Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: May 18, 2006
Board members: Present - Alan Greatorex, Chair; Walter Swift, Jim Poage.
Absent - George Hartmann, Ross McIntyre
Alternate members: Present - Margot Maddock, Marcia Armstrong
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Kathy Perkins, Ray and Tina Clark, Jonathan Masland, Nancy Snyder, Don Derrick (Habitat for Humanity), Roe Wyman, Put Blodgett, Jim Kennedy, David Kotz, Pamela Jenkins, Stan and Harriet Rosenberg, Joanne Messineo, Buster Balch.
Minutes of the April 20 meeting were amended to indicate that the Cunningham application met the requirements of section 10.40A, and approved on a motion by Jim, seconded by Margot. Chairman Greatorex appointed Margot Maddock and Marcia Armstrong to sit as regular members.
Katherine Perkins, Applicant, Permit Application 2006-131, M409 L67
Project: move a mobile home to 68 Isaac Perkins Road.
Katherine Perkins proposes to move a mobile home to her property in the Rural District. Adding a second home to her lot requires a waiver under section 10.62 to accommodate a disability. A new State law requires specific installation methods for a mobile home including concrete slabs or posts. Kathy has applied for a waiver from the State for this project. There are no other issues. Kathy does not intend that the mobile home be permanent, but only exist on her lot as long as her brother needs her care. No abutters were present, but Vickie had received an email from Ronald and Barbara Balch, Douglas Balch, and Sherman Philips indicating they had no objection to the proposal.
Deliberations: Jim reviewed sections A and B of 10.62, and said that the proposal meets the intent of the ordinance. The waiver should survive only as long as the trailer need exists. Walt noted that the septic system approval is for a 4 bedroom house and that the house has four bedrooms. Alan advised encouraging the state to give a waiver for the requirement for a concrete pad, noting that neither the applicant nor the ZBA wants the pad. Walter made the following motion, which was seconded by Marcia and passed unanimously: grant a waiver under §10.62 of the Ordinance to permit the installation of a mobile home on the Perkins property allowing a person with a known physical disability to reside there based on the following Findings and subject to Conditions listed below. The lot (M409, L67) in the rural
district is owned by K. Perkins and comprises 47 acres. The applicant proposes to install on her property a 14’ x 70’ mobile home that is owned by her brother, who has several serious disabilities requiring continuous care. Because of the nature and extent of these disabilities, it is not possible for him to reside in the existing house. The location of the mobile home is shown on a site plan submitted with the application. It is outside any setbacks. The mobile home will share water and septic systems with the existing house. The septic system will accommodate the capacity requirements for both structures so long as no more than three bedrooms are continually in use in the main 4-bedroom house. The proposed structure would not qualify as a temporary use or structure under §4.43 because that section does not permit residential use. It is the intent of the applicant that the structure be temporary, in use only so long as the care and support
for her brother is needed. The ZBA affirms that the waiver shall be in effect only so long as this need exists. The ZBA finds that this waiver is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. The application meets the requirements of Section 10.62. Conditions: The mobile home will be located and installed in a accordance with any requirements imposed by the State. The Board recommends that no permanent substructure such as a slab be required. The mobile home will be removed when the need for care of her disabled brother is no longer required.
Jonathan Masland, Applicant, Permit Application 2006-132, M414 L6
Project: build a driveway to proposed building site at 39 Pout Pond Road.
Jonathan Masland proposes to build a driveway to a future building site in the Rural zoning district. This requires a special exception to build within the Wetlands Conservation District under section 4.61. The original subdivision was approved by the Planning Board in 1986 with the access portion of this lot right through the wetland. In 2003, this lot was reconfigured and was approved by the Planning Board by a lot line adjustment. A curb cut permit was recently issued. The Conservation Commission must review this application. Jon explained that an existing snowmobile trail became a logging road, which has two culverts, one of which needs to be replaced. He plans to follow the route of this logging access. There are also some wetlands further back from the road. Jim asked if the drive permit
is a condition in his purchase and sale agreement for the property. Jon said yes, and that he needs to change the date of the agreement’s expiration because the state may define wetlands differently. Walt asked if this is the access to Pout Pond. Put Blodgett said it is not. Joanne Messineo, an abutter, said that the loggers had removed the boundary pin. Roe Wyman said that the property was a subdivision created by the planning board, and the culvert and ditch existed before the subdivision, and asked why the permit was being heard by the zoning board. Vickie explained that this is an older subdivision, and that the planning board did not go through the ZBA, so the issue is being addressed now. Walt asked where the wetland is. Vickie said it has not been delineated, but that the Conservation Commission looked at it and found little wetland. Joanne said her corner pin is in standing water. There were no comments from abutters. Jon said he would submit an expedited
minimum impact wetlands application to DES right away.
