 |
Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: January 19, 2006
Board members: Present - Alan Greatorex, Vice Chair; Walter Swift, Jim Poage, Ross McIntyre
Absent - George Hartmann, Chair
Alternate members: Present - Margot Maddock, Marcia Armstrong
Absent - Jackie Glass
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Connie and Kassie Wilmot, Don and Julia Elder, David Robie, Paula Small, Kathy Sherrieb, Frank Gould, Morty Bailey, Morton and Kathy Bailey
Minutes of the November 10 and 17 meetings were approved on a motion by Jim seconded by Margot. Vice Chair Alan Greatorex asked how to treat zoning amendments not yet adopted if they conflict with the existing zoning ordinance. Vickie reminded that all proposed amendments must be treated as if they were adopted. Vickie suggested that if there are conflicts between proposed and existing aspects of the ordinance, the board should apply the most protective standard, such as using existing Table 5.1, since the petitioned change is more lenient. Ross later explained that state law requires that proposed amendments be used in reviewing applications to avoid a scenario where applicants could rush to get their projects approved before stricter provisions went into effect. Alan asked Margot Maddock to sit as a regular member
for the next case.
Connie Wilmot, Applicant, Permit Application 2006-002, M409 L48
Project: rebuilt home at 188 Dorchester Road.
Connie’s house recently burned. She proposes to replace her home with a home with a larger footprint in the Lyme Center District. A variance is required to exceed the maximum building footprint. A special exception is required under section 8.22 and 8.24 to encroach into the road setback and conservation districts. Connie said that her recently burned home is within the floodplain, and that Rod Finley is doing a septic design and also a floodplain study between her home and Grant Brook, to the location of his home upstream. She said that the insurance company did not give her enough money to rebuild a home of the same size as the former one (25 feet x 29 feet). Vickie explained that a modular home of 1387 sf is proposed, and since the existing 280sf pool would be filled in, the net lot coverage addition
would be 1107 sf.
Connie explained that cost is a factor, and that she is trying to stay within the amount provided by her insurance. She knows it is important to stay within the former footprint because the house is so close to the brook and floodplain. She suggested that the house could be raised on footings. She confirmed that the house is in the floodplain. The proposed ranch style house would be one level, with a basement in the floodplain, as was the basement of the former house before it burned. Ross asked about amending the application for a smaller building. Connie said she had not done so because she doesn’t yet have figures for a smaller building. A 24' x 30' building would be most feasible. Walter asked how many floors the earlier house had. Connie said it had a basement, a
main floor, and a dormered second floor that was not visible from the road, and three bedrooms. Vickie said that the dimensions of 25' x 29' had come from the tax card.
Connie continued that the one floor ranch style modular home she is considering would have a basement that she would use as living space with two bedrooms, and on the main floor, a bedroom, kitchen, living room, and bath. Alan asked why the current proposal is for a house that would be 52 feet long. Connie said that this is needed to accommodate three bedrooms. With this design, there would be no bedrooms in the basement. Alan asked about the heating system. Connie said it would be on the main floor with a duct down to the basement. The basement would be a game room for the kids. Because the well pressure tank would be located there, it needs to be heated.
Paula Small, an abutter, asked if the septic system could be expanded in the floodplain, and whether requirements for the system have changed or whether it is grand fathered. Vickie said she had talked with the state about it, and that because the existing system was not state approved, a design for a new system must be state approved. However, this new system would not need to be installed, but there is the assurance that a new state approved system could be installed if the existing one fails. Connie does not yet have this approval. Waivers for septic setbacks are possible. It makes no difference if the house footprint is the same or if it is expanded. Frank Gould, an abutter, asked when the plan for the smaller home would be available. Connie said she would have it by the
beginning of the following week. David Robie said that building a stick house would be a cleaner solution because it would not increase encroachment, and said it made sense to adjourn the hearing until more information is available. Connie said that if the cost turns out to be higher, she cannot do it. She added that the entire building foundation is gone, and must be replaced. She said that it costs more to build in winter, because of the way concrete must be handled, and she has gotten three different quotes. She considered a single wide manufactured home, which would be only 20' wide, but it would be 80' long. David reminded that if the building is in the floodplain, it must be built within floodplain regulations. Paula asked if the building would be a primary residence or a rental. Connie said it would be a primary residence.
Ross said he is concerned about the large footprint, and is not persuaded that the home’s footprint should be enlarged significantly. Since there is not yet enough information about a smaller house, he suggested tabling the issue until more precise information is available. Connie said she understood the reason for this. Walter said that if the footprint is not enlarged, the project would require only a special exception. If it is enlarged, the applicant needs to show hardship. Good cost estimates are needed, so they can be compared. Alan said that floor plans are also important. Connie said that the insurance company now better understands the issues, such as having the septic system in the floodplain. The board voted to table the hearing until March 16, the next date
that Connie can attend, on a motion by Ross seconded by Walter. Alan noted that if the insurance company’s continued cooperation proves to be a problem for Connie, the board can establish an earlier meeting date.
