Lyme Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes: October 18, 2007
Board members: Present - Alan Greatorex, Chair; Ross McIntyre, Vice Chair; Jim Poage, Walter Swift, George Hartmann
Alternate members: Present - Margot Maddock, Frank Bowles, Jane Fant
Staff: Vickie Davis, Zoning Administrator; Adair Mulligan, recorder
Public: Ray and Tina Clark, Colin and Galen Robinson, Mildred and Susan MacKenzie, Donald and Donna Fisk, Kathy and Edna Barrett, Arend Tensen, Sharyn and Michael Amberger, Alex Stedman, Joseph Garcia.
Minutes of the September 20 meeting were approved after correction of a typo on a motion by George, seconded by Ross. Minutes of the October 3 meeting were approved on a motion by Walt, seconded by Ross.
Ray & Tina Clark, Applicants, Permit Application 2007-073, Map 416 Lot 7
Project: build a barn at 226 Pinnacle Road.
Alan appointed Jane to serve as a regular member in Ross’ place, because she had attended the site visit. Ray & Tina Clark propose to build a barn on their property in the Rural District. This requires a special exception to build within the Agricultural Soils Conservation District and the road setback under sections 4.62 and 8.22. In response to a question about the origin of soils maps, Vickie reported that Jim Kennedy had done the wetlands delineation and had used his information on steep slopes from previous field work on the property. Any steep slopes would be excluded from agricultural soils. She took photos which the board reviewed.
On the question of number of lots, Ray said he preferred that they be viewed as two lots. He said he believes that his project as proposed meets the intent of the agricultural soils conservation district. Vickie noted that the selectboard and planning board will address the lot question. She had found surveys dated 1982 that refer to parcels A and B, but a Planning Board notation on the recorded plan specifically state the two parcels constitute a single lot. The board viewed a color map of lots based on the town’s information on ag soils. Alan advised using Jim Kennedy’s map where it covers the area. Frank asked what could be done with the marginal area of ag soil proposed for the building site. Alan said that there was not enough
information to know the quality of the soil. Walter asked why it wouldn’t be possible to build within the 200 foot radius of the house (within the “building zone”) near the leach field. Ray said that this area is surrounded by steep slopes and is on ag soils; it would be challenging to get to in the winter. Tina added that that site is in the field in ag use, and that the proposed site was wooded until the windstorm. George said that the land falls off steeply from the road. Voted to table the discussion until the end of the next two hearings on a motion by Walter seconded by George.
When discussion resumed, Ross asked why the town would make one lot out of two when the second lot was added, noting that in this case, each lot could stand alone with road frontage and plenty of access. He asked if there were deeds that showed that the lots were separately owned in the past. Vickie said that the selectmen and planning board must deal with it.
George suggested that the applicant should ask for a variance or show that the building site is not agricultural soil. Alan noted that the old road was abandoned in the 1920s, and that the land beneath reverts to the landowners. If the ownership is now the same, there is no division. Walter noted that if the property is to be considered as two lots, the board could not approve any use on the second lot. Alan agreed. Jane asked if the removal of the road would change the treatment of the property. Ross asked if there is a reasonable site for the barn that is not in ag soils or steep slopes. Walter said he did not see one on the site visit but that the visit was confined only along Pinnacle Road to the gate. He asked if a septic system would be needed for the
structure. Ray said he’d been trying to keep the application simple, and chose to ignore that question for now. He said it would be possible to enlarge the existing system to handle it if needed. Jane pointed out that if the Davison Lane area were used, it would require disturbance of the stone wall and the loss of some very large trees, but that the proposed location is where trees blew down in the windstorm. She cited section 10.40A, numbers 5,6, and others, noting that the site meets these criteria for scenic, historic, and aesthetic features.
George said he did not think there was a reasonable alternative site. Ross observed that if there were blowdowns in that storm, it was likely because of the presence of ledge or wet soils or both, and advised that Ray get a soil scientist to demonstrate that the town map is wrong. Ray said that Jim Kennedy had used the town soil maps and then looked at pits to confirm them, but that there was much disturbed soil in the area because of the blowdown. There is much exposed ledge with pockets of other soil.