Deliberations: Jim advised adhering to the Conservation Commission’s recommendations. Alan commented that the CC tends to do a thorough job on almost all applications. Marcia said that the drive might improve the situation because it is highly disturbed. Walter made the following motion, which was seconded by Jim and passed unanimously: Move to grant a special exception to John Masland under §4.61 of the Ordinance to permit the construction of a driveway from Pout Pond Road to the site of a residence based on the following Findings and subject to Conditions listed below:
The lot (M414, L6) lies in the Rural, and Mountain and Forest districts. It is owned by Wyman Ventures and comprises 6.4 acres. The proposed drive and residence site are within the Rural District. The original subdivision was approved in 1986 and was subsequently reconfigured in 2003. In its current configuration, the proposed drive lies in the 100’ wetland buffer at the northeast corner of lot 414.5. The property access way – coinciding with the proposed drive is the only feasible area for providing access to a residential site on the property. The building site is approximately 450’ from Pout Pond Road as shown in a site plan submitted with the application. The Conservation Commission supports the application noting that there are no better sites for the location
of the drive. They also recommend the replacement of a culvert near Pout Pond Lane where the seasonal drainage crosses the proposed driveway. The application meets the requirements of Section 4.61.B.3. Several abutters were present, and none expressed objections.
Conditions: The drive will be constructed using the Best Management and Practices. The culvert near Pout Pond Lane referred to by the Conservation Commission will be replaced. Necessary approvals will be obtained from the State. The residential site may not be more than 1000 feet from the road.
Stan and Harriet Rosenberg, Applicants, Permit Application 2006-128, M402 L96
Project: add a deck and porch to an outbuilding at 139 River Road.
Stan & Harriet Rosenberg propose to add two decks and two porches to their accessory dwelling in the Rural District. This requires a special exception to exceed the maximum building footprint under section 8.25 and encroach into the Shoreland and Flood Conservation Districts under section 8.24. Vickie has confirmed with NH DES Shoreland Coordinator that the proposal does not violate the state’s Shoreland Protection Ordinance. She does not believe the flood ordinance applies here since these are accessory additions to an existing structure, and confirmed this with the FEMA office in Concord. The Conservation Commission has reviewed this application. Dr. Rosenberg said he had also checked with the state, and feels the project will have minimum environmental impact. David Kotz, an abutter,
said he had no objection.
Deliberations: Walter asked whether a screened porch with a roof is considered enclosed living space. Margot said that the phrase implies walls. Walter observed that if porches are added without enclosures, the applicant can add up to 1000 sf, but if enclosed, even by a future owner who might add glass, the 750 sf maximum rule would apply. He is not inclined to say that a screened porch is an enclosure. Alan agreed. A variance would be needed to enclose. Walter asked if the cottage is on a foundation. Stan said it is on piers, and is heated. It dates from the 1950s, and has been improved on the same footprint.
Alan moved to grant a special exception under section 8.24 to add a deck and porch to an outbuilding in the Rural District. Findings are that the structures are not to be enclosed, therefore they do not contribute to gross floor area. The applicant is allowed an increase of up to 1000 sf in building footprint in the Rural District, and only the porch is related to this footprint. The porch will exceed the maximum allowable footprint by 119.5 sf, leaving 880.5 sf for future expansion. The encroachment into the shoreland conservation district is the controlling issue. The allowable intrusion into the district is 1000 sf, and the current intrusion is 427sf, leaving 573 sf for future expansion. The Conservation Commission visited the property, and recommended approval,
with the provision that DES is consulted, which has been done with both the wetlands and shoreland offices. Margot agreed with the CC on its advice to increase the riparian buffer on the property. There were no objections from abutters. The project is in the flood zone, but because the proposed structures are a deck and porch, it is not an issue for FEMA. Conditions are to follow the recommendations of the Conservation Commission, use best construction practices, and that the porch will remain unenclosed. Walter seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Jim Kennedy, Applicant for David Kotz and Pamela Jenkins, Permit Application 2006-125, M402 L94
Project: stabilize riverbank, add seasonal dock, replace existing camp with storage shed and stone patio at 137 River Road.
