Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: November 16, 2006
Board members: Present - Alan Greatorex, Chair; George Hartmann, Jim Poage
Absent - Walter Swift, Ross McIntyre
Alternate members: Present - Marcia Armstrong, Frank Bowles
Absent - Margot Maddock
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Ben Barrowes, Joe Longacre, Randy Rhodes, Fred Pearce, Bob Fegan, Larry McCarthy, Frank Blather
Alan appointed Marcia and Frank to sit as regular members. Minutes of the November 2 meeting were approved as amended on a motion by George, seconded by Jim. Minutes of the November 11 site visit were approved with Vickie Davis’ explanatory additions on a motion by Frank, seconded by Jim.
Ben Barrowes, Applicant, Permit Application 2006 - 182, Map 401, Lot 27
Project: build new home at 32 Pelton Lane.
(Continued Hearing) Ben Barrowes proposes to build a house and garage on the property of John Beesley at 32 Pelton Lane (Map 401, Lot 27) in the Rural District. The ZBA granted an administrative appeal that his driveway existed prior to zoning and he does not need a special exception to cross Agricultural Soils. He also applied for a special exception to build within the Hillside and Ridgeline Conservation District under section 4.66. The ZBA met on November 11th for a site visit of the property. Ben has provided several drawings and photos to illustrate the visual impact of his proposed house. He noted that John Beesley is out of the country and cannot attend. Marcia said that the site visit was helpful.
Deliberations: Jim noted that the private road crosses a wet area. Frank said that culvert has been installed and that conditions should include adding gravel and standard construction practices. George reviewed the rationale for the Hillside and Ridgeline Conservation District and concluded that the project would be acceptable. Frank said he though the house siting was ideal for the landscape and unlikely to be visible. Alan moved to grant a special exception to allow development of a house site within the Hillside and Ridgeline Conservation District under section 4.66, finding that abutters had been present at the previous hearing and had voiced no objection; the application met the requirements of section 10.40; the board at a prior meeting granted an administrative appeal of the driveway issue since
testimony indicated the drive had been in place for a long time; the site falls within the Hillside and Ridgeline Conservation District as defined by the map in Appendix F of the Zoning Ordinance; the board made a site visit after the leaves had fallen and based upon that, feels that the house is not likely to be visible; the private road is shared by three owners and crosses a seasonally wet area that is too small to be considered a wetland; a letter from nearby neighbors expressed concerns about blasting. Conditions are that best building practices and erosion control will be employed. Frank seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Longacre Properties, LLC Applicant, Permit Application 2006 - 172, Map 402, Lot 77
Project: build driveway at 202 River Road.
Joe Longacre proposes to construct a driveway in the Rural District. This requires a special exception under section 4.62 to cross the Steep Slopes Conservation District and 4.53 to exceed an 11% grade. The Planning Board reviewed the drawing at their meeting on November 9th. They recommended that if the board approved the application, the applicant should be required to divert run-off from any development away from River Road keeping all water on-site, and that if River Road is impacted by run-off from any development on this lot, the applicant shall be responsible for the correction of that impact including any culverts and easements on property on the west side of River Road.
A curb cut permit has been received. The site is not in the Hillside and Ridgeline Conservation District. Randy Rhodes, the project engineer, explained that the design attempts to get runoff from the driveway through a culvert under River Road. He is unsure how all runoff could be kept on site given the slopes. The driveway will be gravel with riprap in the ditches. Several level spreaders will be installed to encourage sheet flow. He will need to avoid disturbing the neighbors’ gravity water line. The board observed photos taken on 11/14. Randy said that the drive fits with others in the neighborhood and estimated that both are steeper than 14%. His design attempts to avoid aesthetic impacts and to convey runoff with minimal impact. The property across River Road
is the Wilder Wildlife Management Area, owned by NH Fish and Game. The state has been alerted but has sent no comment.
Alan asked if the drive is to serve a viable house site, and cautioned against building a drive for a site that may not be suitable, which could tempt the applicant to later claim hardship if investment has been made. Joe said that there is a proposed house site with septic approval pending. Jim Poage cautioned that a building footprint of 1543 square feet is allowed there based on the steep slopes on the lot. Vickie explained how these calculations were reached, and added that the applicant could probably prove that more of the lot is not steep slopes. Her map currently shows almost all of the lot as steep slopes. Joe said that he now understood this, and is comfortable with moving ahead with the driveway application. He thinks that less of the lot is in steep slopes
than Vickie’s map indicates. Fred Pierce, an abutter, said that he had built two nearby drives, and had problems with one, so paved it. He had no objection to the project.
