 |
Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: May 17, 2007
Board members: Present - Alan Greatorex, Chair; George Hartmann, Ross McIntyre, Jim Poage
Absent - Walter Swift
Alternate members: Present - Margot Maddock, Frank Bowles
Absent - Jane Fant
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Bob and Sally Barnum, Jim Kennedy, Paul Guyre, Norm and Beverly Wakely, Bob Hauser, Lisa Hayes, Kathy Barrett, Edna Barrett, Jim Jenks, Delores and Richard Drew, Brent, Margaret, and Cody Stearns, Jack Highland (NRCS Grafton County), Dan Brand
Minutes of the April 2 meeting were approved as amended on a motion by George, seconded by Frank.
James Kennedy, Applicant for Robert Barnum and Hoyt Alverson, Permit Application 2007-018, Map 402, Lot 97 and 100
Project: stabilize the Connecticut River bank at 143 and 155 River Road.
Alan appointed Margot to sit as a regular member. Robert Barnum and Hoyt Alverson propose to stabilize the bank along the Connecticut River on their shared property between 143 and 155 River Road in the Rural District. This requires a special exception under sections 4.63 B. and 4.65 B to work in the Shoreland and Flood Zone Conservation Districts. The Conservation Commission has reviewed this plan and recommends its approval. Jim Kennedy said that a permit for a minor dredge and fill project has been submitted to the state. This project continues work that was done on the Barnum property upstream, and repairs a large eroded hole in the bank. Alan asked how the natural heritage questions are handled. Jim said that he has checked with the state and the US Fish & Wildlife Service, and there are no
endangered mussels in the area. George observed that the application is supported by extremely good documentation.
Deliberations: Ross said that it is well documented and meets the conditions of the ordinance. Margot commended the property owners for improving their new property and removing trash. Ross moved to grant a special exception under sections 4.63 B. and 4.65 B to stabilize a portion of the Connecticut River bank with vegetation, grading, and riprap as shown on the plan. Findings of fact include: the applicants own property that has eroded in the past and was stabilized previously with discarded tires, which has failed. This plan is offered as a remedy to this failed attempt and to improve river access. There are no setback problems and no abutter comments. The applicant has described the techniques to control erosion and sedimentation. No rare, threatened, or endangered species will be affected. The project is
subject to the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Dept. of Environmental Services. The Conservation Commission has visited the site and recommends the project. The project requires a special exception because the properties are in the Shoreland Conservation District and the Floodprone District. George seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Paul Guyre, Applicant, Permit Application 2007-022, Map 403 Lot 1
Project: stabilize the Grant Brook streambank at 310 Dartmouth College Highway.
Alan appointed Frank to sit as a regular member. Paul Guyre proposes to stabilize the stream running through his property at 310 Dartmouth College Highway in the Rural District. This requires a special exception under sections 4.63 B. and 4.65 B. The Conservation Commission has reviewed this plan and is in favor of it. Paul noted that he has a letter from Jeanie McIntyre confirming that the project has the approval of the conservation easement holder on the property, the Upper Valley Land Trust. Ross offered to step down from the case because Jeanie is his daughter. Members agreed there is no conflict. Ross asked about the rate of erosion. Paul said he has lost 10-15 feet in the last 5 years, much of it last spring. His main motive is to enhance wildlife habitat and keep the shade on the stream, especially from
some very large highbush cranberries. George noted that the CC report recommends using native cobbles and filter fabric. Paul said this was okay with him if such rocks are available. Ross thought that round cobbles might roll downstream and suggested looking for other stone that is more angular but will not look out of place in the setting. Abutter Bob Hauser said he would like to know more about bank stabilization measures. Adair noted that the Connecticut River Joint Commissions’ web site carries much information on this at www.crjc.org/erosion.htm. Paul added that his project does call for geotextile.
Deliberations: Frank said he thought that the project seems well designed and straightforward. Jim moved to grant a special exception to sections 4.63B.4 and 4.65B to stabilize a portion of the Grant Brook streambank, based on the following findings of fact: the property is south of Grant Brook and is located in the Rural District, Shoreland Conservation District, and Floodprone District. The plan calls for stabilization using rock and live willow. It meets the standards of the DES wetlands permit. It has been approved by the Conservation Commission subject to modifications in riprap. Conditions of section 10.40 are met. Abutters were present and supported the application. Conditions are those stated in the Conservation Commission letter, but allowing the best selection of stone so that the riprap will not
move, but will have a natural look. Subject to DES approval. The Upper Valley Land Trust, which holds the conservation easement on the property, has no objection. George seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Ken & Lisa Hayes, Applicants, Permit Application 2007-014, 401 Lot 77
Project: add onto home at 75 River Road.