Morton F. Bailey, Applicant, Permit Application 2006-003, M406 L34
Project: build home at 135 Mud Turtle Pond Road.
Vice Chair Alan Greatorex asked Marcia Armstrong to sit as a regular member for the case.
Morton F. Bailey proposes to build a house in the Mountain & Forest Conservation District. A variance is required to develop a lot on a Class VI road (unmaintained). This lot is also a vacant nonconforming lot which requires a special exception under section 8.31 (the ZBA may consider this part of the variance) as it does not meet the lot size, road frontage, setback, lot width, or building footprint requirements. Vickie explained that Morty went to the Planning Board, which gave approval as long as Morty would maintain the section of Mud Turtle Pond Road he plans to use, and that the town would have no burden to transport children to school. The selectmen also granted permission. This is a two acre lot in a 50 acre building zone.
Morty said he believes that his project would not establish a precedent to open up Mud Turtle Pond Road for development. Ross asked about traffic on the road. Morty said that it is associated only with the Rondeaus, and with an abutting lot in Orford. He said that Orford maintains the access as far as the Rondeaus. Jim asked where Morty would store his landscaping business equipment. Morty said he stores it at his father’s property, and that it would stay there. The road gets muddy. Don Elder said that he and Julia own the next lot south. Other lots in the area are owned by Beeson and George Tullar. Ross asked if they are concerned that this project would diminish their property value. Julia said they got the lot at a tax sale and that its value would not be
diminished. Ross asked if the project is contrary to the public interest, and stated that it would be if a school bus had to be sent or if the town had to maintain the road. He said that the above-mentioned promise must be made in order to protect the town against risk. Morty displayed a Notice of Limits of Municipal Liability or Responsibility, and said that it would be written into the deed that is to be filed at Grafton County. Ross reminded that the intent of the Mountain and Forest District is to retain large tracts of land for timberland, although this is a pre-existing small lot. He asked for proof that a variance will render justice. Morty pointed out that the lot had been taxed as a building lot.
Vickie said that dimensional requirements require a special exception, and so does treatment of the agricultural soils under section 4.64. Jim proposed establishing a building envelope with special exception under section 8.31D. David Robie said it makes sense to approve this project as long as the reasoning is made clear: it is across from a developed parcel and is not isolated in the middle of the Mountain and Forest District, and it has no negative impact on the town as proposed. Morty pointed out that Lyme has mutual aid with Orford. Don Elder added that if an occupant dials 911, it goes to Hanover dispatch, which would send out both Orford and Lyme.
Deliberations: Walter asked if the variance is a use variance or a dimensional variance. Since it was a lot of record before zoning, its use was grand fathered. Jim said that if the Rural District’s restraints are imposed, a house twice the size of that proposed could be built. If the agricultural limit is waived because it is a two acre lot, a 1600 sf house could be built. Vickie noted that the waiver would be just for an agricultural easement, not for a reduction of lot size. A special exception is still needed for building on agricultural soils.
Ross moved to grant a variance to build a house in the Mountain and Forest District, with the following findings of fact: the lot is an existing non-conforming lot without a building upon it; it is serviced by a Class VI road of which the applicant proposes to use 25 feet to gain access to the lot; the lot is two acres in size in the Mountain and Forest District, on the edge of developed property on the Orford town line; the applicant furnished a copy of language to go into his deed that exempts the town from maintaining the road and providing school bus service, and this language will become a part of the deed in perpetuity; the property has agricultural soils but because the lot is smaller than three acres, the requirement for a conservation easement may be waived; the
applicant furnished a plot plan showing that the front and side setbacks meet the requirements for the Rural District; this is one of two small lots at the Orford end of this Class VI road; development on this lot will not bring development of small lots into the contiguous Mountain and Forest District, so the variance does not represent a precedent for developing small lots in the District; the lot is contiguous with a prior developed lot; the use will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance. After reviewing section 10.60 A-E, the board found no reason to deny the variance. Five board members voted unanimously to support each of the criteria of section 10.60.
Conditions: 25 feet of Mud Turtle Pond Road may be used for access; the applicant will sign the release of services and file it with his deed; approvals required by Orford will be obtained and provided to Lyme; the applicant will construct the residence in accord with the plot plan submitted. Under section 8.31D, the board imposes conditions that construction will conform to dimensional controls of the Rural District (allowable footprint 1255 sf, 7527 sf maximum allowable lot coverage). Findings of fact for a special exception under section 8.31D: the requirement for an easement on unused agricultural soils is waived; the proposed use is in harmony with section 10.50; the site is an appropriate location, and compatible with neighboring developed land; the Planning Board has
reviewed and approved the proposed use, and recommended approval by the selectmen, who have approved the use of the Class VI road; the applicant has testified that he intends to store his business equipment elsewhere; abutters testified in favor of the proposal, and so has a member of the public. Marcia seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
The board turned to a discussion of proposed zoning amendments. Several board members' questions were answered, and a new copy of the amendments going to town vote, as well as remaining amendments voted to public hearing were distributed to the members.
Meeting adjourned 9:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| |