David Kotz & Pamela Jenkins propose to do bank stabilization on the Connecticut River, install a seasonal dock, demolish a camp near the river and replace it with a storage shed and patio. This requires a special exception under sections 4.63 and 4.65 to build within the Shoreland and Flood Prone Conservation Districts. Vickie noted that several permits were issued to the owners of this property to build structures or additions that should have gone to the ZBA, but they did not. In July 2000, a permit application did make it to the ZBA which realized the past errors. They granted an equitable waiver so the owners could start at “zero.” Vickie believes that not all of the calculations were provided at this time. In addition, since the current proposal is reducing the area of a
structure (patios do not count as a structure), the amount of excess lot coverage is less than it would have been if the calculations had been provided in the previous Notice of Decision. She has discussed this with the applicant.
The proposal is located within the Flood Prone Conservation District and the Flood Ordinance (which is part of the zoning ordinance) applies. After much discussion with a FEMA representative and the applicant, the applicant decided to raise the proposed building above the base flood elevation (BFE) so the building requirements do not apply to this building. Vickie will require the applicant to document the elevation of the new building to confirm it is actually above the BFE and not under the jurisdiction of the Flood Ordinance building requirements. The proposal is also in the State Shoreland Protection Area. This requires a waiver from the State before the building can be constructed.
The Rosenberg’s commented that they consider the Kotz plan would be an enhancement to the community. Jim Kennedy said that there are two parts to the application: restoration of the riverbank, and replacement of a building. He is applying for a special exception before the state permit and shoreland waiver have been received. The Conservation Commission has visited the site. The replacement building will be put on piles above the 100 year floodplain. He said that the floodplain level has been certified in the past, and he agreed to do a certification of the floor level when the building is complete. Jim Poage asked about drainage between the patio stones. Jim K said that they would be on a sand bed. Walter asked Vickie about records for the property. Vickie
explained that while a special exception had been given in the past, it was not noted for how many square feet. Under prior approvals, the board would have approved more than 528 sf for the conservation district intrusion and more than 100 sf for lot coverage for the house. She did not attempt to separate what had been done before and what is proposed. The work on the camp will decrease the square footage by 358. Marcia commented that this could only be an improvement.
Deliberations: Vickie said that provisions have been made to accommodate the flood zone to FEMA requirements. Jim Poage moved to grant a special exception under sections 4.63 and 4.65 to build within the Shoreland and Flood Prone Conservation Districts. The acreage is 2.3 acres, mostly in conservation districts. The proposal is to remove a camp that predated zoning, of 722 sf, and replace it with a storage shed of 364 sf and a patio of 358 sf. The patio is not included in the floodplain considerations. The building represents a negative 358 sf intrusion into the Shoreland Conservation District. The applicant also proposed bank stabilization on the Connecticut River and installation of a seasonal dock. The Conservation Commission has visited the site and recommended approval. Both projects are subject to
approval by the state. Applications have been submitted but are not yet approved. The existing structure is in the Flood Prone District, and the proposal would build the shed floor above the 100 year floodplain, by approximately one foot. Conditions include receipt of permits from the state for the dock and shoreland stabilization. Best building practices will be used, especially to control siltation on the riverbank and to halt erosion. The existing septic tank will be removed. The floor level of the new shed will be above the 100 year floodplain, and elevation certification will be provided. Marcia seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Ray Clark, Applicant, Permit Application 2006-126, M201 L80.2
Project: build new house and garage at 25 Pleasant Street.
Ray Clark proposes to build a house and garage at his property in the Lyme Common District. This may require a special exception to encroach into the wetland conservation district under section 8.24 of the zoning ordinance (a special exception had been granted in the past). He is asking for an amendment to a previous ZBA decision so a zoning easement is no longer required. This is due to a change in the subsequent zoning ordinances which no longer make this requirement.
On March 21, 2002 there was a ZBA hearing for a special exception to convert the existing commercial buildings to residential and approve an accessory structure for a garage and apartment. The ZBA treated the application as a planned development as the conversions section of the 2002 zoning ordinance put this type of conversion under planned development. See copy of section 4.47 Conversions from the 2002 zoning ordinance. An easement on undeveloped land was required in section 4.50. Although the easement was requested, it was never submitted. In 2005, the zoning ordinance changed and the easement is no longer required.
On June 25, 2004 the Zoning Administrator erroneously issued a permit to J & W Thomas for a garage to go with their “house condo” purchased from Ray Clark on this property. There were no dimensional issues, but if the easement had been in place as required by the zoning ordinance, the placement of the garage would have been prohibited.
