Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: April 21, 2005
Board members: Present - George Hartmann, Chair, Alan Greatorex, Vice Chair, Walter Swift,
Absent - Jim Poage, Ross McIntyre
Alternate members: Present - Marcia Armstrong, Margot Maddock
Absent -Jackie Glass
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Amy and Brent Forward, Dan Bailey, William and Ann Bokermann, Steve and Meg Maker
George asked Marcia and Margot to sit as regular members.
Elections - George indicated that he would be willing to serve as chair for one more year. George was elected chair upon nomination by Walter seconded by Alan, with all in favor except George, who abstained. Alan was unanimously elected vice chair upon nomination by George seconded by Walter.
Minutes - Agreed that it is necessary to indicate names of members on votes. Minutes of the March 17 meeting were so amended and approved on a motion by Marcia, seconded by Margot.
Amy and Brent Forward, Applicants, Permit Application 2005 -030,M407/L51
Project: build a 26' x 30' garage at their property at 187 Orford Road
The Forwards propose to build a detached garage in the Rural District. This requires a special exception to encroach into the side property setback under section 8.22 of the zoning ordinance. The deed indicates that the property goes only to the south edge of the abutting discontinued road, Pushee Falls Lane. 90 sf would encroach into the side setback, leaving 910 sf for future expansion. The applicant did not have further comment. George asked Vickie how it is decided that roads are discontinued. Vickie said it is done by town meeting. Alan noted that the exception is needed only because of how the deed is worded. Vickie said the house is partly in the front setback, making the house non-conforming. George noted that the house replaced a mobile home that was on the lot in 1989 and entirely in the road setback. Vickie
read her letter to the Planning Board that gave the history of the property. The house encroaches 264 sf into the front setback, but the builder was not sent to the ZBA at that time because the proposed encroachment was much less than the previous mobile home’s. Walter asked if the garage could be reasonably located outside the setback. Brent said that the septic system runs in this location, although he could move the garage 1 ½ feet. He added that there is a shed on the property that will stay. Vickie confirmed that there is no septic design in the file.
Deliberations: Agreed this is a straightforward application. Walter moved to grant a special exception to section 8.22 to build a 26' x 30', 780 sf garage at the location shown in the application.
Findings of Fact: The proposed garage is an accessory structure to a non-conforming building whose non-conformity is that it intrudes into the front setback by 264 sf. The garage cannot be reasonably located any further out of the setback due to the presence of the septic system. Conditions of section 10.50 have been met. With the intrusion of 90 sf into the side setback from the allowance of 1000 sf, section 8.22 permits 910 sf for future expansion.
Conditions: The garage will be built according to best construction practices and in the location shown on the application. Alan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Dan and Millie Bailey, Applicants, Permit Application 2005 -021, M402/L1.1
Project: add a porch to their house at 294 Dartmouth College Highway. Appeal an administrative decision that a farm shelter is a “structure” under Article II of the Zoning Ordinance. Request a waiver to exceed maximum lot coverage under NH RSA 674:32 for agricultural structures.
The Baileys propose to add a porch to their house in the Rural District. This requires a special exception to encroach into the road setback under section 8.22 of the zoning ordinance. They are also appealing an administrative decision that a farm shelter is a structure under article II of the zoning ordinance. They are also asking for a waiver to exceed maximum lot coverage under NH RSA 674:32 for agricultural structures. Vickie noted that after Dan had questioned the tax card measurements of two of his trenches, she and Elise Garrity went with him to measure them and came up with substantially smaller figures, although she did not feel comfortable changing them because there are concrete aprons leading up to the trenches with a substantial amount of mud on them. She thought the trenches were probably less than on
the tax card, but does not believe it matters in this case because the lot coverage would still be at the maximum. She will advise the Tax Assessor to go out and re-measure them. Alan agreed that the slab counts as lot coverage. Dan said he agreed with the footage measurement. Adair provided Dan with copies of the Lyme Historian newsletter from Fall 2004 and Winter 2005, which include historic photos that show a porch on the farmhouse in the proposed location.