Alan appointed Margot to sit as a regular member. Ken & Lisa Hayes propose to add onto their home at 75 River Road. This requires a special exception to exceed the maximum building footprint under section 8.25 of the zoning ordinance. Lots 76 and 77 have been merged by the Planning Board so this is now one lot, to be called lot 77. Although John & Becky Franklin received a special exception in 1997 to add on to the house, this was not included in the special exception calculations on the worksheet because if the lots had been merged as they are now, the special exception would not have been required in 1997. Vickie said that the merger of the lots negates the prior reductions, so with the addition of the living area, the project exceeds the maximum building footprint by 646sf, leaving 354 sf for
future expansion. There are no setback issues. Septic approval is needed. Lisa said she is working with a septic designer now. George asked about the NH Energy Code. Lisa said she has a letter of approval. Vickie explained the new computer program made for the town by Don Cooke that allows her to do calculations. Jim asked Vickie to fill in the table for reductions. Alan said he had confidence in the numbers.
Deliberations: George moved to grant a special exception to add on to the home in the Rural District and to exceed the maximum building footprint under section 8.25 of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing footprint is 2576 sf, and the proposed addition is 1214 sf. The allowable footprint is 3144 sf. The existing and proposed footprint equal 3790sf, less 3144 sf leaves 646 sf to subtract from the 1000 sf allowance. No abutters commented. Conditions of 10.40 are met. A previous special exception granted to the Franklins is not included because the exception would not have been required if both lots had been merged. The owner has NH Energy Code approval. The project area is excluded from the agricultural soils conservation district. The effects of lot size reductions are applied due to agricultural, flood prone, and
shoreland conservation districts on the land. Lot coverage is not a problem, nor are setbacks or gross floor area. The structure was built before zoning. Conditions include receipt of a septic permit. Margot seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Brent & Margaret Stearns, Applicants, Permit Application 2007-019, Map 405 Lot 15
Project: replace a mobile home with a double-wide at 658 River Road.
Alan appointed Frank to sit as a regular member. Brent & Margaret Stearns propose to replace a mobile home with a double-wide at 658 River Road in the Rural District. This requires a special exception under section 8.25 and a variance to the ordinance to exceed the maximum building footprint. Vickie noted that the mobile home is 924 sf, and that the proposed replacement home would have a net addition of 1316 sf. The ordinance allows only 1000 additional sf by special exception. Ross said that if the board is asked to consider a variance, it must know the reasons, and that there must be unusual hardship. Vickie reviewed Brent’s statement addressing the 10.50 criteria for a variance. There will be no change in intensity of use, and the current residential use will not change. The new home will
accommodate his family and his mother, who is the owner of the current mobile home. He said that the lot is small (less than an acre in a 5 acre zone), and very wet. Therefore, it is difficult to create a basement, so more square footage is needed for storage on the main floor. Modular homes come in specific sizes, and Brent said it was difficult to find one that would fit the zoning ordinance. He needs three bedrooms. Ross asked about the size. Brent said the mobile home is 14' x 70', and the proposed home is 28' x 80'. Ross asked if it is possible to get a 28 x 70' doublewide and whether three bedrooms would fit in one. Brent said he thought it would be difficult. Jim asked about going to two stories. Brent said he couldn’t unless he built a basement. He has a slab already, and the land is wet. Richard and Delores Drew said they were in favor of the project. Deliberations: Jim said he was uncomfortable with the way the proposal was done; he understood that the
solution had been chosen and meets the family’s needs, but there was no clear set of alternatives and why others were unacceptable. He thought that the family needed 2000 sf, and understood that the hardship might be financial, but felt uncomfortable approving the application without more information. Frank said that a doublewide is a highly optimized house. Ross asked if there might be any other structure that would offer the space needed at a cost the family could afford.
Out of deliberations: Jim Jenks said that a foundation would be needed for any other structure, and that this adds expense. Ross asked if other plans would cause unnecessary hardship. Brent said that a stick-built house could not meet the price.
