision because he has a conservation easement on his own land that reserves a house site. Walter appointed Tim Callaghan and Jackie Glass to sit as regular members, and asked the applicant if he had more information. Walter asked whether the applicant had an opportunity to read the opinions in the letter from Town Counsel. Bayne Stevenson and his attorney said that they had, and that they would like to respond. Bayne read a letter to the ZBA dated January 15, describing the acquisition of his lots and conservation activity there. Attorney Rayment reminded that Bayne had applied for an d obtained a permit for expansion of the guest house, when the 750 sf limitation was not applied, and said that it should not be applied in this case
either since the construction will occur in an existing building which is not detached. He held that the construction now under consideration is not for an accessory use. He reminded that the terms of the conservation easement had been negotiated, and said that the easement is exempt from zoning in a way that is similar to grand fathering. The check on expansion at the property is the oversight of the easement holder, the Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF). George asked if SPNHF’s authority is laid out in the easement language. Bayne said it is, and that Ken Stern from the Society visits the property annually and goes through all the plans. Reviewed the language of the easement.
Bayne indicated where the construction would occur, and that it is included within the approved footprint of an existing building, except for a stairway and septic system. David Hewitt spoke as a neighbor to support the application and said that an important role of the zoning ordinance is to preserve the character of the town. Tim asked if there had been other development on the property since enactment of the ordinance. Walter explained the previous application addressed at the November meeting, and asked Ross for his input as a citizen. Ross said that the reason the ZBA exists is to deal with the ambiguities that exist in any set of regulations. He said he was heartened that such decisions require human discussion and consultation of the master plan. George said that
if the board accepts Attorney Rayment’s interpretation of the easement, then the board must grant the special exception.
Deliberations: Walter said he had read both attorneys’ positions, and is concerned about reserved rights. He believes that the reserved rights are clear in stating the right to build a single family dwelling in the proposed area and that the proposed project qualifies as a single family dwelling under the definition in the Ordinance. He concurs with the applicant that the proposal is not for an accessory use but for a single family dwelling, especially since it is big enough to serve as one. He therefore did not think that the project needs to meet the 750sf limit, although he said he did not want to go along with all the arguments presented in Attorney Rayment’s letter. He could accept that there are reserved rights in the easement regarding a single family residence. George said that since SPNHF is a check, the board has to grant an exception, and the 750sf limit does not apply. The intent of the ordinance, he said, is to prevent overbuilding on a lot. Jim pointed out that
organizations like SPNHF can cease to exist, and he asked for a condition that if this should happen, the town should become the overseeing body. Jackie agreed with George, and asked about the depiction of the development area on the property, which Bayne clarified. Tim said that the easement grants the right, and that it is sensible to work within the existing barn. He agreed it is not an accessory use. Voted to table the discussion to later in the evening, on a motion by Jim seconded by George.
Crossroads Academy, Inc., Applicant, Permit Application 03-107, M401/L56
Proposal: build several facilities in a planned development at 101 Dartmouth College Highway.
Crossroads Academy, Inc. proposes to build several facilities on their property over the next few years in the Commercial and Rural zoning districts. This requires special exceptions under 4.50 for a Planned Development; 4.1 to build an institutional building within the commercial zoning district; 4.61 and 4.63 to build within the Wetlands and Shoreland Conservation Districts. A variance from section 7.22 is also requested to locate parking within the “front yard.” Vickie noted that the lack of definition of “front yard” in the ordinance had already prompted an amendment as a result of this application. A few such proposed zoning amendment changes relate to this case but are not valid unless approved at town meeting in March.
Walter appointed Jackie Glass to sit as a regular member on the case. Vickie said that the Planning Board has looked at the application and also approved an economically feasible subdivision. Jim said that this gives a set of numbers for the boards to use. Vickie continued that the property on the west side of Hewes Brook is protected by conservation easement, and that the school chose not to include this acreage in the calculations, even though it could have. The school was notified that it cannot later return to change the calculations. Walter asked if the Planning Board had discussed the conservation districts. Vickie said it had, and that after the special exception is approved, the applicant needs to go back to the Planning Board for site plan review, something
which will happen each time the school wants to build another building.
George pointed out that none of the buildings violate conservation districts, but that some of the parking lot and playing fields do. Vickie clarified that the maps show building areas, not buildings. Walter invited a presentation by the applicant. Ellen Mulvihill, a trustee of the school, introduced the project. Rod Finley of Pathways Consulting first reviewed existing conditions at the site, noting that the proposed area for development is currently an unrestored gravel pit. A restoration plan would be included in the project. Jim asked, since the ordinance does not permit change of topography in a conservation district, how this would be accomplished in the wetland buffer. Rod said that plateaus would be created, as well as a drainage plan. He added that recreation is
an approved use in the wetland area. Walter pointed out that the type of recreation could be in question, since football in a wetland buffer would not be appropriate. George asked about the size of the gravel pit. Rod said it is about five acres, and that the buffer squeezes it. The pit goes closer to the brook than the edge of the buffer, and this area would be restored. Ross said he was less concerned about the disturbance of the soil at the edge of the pit, considering the history of land use here. He thought the board should be concerned with the impact of removal of gravel on the property and how to bring it back to its original state while working within the regulations. He said that the pit was excavated in about 1964.
