Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: August 18, 2005
Board members: Present - Alan Greatorex, Vice Chair; Walter Swift
Absent -George Hartmann, Chair; Jim Poage, Ross McIntyre
Alternate members: Present - Margot Maddock, Jackie Glass
Absent -Marcia Armstrong
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Wayne Pike, Harriet & Fred Phillips, Irene Graf, Richard Mann, John Vansant and Steve Branchflower of Smith & Vansant Architects, Don and Nancy Dwight, Jeff and Deb Snelling, Joyce and Paul Killebrew, Rob Meyer
Vice Chairman Greatorex asked Margot Maddock and Jackie Glass to sit as regular members.
Wayne Pike, Applicant, Permit Application 2005-037, M201/L75
Project: “after the fact” shed and greenhouse at 9 Main Street.
Wayne Pike of Dowd’s Country Inn requests an equitable waiver under section 10.61 of the zoning ordinance for a shed which has been on the property at 9 Main Street in the Lyme Common District for over 10 years. He is also requesting an administrative appeal from a decision that a temporary greenhouse is a “structure” as defined in the zoning ordinance in Article II. These structures are within the wetlands conservation district and require a special exception under section 4.61. The Conservation Commission visited the site and does not consider that these structures have a further negative impact on the already disturbed wetlands, and that removing the structures could be a greater source of disturbance. Vickie read the CC’s letter. Wayne said that the shed had been a dog kennel
that was formerly located closer to the Lyme Country Store. He had moved it onto the pad which had been built at the instruction of the state which required it for a water system when the Inn opened. The dog kennel now functions as a tool shed. Walter observed that there is not an increase in violation even though it is in the wetland buffer, because there is no increase in footprint. Wayne said that he had gone through permitting at the time the pad was put in, in order to get the truck to the well site which was part of the approval for the inn. The pad is built of fabric placed on the original grade, with gravel on top. If the pad is removed, the well cannot be serviced. Walter said that a waiver is not needed since the building is not an increase in structure. Vickie said that the kennel was put in without a permit. Wayne said that there was no building permit for the well or the pad, but that the town had required it. Walter suggested granting an equitable waiver for the pad.
Walter asked about the greenhouse and Wayne explained that there is no roof on it except from February 15 to about June 15, and that only the frame is left. It was built about 1999.
Deliberations: Walter said that since the frame is there all year, it is permanent, but since it is also on the pad, it is not an issue. He added that the pad exceeds the lot coverage of both the shed and the greenhouse. Walter moved to grant an equitable waiver under section 10.61 of the zoning ordinance for both structures because they have been there for over ten years on a pad which exceeds the lot coverage of both structures. He moved to deny the appeal of the administrative decision based on the fact that the frame of the greenhouse sits in a fixed location, and is not for a temporary structure. Therefore, it qualifies as a structure. Margot seconded these motions, and they passed unanimously
Walter moved to grant an equitable waiver under section 10.61 of the zoning ordinance for the pad, and asked Wayne to supply its dimensions to the zoning administrator. The pad has been in existence for over 10 years without an enforcement action. He moved to grant an equitable waiver under section 10.61 for the installation of the two structures on the pad because the pad footprint dominates the issues of lot coverage and wetlands. The Conservation Commission believes that removing the structures could be a greater source of disturbance. Margot seconded these motions, and they passed unanimously. Wayne accepted the decision of a four person board.
John Vansant, Applicant on behalf of Horace and Kathleen Henriques, Permit Application 2005-077, M404L4
Project: additions at 28 Storrs Hill Lane.
Horace & Kathleen Henriques propose to add onto their home in the Rural District. This requires a special exception under section 8.22 of the zoning ordinance to encroach into the property setback. The additions would take a total of 492 sf from the 1000 sf allowance for encroachment into the side setback. Alan noted that the applicant is entitled to a 5 member board, but only 4 members were present. John Vansant accepted 4 members. He said that none of the proposed additions would encroach as far as the existing barn already encroaches into the setback. Fred Phillips said that he has no objection and that the project restores the previous configuration of the buildings, with a link between the barn and house. Vickie explained that the link was removed between 1991 and 1993, and that the square footage was
not credited because it had been gone more than two years. Walter agreed that it was to be considered new under these circumstances. Irene Graf added that she has no objection.
Deliberations: Walter asked if the additions would be covered. John said that some would be and some would not. Margot moved to grant a special exception under section 8.22 to add on to the property, finding that there were no objections by abutters, that the conditions of section 10.50 had been met, and that modifications could not reasonably be located outside the setback because the barn and kitchen are both located within the setback. Construction will use best building practices. Walter seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
John Vansant, Applicant on behalf of Richard Mann and Lisa Cohen, Permit Application 2005-078, M410L33.1
Project: conversion of existing cape to accessory use and construction of new 3br home at 42 Claflin Lane.
Richard Mann and Lisa Cohen propose to build a new house and convert the existing 1790s cape house into an accessory dwelling with studios in the Rural District. They are appealing an administrative decision in calculating the maximum gross floor area for a residential accessory unit which would not allow this proposal under section 4.42 of the zoning ordinance. Vickie summarized a letter from the Upper Valley Land Trust. Richard explained that UVLT may hold an easement here and was concerned about tax implications of the no-subdivide easement requirement, but now has no concern now that the situation has been clarified. John Vansant explained that the applicants have been living in the early cape on the property, which has a 19th century ell and sheds. They wish to build a new house on the
property close to the old house, and to have guest quarters and studios for yoga and art in the old house. The zoning ordinance limits the size of an accessory dwelling, which this would become, to 750 sf, but the part of the building that would be used for guest quarters would be less than that. UVLT has sent a letter saying that the proposal is consistent with its preferred development designs. John added that it would be impossible to subdivide the property later and maintain setbacks between the buildings.