Deliberations: George said he thought that the proposal pushed the limits of the ordinance, but seemed to be well engineered and is within approvable limits by special exception. Alan said he thought the design made every effort to minimize slope. He is confident that extra water is not a problem on the opposite side of River Road, and does not believe that runoff from the drive could be kept on the site. George moved to grant a special exception to sections 4.62 and 4.53 of the ordinance to construct the driveway across steep slopes, based on the following findings of fact: the drive is engineered so that while it tests the limits of the ordinance as it exceeds 11%, it is within what is acceptable by special exception, not exceeding 14% over the length of the drive. There is a waterline to a spring. Drawings
are well done and reflect good construction practice. A culvert at the bottom of the drive passes under River Road and leads to a swale to the Connecticut River without endangering any properties. The applicant has been warned that the current calculations for an acceptable footprint for a building on the site is 1543 sq ft. An abutter was present and offered no objection. The property is in the Rural District and is seven acres, reduced by steep slopes. Requirements of section 10.40 have been met. Conditions: protect the waterline, and provide access should the owner want to reopen it, or pay to extinguish the easement. Frank seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Bob Fegan, Applicant, Permit Application 2006 - 198, Map 401, Lot 20
Project: replace a failed septic system at 51 Goose Pond Road.
Bob Fegan proposes to replace a failed septic system at the property of Susan Marton at 51 Goose Pond Road in the Rural District. This requires a special exception under sections 5.13 and 8.22 to build in the road setback and section 8.24 to encroach into the Wetland and Shoreland Conservation Districts. According to Bob Fegan who did an inspection for a prospective buyer, the current septic system is a pipe into the brook. The proposed leach field will still be in the wetlands and shoreland district and within the road setback, but direct discharge to the brook will be eliminated. Bob noted that the lot is tight. He intends to use a Presby system for the leach field. There is a 10 foot drop to the brook level. The tank is very close to the house and is grandfathered. The mound will be 2 ½ feet above the
natural grade, and 85 feet from the brook. Frank asked about distance to the well, and Bob said that the leach field and pump chamber are more than 75 feet away. George noted that Lyme’s sewage disposal setback is 100 feet from surface waters, although the state permits 75 feet. Vickie said that the house is pre-zoning. The board expressed difficulty with wording in section 5.13. Abutter Larry McCarthy said his shallow well is 50 feet from the brook downstream of this property, and so is concerned. He said any improvement would be a major benefit, and asked about maintenance requirements. Bob said that the tank should be regularly pumped out, and provided a schedule. He will put straw on the mound to protect it over the winter.
Alan raised the concerns expressed by the Conservation Commission. Bob said that 3:1 slopes are intended to avoid runoff onto the leach field, and that the field would stand by itself. Alan said that a swale is not required. Bob said that it is not a problem to fill it in, but that the system should not have stormwater introduced into it. He added that the road at this point is at a height of land, and that most of the road runoff would migrate toward the garage and not the leach field. Alan said it is important to minimize the amount of water coming into the system. George and Frank agreed.
Deliberations: George said he did not see another practical solution, and Jim said that the project would improve the situation for Hewes Brook. Jim moved to grant a special exception to sections 8.22 and 8.24 for installation of a replacement septic system. The house and existing system predate zoning, which allows the applicant under section 8.22 to build in the setback from Goose Pond Road. Distance is 53 feet to the pump chamber and 48 feet to the leach field. Section 8.24 allows encroachment into the conservation district. It is 85 feet to the brook. Special exceptions are granted to build as approved by the state in this location. The Conservation Commission visited the site, and sent a letter recommending a continuous grade from the road, but people familiar with septic system design suggest that this
may not be most desirable, all things considered. Abutters were present and encouraged the project to proceed. Requirements of section 10.40 are met. Conditions: minimize drainage into the brook, and use best construction practices to control erosion during the fall and spring while vegetation is becoming established. Frank seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned 9:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| 