Rod turned to the “economically feasible” subdivision plan, which shows eight lots based on zoning regulations. A 200' strip along Shoestrap Road is within the rural district. He reviewed the calculations and indicated how he had arrived at the maximum footprint, gross floor area, and lot coverage per lot. These were then summed to get a total for the planned development. The resulting numbers have been accepted by the Planning Board. Jackie asked about the timetable for build out. Ellen said that it depends upon school growth and fund raising, but that a multipurpose room will be built close to the existing school within the next few years, and then the rest could be built out within ten years. George asked about the area of the existing campus. Ellen said
it is about 3-4 acres.
Rod reviewed the requested special exceptions. They include: (1) for a planned development in the commercial district; (2) for an institutional use in the commercial district; (3) locating an access way in a conservation district buffer; (4) locating a well outside the development area; and (5) building a wooden bridge across Hewes Brook. He explained the rationale for crossing the buffer for access, noting that parking areas will be placed outside of the wetland buffer. Jim asked about grades, and Rod said that the maximum grade will be 10%. George pointed out that the proposed public access is through an already disturbed area. The bridge would connect to cross country ski trails being laid out by John Morton. There is already a small bridge downstream, which was built
by logging interests. Rod turned to the parking area by Route 10, which he was not sure needed a variance under section 7.22 because the project is a planned development. It includes 40 spaces and is for overflow events at the school. It is located off Route 10, and not in a buffer. The third parking area, for the athletic field, is 46 spaces. George Turner confirmed that there will be a total of 130 parking spaces.
Rod continued that 15% of the area must be reserved for residential use under the rules for a planned development. This would possibly be for faculty, and could be either a separate building or the upper floor of a school building. An area has been reserved for this off Shoestrap Road. Since this area is zoned rural, he said this would be a good location for the residential use. Fifteen percent of 112,000sf of gross floor area is 16,800 sf. Jim pointed out that a planned development could only occur in a commercial district, and asked how lots 7 and 8 in the rural district could be included in the development. He reminded that only one residential unit per lot could be built in the rural district.
Greg Hemberger said that the campus will require all the area identified as developable, but also wants green space around the buildings. He showed the trail plan and indicated the location for a pond which would provide fire protection and learning opportunities. Hebe Quinton, an abutter on Shoestrap Road, reported that there is currently more traffic from Crossroads families on her road than the road can handle. She does not object to the project, but wondered about further traffic and is concerned about proposed changes to the intersection with Route 10. She recommended moving the parking access further south. She pointed out that the existing snowmobile trail cuts through the area intended for an athletic field, and, pointing to the credibility of Lyme’s
snowmobile club, said she hoped that this access would not be cut off. She also asked that lighting not affect the neighbors’ enjoyment of the night sky, and asked for down-lighting and motion detectors. The applicants indicated this would be possible. Hebe continued that previous logging in the conserved area had been poorly done, and had destroyed the trail network and sent sediment into Hewes Brook. Ross said that the Shoestrap Road intersection question should be addressed by the Planning Board, and that he appreciated the level of detail offered in the applicant’s letter. The board voted to continue the hearing until February 19, on a motion by George seconded by Jackie.
Bayne Stevenson, Applicant, Permit Application 03-047, M405/L36
Proposal: add single family residential unit in existing barn and add a septic system at 729 River Road.
Walter reconvened this hearing.
Deliberations: Tim had put together a draft of the findings, and moved to grant a special exception for the project and approve the applicant’s request for an administrative appeal. Members agreed that, while the application used the term “apartment” several times, the project should properly be referred to as a single family residential unit, because it has three bedrooms, 2 ½ baths, a living room, and kitchen, and 2160 sf of gross floor space which meets the definition of a single family dwelling unit. The conservation easement includes a reservation for both a single family residential unit and an accessory unit, which relates to the definition in the zoning ordinance. The board determined that the wording of the reserved right in section 2B meets the definition of single family
dwelling in the ordinance. As a consequence, the board determined that the town attorney’s opinion on this item was not applicable. Walter noted that he had called Attorney Spector, the town’s attorney, asking whether the opinion would change if a definition appeared in the zoning ordinance, and was told it might. The board considered the argument made in Attorney Spector’s letter dated 12/23 and determined that a single family residential unit as defined in the application did in fact meet the zoning ordinance definition.
The Board then voted unanimously, on a motion by Tim seconded by George, to grant a special exception for the single family residence with conditions, and voted to support the applicants Administrative Appeal as stated in the Decision Memorandum.
Meeting adjourned 9:46 pm.
Respectfully submitted, Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| |