Alan asked why the studios are not considered part of the accessory unit. John said that there are separate uses to the two parts of the building, which are separated by locked doors. The entire building would be heated. Walter asked how an assessor would view the studios, and thought that if they are insulated and accessible, the rooms could be used as residential space. He said he believes the entire cape would be a residence. He reminded that if a change in use is suggested, the planning board must be consulted.
Richard explained that he saw this design as a way to use the old cape, and he does not want to tear it down. Walter said that if the plumbing is disabled it would not qualify as an accessory dwelling. Jackie suggested replacing the door with a wall so that the apartment dwellers would not have access to the studio space. Walter said that the plan is intelligent but violates sections of the ordinance. He suggested asking for a continuance so that a larger board could consider the case. Richard said he did not want to take out the plumbing but asked about taking out some of the kitchen appliances. He does not want to build a big house on the old hill sheep farm, and does not want to take the cape down. Vickie commented
that if the applicant had come in with a proposal that did not include a kitchen in the cape, she would have granted the permit. She suggested a possible solution of building it without a kitchen, or asking the planning board to alter the zoning. The use would remain residential. She said that the ordinance requires that all four functions – cooking, living, sleeping, and sanitary facilities – must be provided to qualify as a dwelling, and if one is removed, it would not qualify. Members agreed that more discussion was required, and the case was continued to September 15.
Nancy and Don Dwight, Applicants, Permit Application 2005-084, M402L43
Project: build swimming pool at 92 Shoestrap Road.
Nancy & Don Dwight propose to build a swimming pool and equipment shed at their home at 92 Shoestrap Road (tax map 402, lot 43) in the Rural District. This requires a variance from section 5.1 to build within the side property setback. Development of this lot came before the ZBA on April 14, 2004. The ZBA granted a special exception to build on a vacant non-conforming lot. Vickie explained that the pool would encroach into the side setback by 737 sf. She read a letter from the Estes, abutters, saying they had no objection to the proposal. Don said that the lot is an odd shape, and although it is three acres, it is very long and narrow. The house is wedged between the setback lines on both sides. Alan asked about the retaining wall. Nancy said that there will also be drainage designed to
carry runoff to the north. She added that the pool had been planned for the other side of the house, but had been moved to avoid affecting the neighbors’ spring.
Deb Snelling said that her house is served by a dug well that would have been 15-20' away from the pool’s original location. She said she has had water issues already this spring after construction of the house. Jeff Snelling added that the well had been there over 100 years, and that with the new pool there would be extra fill to help stabilize the well area. He said he would be pleased to have the new pool where it is proposed. Nancy said that the pad for the equipment shed is a concrete pad, but not roofed. Vickie added that the house was built after zoning, and was approved. Jackie noted that the approved house is more than the allowed footprint by 502 square feet, through special exception.
Vickie pointed out that the application is not for an addition to the house but for an accessory structure. Alan asked why the Dwights didn’t pursue a lot line adjustment with the Estes. Don said that had been his first choice, but that legal advice had been given to pursue a variance. Walter said he thought that it would be hard to prove unnecessary hardship for a swimming pool, and noted that the Dwights purchased the lot knowing it was a difficult shape. Nancy said that she wanted to avoid her neighbors’ well. Vickie said that a lot line adjustment would need to include enough land to get at least five acres to avoid creating a new non-conforming lot. Walter said he needed more background information before he could vote, and felt that at this point he could only abstain. Jackie agreed. Therefore it was
agreed to continue the case until September 15. Vickie will send out copies of the Boccia decision on variances.
Robert and Jane Meyer, Applicants, Permit Application 2005-045, M416L12
Project: build addition to house and equitable waiver for gazebo at 41 Davison Lane.
Robert & Jane Meyer propose to put an addition onto their home in the Rural District. They are applying for a special exception to exceed the maximum lot coverage under section 8.25 of the zoning ordinance. They are also requesting an equitable waiver for a gazebo placed 10 years ago without a permit. The gazebo occupies 292 sf and the current addition will occupy 582 sf, leaving a remainder of 126 sf. Rob Meyer said that he did not own the property when the gazebo was put up in 1995. It is on a stone foundation that is larger than the gazebo, and that has been there for about 50 years, and has had a structure at times upon it. He bought the property in 1999. It is 637 acre lot, with 2600 sf of living space and a collection of agricultural buildings and an old tennis court. He said that the residence
is not extravagant, and questioned whether it was fair to include the gazebo in the calculations. Paul Killebrew said that he recalled that in 1986 the foundation had been there but no building had been on it. Vickie found nothing about the gazebo in the tax card. Paul said that as the only abutters who could see the Meyer property, he thought the project would enhance it.
Deliberations: Walter moved to grant an equitable waiver for the gazebo and its foundation, since the foundation was there at the passage of the ordinance and has a larger footprint than the gazebo, so there would not be an increase in footprint penalty. He found that the foundation is a structure, and since it has been there all the time, the two year rule does not apply. The gazebo has been in place for 10 years without an enforcement issue. Jackie seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Walter moved to grant a special exception for the addition to the residence, which would use 582 sf leaving 418 sf remaining for lot coverage. Conditions are that the addition and improvements are to be built substantially as drawn on the drawing submitted with the application. Abutters spoke in favor of the
application and it meets the conditions of section 10.50. Margot seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Other Business
Minutes of the July 20 meeting were approved unanimously on a motion by Walter, seconded by Jackie.
Meeting adjourned 9:55 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| 