Ray explained that he had bought the property in 1999, which had office/residential use and a commercial garage. He got approval to rebuild the garage as a derelict structure, and restore the house. The application was originally for commercial use, and he later found there was no commercial market for the house, so he reapplied to convert it to a residence. This was granted and the house was sold.
Ray is now dealing with the back portion of the parcel for a second home. The issues are encroachment into a wetland conservation district. He wants to turn the axis of the house 90 degrees to reduce wetland encroachment. Vickie said that the conversion bumped the project into different requirements, and there was a requirement for a zoning easement. Ray said that the land is limited by setbacks, and there is not much that can be done with it, so he feels it is practical to ask for an amendment to the permit. Walter reviewed the 2002 ordinance. Vickie explained that the lot is one lot, with condominium buildings owned separately. Because there are not mixed uses, it is not a PUD. Jim Poage asked what governs dimensions on new buildings in this case. Vickie said the same
as any other lot. Ray said his permit for the garage had expired. Vickie said that the lot is 1.2 acres, and with lot size reductions, the pre-zoning footprint of the house is 2318 sf, and 1975 sf for the new garage. There is substantial grand fathered lot coverage.
Ray explained that the houses will share water, a drive, and septic facilities. The fence line is the boundary of management of the land per private agreement, and the setback requirements are met independently. Vickie said that the Conservation Commission had decided not to look at the property again because the proposed wetland encroachment has decreased. Jim said that the CC was not aware that there would be excavation in the wetland buffer, and asked that the CC review it if the project involves wetlands.
Buster Balch, an abutter, said that Ray had agreed to create a ditch and berm to prevent runoff from the property from going under his barn, where he has spent money on a slab. Ray confirmed this and said he would build a 24" high berm to direct drainage to the north, and didn’t mind adding swales to solve a water problem if necessary. Buster said this would take care of it, and asked that the board stipulate that the swale be permanent. He also wants the right to maintain a water line that runs through the property, since the groundwater on his property is contaminated with calcium chloride. Ray offered to move the water line when he digs up the pad for the barn, although Buster was unsure exactly where the water line was. Alan suggested finding
it by the road and where it enters the Balch property, and designing a new route for it on the Clark property, and also advised checking with the state requirements for setbacks from septic for water pipes. Ray noted that he intends to donate the land to Habitat for Humanity, and that a permit would help reduce uncertainty for this organization, whose representative confirmed this. Walter suggested granting the special exception and permit amendment but withholding a building permit until conditions are met.
Deliberations: Walter moved to grant a special exception for locating Building B, a portion of which is in the wetland conservation district as identified in the sketch with the application. He also moved to amend the Zoning Board decision of March 21, 2002, to rescind the requirement for an easement as Condition 4 in that decision memorandum, and rescind the requirement for an easement under Condition 2 relative to the requirement that the garage be co-located with Building B, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: The requirement for the easement under the 2002 issue of the Zoning Ordinance resulted from a condition that the approved conversion was governed by the standards contained in Section 4.50 dealing with planned developments. The Zoning Ordinance was
subsequently revised to eliminate this requirement. Under the current ordinance, no easement is required for this conversion. Relative to Condition 2, in the original application, the applicant anticipated an apartment in the second floor of the garage, thus requiring an easement assuring that the garage and Building B remain attached. In the present application, there is no provision for an apartment above the garage, so there is no need to require the garage to be attached. Evidence has been submitted that there is a water line through the property and potentially under the proposed building site of the house. An abutter has expressed concern about the right to the water line to his property and the board is concerned about possible disruption to wetlands to relocate it. An abutter has expressed concern about drainage from the west boundary of the lot into and below his concrete barn slab. The applicant agreed this issue will be addressed. The location of Building B, which had
been approved within the wetlands conservation district, has a pre-zoning footprint of 1159 sf. The location of the proposed residential unit only consists of 875 sf within the wetlands conservation district. The Conservation Commission has reviewed the application and decided not to evaluate the site, noting the reduction of intrusion on the wetlands. The proposed detached garage is not in the wetlands or wetland setbacks.
Conditions: Prior to issuing a building permit, the applicant will obtain ZBA approval for the plan to relocate the water pipe serving the abutter’s property. The applicant will submit a plan for identifying the location of a drainage swale that is satisfactory to the abutter. Any excavation or construction within the wetlands conservation district will minimize impact to the district as specified by the Conservation Commission. There will be no excavation in the wetlands conservation district until the building permit is granted. Jim seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Walter moved to continue the hearing to the next regular meeting on June 15. Jim seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Marcia recommended ensuring that the agreement is binding upon future owners.
Meeting adjourned 10:52 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| 