George and Walter suggested looking at the three issues in this order: administrative appeal, agricultural waiver, and porch. George noted that the shelter already exists and occupies 2736 sf. Walter asked how temporary it is. Dan said that two people could remove it in 30 minutes and that it is sitting on 2' x 8's. The frame is steel but the roof may last only 10 years. He said it is an integral part of his farm and he erected it because he didn’t have room to get all his birds under cover. George read the definition of “building” in the ordinance and was satisfied that it included the cover for the turkeys. The definition of “structure” includes buildings. Therefore, he concluded that the turkey shelter is a structure under Article II of
the ordinance. Dan said that it is no different from a portable tent screen house, and that the Quonset hut (turkey shelter) has limited use since he can’t heat or wire it.
George noted that the ZBA had not dealt with the RSA for agricultural structures before. Vickie said that last year, the Planning Board put it in the zoning ordinance, after talking to the town’s attorney. George read the statute, noted that it says the board “shall grant a waiver” for agricultural uses. This is a safety valve for farms which have a lot of buildings. He observed that the total deficit in lot coverage was 5584 sf with the proposed porch and Quonset hut shelter. Vickie said that the calculations came from the October 1990 tax card. Discussion ensued about what structures might have come and gone since zoning. Dan said that 10 years ago, he took down an old barn and put up a processing building. George pointed out that RSA 21:34a defines a
farm as including the owner’s residence as well as other farm structures and so logically could be included in the waiver provision of RSA 674:32. Vickie said that 1600 sf had been added with the processing building. Dan said there had been no changes to the footprint of the house. Walter pointed out that since zoning, all changes have been tied to the agricultural business, and that a waiver can be granted for these changes, returning to a lot coverage of 28,542 sf, which would allow a special exception for the porch out of the remaining lot coverage.
Deliberations: Walter moved to deny the administrative appeal on the administrator’s decision, stating that the board agrees that the Quonset hut shelter is a structure, and should count as lot coverage. Findings of fact include that the shelter is part of the farm business, meets the definition of building, and is not taken down every six months. He moved to grant a waiver under RSA 674:32 for 2680 sf and for 2904 sf, for a total of 5584 sf for agricultural use, because this represents the additional lot coverage after zoning was passed to support a necessary part of the farm business and its increasing demand for turkeys. He moved to grant a special exception under section 8.25 to add a porch back on to the house for a total of 168sf. Findings of fact are that 1000 sf encroachment are allowed, The porch
will encroach 133 sf into the front setback, and this would leave 867 sf for future encroachment. Conditions are that the agricultural structures waived and the porch should be built with best construction practices to prevent erosion, and as shown in the location indicated on the application. Conditions of section 10.50 have been met for all aspects of the application. Alan seconded Walter’s three-part motion, and the board voted unanimously to approve it.
William and Ann Bokermann, Applicants, Permit Application 2005 -028, M410/L9.1
Project: add two overhangs at entries to their house at 190 Baker Hill Road.
This is an after the fact application for a permit to add overhangs to the front and rear entries of this home in the Rural District. This requires a special exception to build within the property setback under section 8.22 of the zoning ordinance. George asked why a permit was not requested before construction. Bill Bokermann said that he did not know such small additions would require a permit. Vickie said that it is a footprint issue in the setback, and that the applicants still plan to build a garage that was previously approved. George noted that the house was built before zoning.
Deliberations: George said that the strength of the ordinance depends upon people getting permits before work is done. Walter said that the footprint definition includes overhanging roofs even if cantilevered, and pointed out a possible discrepancy in how such things are considered in measurements, since eaves of a house may protrude well beyond the walls, resulting in greater impervious surface area, although the measurements may be based only on the walls. Vickie said she uses tax card dimensions. Marcia moved to grant a special exception for the two overhangs under section 8.22 of the ordinance, noting that they are already built. Findings of fact are that they add 30 sf of encroachment into the road setback. Added to the previous application for a 522 sf garage, not yet built, this allows 488 sf remaining
of the 1000 sf encroachment allowed by special exception. Conditions of 10.50 have been met. Margot seconded this motion, and it passed unanimously.
William and Ann Bokermann, Applicants, Permit Application 2005 -027, M410/L26
Project: add a 16' x 12'6" shelter for horses at their barn at 189 Baker Hill Road.
