Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: November 6, 2007
Board members: Present - Alan Greatorex, Chair; Jim Poage, Walter Swift
Absent - George Hartmann, Ross McIntyre
Alternate members: Present - Margot Maddock, Frank Bowles
Absent - Jane Fant
Staff: Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Lindy and David Mather, Rod Finley, John Patton, Gerald Movelle
Minutes of the October 18 meeting were amended to reflect that the Clark case is still open and that if the Clarks need to come back to the board, they should renotify abutters, since the board did not deny or continue the case. Approved minutes as amended on a motion by Jim, seconded by Margot.
Alan appointed Margot and Frank to sit as regular members on this and the following case.
Lindsay Mather, Applicant, Permit Application 2007-093, Map 407 Lot 120
Project: variance request to treat lot as “lot of record” at 124 Pinnacle Road.
Lindsay Mather proposes to subdivide her lot in the Rural District. She is seeking a variance to section 5.11 and the definition of “lot of record” to retain the “lot of record” status of her lot held before annexing a one-half acre lot from the Town. Lindy’s lot was a “lot of record” until September, 2005 when she purchased an abutting half- acre lot from the Town of Lyme with the condition that the half acre be merged with her lot and that the dilapidated cottage be removed from the half acre lot. There was also a formal Voluntary Merger signed by Lindy that October and approved by the Planning Board and recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
The issue is that Lindy did not realize that once she purchased the Town’s half acre, she lost her “lot of record” status. Before the merger, she had a lot of record with over 10 acres and adequate road frontage, so there probably would not have been an issue to subdivide the lot. However, once the merger occurred, she lost this. Vickie Davis calculated her “lot size” including the half acre from the Town at 9.87 acres. The total acreage is 0.13 acre less than the required 10 acres.
Lindy explained that she would like to subdivide the land. She and David removed the old camp on the property. Jim explained the value of a “lot of record,” noting that with 13.7 acres reduced in size down to 9.87 acres, Lindy could not otherwise subdivide it into two 5-acre lots. She has the house on the market but needs to keep the barn with the other 6 acres. David added that they would not have done the lot merger had they known the consequences, which were never pointed out to them. Walter asked about the three shed buildings that are on the land but do not show on the map. David said they are movable sheds recently moved there from Tuckaway Timber.
Margot asked Rod if he thought he could find more buildable land on the property than the zoning map shows. Rod said he was not sure, although he thought it would change. He added that there would be much work involved in remapping the entire 13 acres, and it could cost thousands of dollars.
Deliberations: Jim ran through possible solutions. Walter suggested an alternative: an area variance based on the presumption that there was an error in the calculations of buildable area and that there are indeed 10 acres so that a subdivision could occur, and that it is an unnecessary hardship to prove there is more than 9.87 acres. In 2003 the permit for the barn mentioned the home occupation but with no house on the lot with the barn, the planning board will have to deal with the issue. The board also considered applicable subdivision regulations and an equitable waiver, finding that item B of 10.61 did not fit the case. Members agreed it was easiest to do a variance for a lot of record. Jim moved to grant a variance under section 10.50 and identify the lot as a lot of record, with the following
findings of fact supplied by Walter:
A. The proposed use will not diminish surrounding property values because had there been no annexation of the half acre lot, the lot could have been subdivided under rules for a lot of record so there is no difference between today and then, so there would be no effect upon property values.
B. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest for the same reason.
C. The use will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance because it has nothing to do with changing the inherent rights of the property before annexation.
D. By granting the variance substantial justice will be done because in the absence of a variance, it would cost much money to try to demonstrate that the lot could meet the requirement of 10 acres, and that it probably does
already meet that requirement today, and that the applicant made a purchase that benefitted the town through removal of the dilapidated camp.
E. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because she would not be able to subdivide it or could do so only after extreme expenditure.
The board placed no conditions on the approval, understanding that this would be the role of the planning board. The motion passed unanimously.
Gerald Movelle, Applicant, Permit Application 2007-092, Map 407 Lot 14
Project: replace septic system and add basement to home at 53 Post Pond.
On behalf of Tara Greco, Gerald Movelle proposes to install a replacement septic system and jack up her camp in the Rural District to construct a full foundation. This requires a special exception to build within the Wetland and Shoreland Conservation Districts and encroach into the property setbacks under sections 8.24 and 8.22. The Town map shows a National Wetlands Buffer. Only a small part of the house is within this district. Almost the entire lot is within the Shoreland Conservation District (within 200’ of Post Pond). There is no record of a septic system in the Town files. This is not uncommon for an old system. They would like to place a new system near the road. It will encroach entirely into the road setback as well as the side setback and be within the Shoreland
Conservation District. They would also like to put a foundation under the camp. Again, a small part is in the Wetlands Conservation District and all of it is within the Shoreland Conservation District. Footprint or lot coverage issues were not considered as the board does not consider a septic system to have a footprint and the foundation will go under an existing house and will not extend beyond the existing footprint.
Gerald explained that he had owned this property and sold it to Tara Greco. The septic system on the property was built in 1940 by Roy Day, and consists of a 300 gallon steel tank draining into a stone dry well. It has not had much use. The house once had four bedrooms, but he reduced it to three. It is on a high ledge some 40 feet above the level of Post Pond. Walter asked about the location of the neighbor’s well. Gerald did not know. The septic design is being approved by the state. Jim noted that the home’s well is 50 feet from the proposed septic system. Gerald pointed out that the 1940 septic system has probably failed and that in New Hampshire, one can replace a failed system on the site, but that this is a much better site and system. Frank noted that
this is difficult to do on a small lot. The lot is 0.47 acres. Gerald said that the state wants a signed release from Roy Day, who receives water from Tara’s well. He said that Roy will sign it. The septic will be a pumped system.
Jim pointed out that the Conservation Commission had not made a site visit or commented on the project. Adair volunteered to arrange this. Walter asked why the system was not placed farther north. Gerald said that it cannot be within 75 feet of a culvert, which is located there. The board asked Gerald to provide a modified septic plan that would show the neighboring O’Donnells’ well, and a letter from the Conservation Commission. Jim added that the plan satisfies the requirements of section 5.13, and requires a special exception for that. The board moved to continue the hearing until November 15, on a motion by Walter seconded by Margot.
Meeting adjourned 8:55 pm.
Respectfully submitted, Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| 