Deliberations: George said that there is probably no other structure that would do the job, and would create other needs. Ross noted that a person with extensive experience in construction says that other alternatives would greatly increase the cost. Frank moved to accept the application for a new home in the Rural District, which requires a special exception under section 8.25 for 1000sf and a variance for 316 sf. The board has received testimony that not granting the special exception and the variance would create unnecessary hardship, and testimony from a member of the public that a foundation or second floor would also create hardship. There are constraints on the site. Conditions of 10.40 and 10.50 have been met. The new home will replace an existing mobile home installed pre-zoning. There are no
agricultural soils or steep slopes. A new septic design is in process. The structure needs to conform to the NH Energy Code. A variance is granted under the Boccia decision for an area variance, given the specific conditions of the property. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be met without hardship. Ross seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Kathy Barrett, Applicant, Permit Application 2007-012, Map 402 Lot 86
Project: add a manure storage building to barn at 91 River Road.
Alan appointed Margot to sit as a regular member. Kathy Barrett proposes to add a manure storage building to her barn at 91 River Road in the Rural District. This requires a variance to build below the 100-year flood elevation in the flood conservation district, or if this fails, a special exception under section 8.24 to raise the building above the flood elevation within the conservation district. A special exception is also required under section 8.22 to build within the property setbacks. Vickie said that the barn is right on the property line, and the project is to be considered an addition to the barn because there is a roof connection. 594 sf are located in the side setback, leaving 406 sf for future expansion. Kathy explained that she has trouble getting manure out. She shared a number of photos.
Ross asked what is on the other side of the boundary. Vickie said that it is conserved land belonging to the Wilmots. Ross said that because the adjacent land is conserved, the side setback issue should not be a problem. No abutters came to testify. Frank said that the structure will prevent runoff contamination from the manure pile, and is inherently floodproof because of its openings. There is no buoyancy issue. Jim said that the project would result in an overall improvement to the environment. Ross said that the manure would be drier inside than outside, and would diminish the consequences of a flood. Alan asked about the possibility of raising the floor of the shed. Kathy said that if it were raised 6 inches, the tractor must go up, and that it is safer to have it
as low as possible. Jack Highland of NRCS said that the shed was designed to be at the same level as the barn. There is a 12 foot gate. Jim noted that there is no other feasible location for the manure pile.
Deliberations: George said that the application was well prepared and that the project makes sense. Ross said that there is a big difference in the floodprone district between a structure for agricultural purposes and one for human habitation.
Out of deliberations: Frank asked about a storage tank. Jack Highland said that there is none, although there is a rock drain around the barn to an outlet on the other side.
Deliberations: Alan suggested deleting reference to a storage tank. Ross moved to grant a variance to construct a manure storage shed on this property in the Rural District. The facility has been designed by the Grafton County office of USDA NRCS, and will be built adjacent to the barn in the side setback. Findings of fact include that section 8.22 allows building with in the side setback by special exception. The adjacent property is conserved farmland, and it is unlikely that new structures will be built next to the property line. No abutters protested the project. The facility is located on the verge of the floodplain as defined by FEMA. A letter has been received from the assistant state coordinator of the National Flood Insurance Program. According to floodplain regulations, a slab can be built below the
Base Flood Elevation, and the structure wet-floodproofed with a variance. Because the structure is wet-resistant and open to flood access and not a buoyant structure, the board concluded that the structure is inherently wet-floodproofed. The location of the manure storage makes it less susceptible to pollution should a flood occur. The applicant has described the structure of the barn and layout, and any other location or elevation would impair the usefulness of the structure, causing hardship in loading manure. Therefore, the board agrees that the applicant’s desire for a slab at the same level is appropriate. Locating the facility in another part of the barnyard is not feasible because of the existing structure of the barn. The slab is 7.68 inches below the floodplain. The board has evidence that the proposed use will not diminish surrounding property values, and that it is in the public interest with respect to decreasing dispersal of manure by runoff. Agricultural use is
by right throughout Lyme. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship. Best management practices will be used during construction to be sure the building is anchored. The project satisfies the wet floodproofing requirements of two technical bulletins. No electrical systems will be located below one foot above the base flood elevation. No conversion of the structure will occur without another appearance before the zoning board. The ZBA notified the applicant that the project would increase risk to property. George seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned 9:13 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| |