The Bokermanns are requesting an after the fact permit to add on to their barn, which requires a special exception to build within the property setback and the Shoreland Conservation District under section 8.22 and 8.24 of the zoning ordinance. Bill explained that this is a run-in for the horse, and includes a roof and one wall. George asked if the applicants have any reaction to the letter from the Conservation Commission. Bill said he thought the commission’s comments were legitimate, and said he has already made arrangements to move the manure pile, and is getting quotes for fences. He will ensure that future manure and shavings are kept away from the waterway. Alan noted that this addition is larger than the overhangs and asked why they did not apply for a permit first. Bill said that the horse shelter was
built in July before they sought the garage permit and that they weren’t aware they were in the setback. He didn’t know he needed a building permit because it was an addition to an existing building. The couple moved to Lyme a year and a half ago. Vickie noted that the town is now planning to send letters to new residents alerting them of the need for building permits.
Walter reviewed the Conservation Commission’s letter and noted that it did not comment directly on the shelter. Adair, who was one of the three CC members who made a site visit, said that the CC was concerned about the siting of the shelter which meant that runoff from the entire barn roof was delivered nearly directly to the perennial stream. She explained that it is better to arrange roof drainage so that it can soak into the soil rather than add to surface runoff, because this can create erosion. George noted that the letter focuses more on how the horse is managed. Walter said that Lee Larson, CC chair, is a very diligent person, and that it would not be appropriate to ignore the comments.
Deliberations: George suggested not granting the special exception until the actions recommended by the CC were put into force. Walter reviewed the letter again, and noted that the primary concern, about manure handling, is being addressed. Bill said the previous owner had horses on the property . Walter said he would find it difficult to ask for fencing as a condition of approval. Adair said that the CC’s intent in the letter was not to impose conditions on the permit but to alert the ZBA and the landowners to ways to better manage the animals on the land. Vickie asked about enforcement of the state’s best agricultural management practices, and Adair said that while the state takes a lenient position with respect to agriculture, the BMPS are well defined and the state department could visit the
property and enforce them if a complaint is lodged. While allowing animals access to streams was a traditional practice, it is now understood to be harmful to water quality and streambanks, and fencing is strongly recommended. Alan agreed that the board should not insist upon fencing as a condition.
Walter moved to grant a special exception for construction of a horse shelter as shown adjacent to the 1500 sf barn, in the wetlands and shoreland conservation districts. Findings of fact include that the Conservation Commission visited and provided a letter of recommendations dated April 17. Testimony has been heard that the applicant is addressing the major concern of the conservation commission on manure storage and considering fencing. It is beyond the purview of the ZBA to take a position with respect to management of animals. The shelter is in the road setback, and uses 200 sf of the allowed 1000 sf of encroachment, leaving 800 sf for future possible encroachment. Marcia seconded this motion, and it passed unanimously. Adair provided the applicants with
printed material about agricultural buffers and keeping horses.
Steve and Meg Maker, Applicants, Permit Application 2005 -026, M401/L1.1
Project: add a 2 story addition to their home at 11 Preston Road.
The applicants propose to add a carport with a living room above, at their home in the Rural District. This requires a special exception to encroach into the road setback under section 8.22. George noted that if the proposed addition could be moved to the back wall it would be out of the road setback. Steve Maker said that the septic tank is very near the house. Meg Maker said that there would be no change in the number of bedrooms.
Deliberations: George said that the existing house encroaches by the same distance into the road setback. Walter said that the house was there in 1972, and was the Baileys’ home. Alan moved to grant a special exception under section 8.22 to encroach into the front setback by 319 sf for the proposed addition to the existing structure, which predates zoning. Findings of fact: the current proposal leaves 681 sf for future encroachment within the front setback, of the allowable 1000 sf. The septic system location prevents the addition from being moved farther back. No other locations work as well. Conditions of section 10.50 have been met. The structure will be built according to best construction practices to prevent erosion. The building site is not in the agricultural soils district because it is within
the 200 foot building envelope. Marcia seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Marcia asked if the board can impose a penalty for building without a permit, noting that such structures are not always built the way they would have if subjected to scrutiny. Vickie said that this possibility was explored and that the town can charge only related administrative costs to the applicant, but that the current zoning ordinance requires that the town go to court. It was agreed that the town’s move to send a letter to new residents is a very good one.
Meeting adjourned 9:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| 