Vickie noted that if there is less than one acre of ag soil at the building site, it is not considered part of the agricultural soils conservation district. Walter asked for modification of the portion of the map delineated by a soil scientist for agricultural soils, or a determination that the area is less than one contiguous acre. The board agreed that there is no issue with respect to the road. Alan confirmed that if Ray’s soil scientist determines that the site does not have ag soils or that there is less than one contiguous acre of ag soils on the site, that Ray does not need to return to the board for a decision. The board did not deny or continue the case, so if Ray needs to return to the board, abutters will need to be notified again.
Colin Robinson, Applicant, Permit Application 2007-084, Map 402 Lot 85
Project: subdivide property at 100 River Road and build driveway.
Alan asked Ross to participate as a voting member. Connie Wilmot proposes to subdivide property in the Rural District into two lots: 60.91 acres includes the existing farm buildings and will remain primarily in conservation easement and 76 acres is proposed as a building lot. This proposal was approved by the Planning Board subject to ZBA approval. This requires a special exception from the ZBA under section 4.53 for the driveway to exceed 1,000’ and section 4.64 to cross the Agricultural Soils Conservation District. Vickie displayed the subdivision maps. Colin, who represents Connie Wilmot, reminded that Rob and Irv Wilmot had sold a conservation easement on much of the land to the Upper Valley Land Trust and NH Department of Agriculture, reserving a right for a drive to the back land. The easement
states that the easement holders must approve the location. Connie’s plan is to follow the existing farm lane and go up through the meadow and out of the area of tillable land. Connie will transfer the property to Arend Tensen. Letters of approval have been received from the Upper Valley Land Trust and NH Department of Agriculture. The drive is less than 1000 feet and crosses ag soils. There is no access to the building site that does not. Although the building site is within 1000 feet of Shoestrap Road, building a drive there would require crossing the brook with a bridge in a steep area.
Colin said that the finish grade of the drive would average 4.5% but that there is a 100 foot section that is currently 15%. George asked for clarification on the right of way in the easement. Colin said that if Connie transfers the land to Arend, she will reserve this right of way for herself. He said he believes the old farm road was a public way to Hews Road, but that its status has been lost to history. The easement allows construction of a driveway or road on the condition that the easement holders have the right to approve the location. Pete Helm from UVLT and Steve Taylor from NH Dept. of Agriculture have written to say that this location would have the least impact on the conserved area. Colin provided copies of the letters.
George asked for the opinion of abutters. The Ambergers, Fisks, MacKenzies, and Barretts all expressed strong support. Arend said he hopes that he can make the property work again as a farm, including a dairy bottling plant and beef cattle. He said that the property is a unique opportunity in Lyme, and that the proposed location of the drive would have minimal impact on the edge of the field. He is currently trying to clean the property up.
Deliberations: Walter recommended ignoring the inaccurate measurement of 1000 feet from Shoestrap Road. George agreed that Shoestrap Road is irrelevant and that testimony from the abutters indicates that the project is worthwhile. Jim said he preferred to abide by the way the ordinance reads but that it needs to be cleaned up. Jane asked what the status of the drive would be if the house is not actually built.
Out of Deliberations: Colin said that the building permit is good for a year, but that it is likely that Kassie Wilmot will not build soon, and that it is an open question whether a building permit could be secured if the ordinance changes before she does decide to build. He expected that she would have to come back to the board. He pointed out that the land to be crossed by the drive is already covered by a conservation easement, and asked the board to agree that this easement meets the requirements of section 4.64B.
George moved to grant a special exception under sections 4.53 and 4.64 for a driveway of under 1000 feet that would cross agricultural soils. A conservation easement is in place that meets the requirements of section 4.64B. Abutters and nearby neighbors have all testified in favor of the project, and conditions of 10.40 are met. The lot in question, Lot 1, is in the Rural District. With Lot 2, they comprise the original Map 402 Lot 85 property. The board based its findings on a subdivision approval granted 9/27/07 and a plat dated August 2007, revised in October 2007, showing details. The drive will be located as specified in the conservation easement. Alan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Joseph Garcia, Applicant, Permit Application 2007-083, Map 409 Lot 91
Project: demolish workshop and garage and replace them with larger workshop at 150 Dorchester Road.
Alexandra Stedman proposes to demolish a workshop and garage and replace them with a larger workshop at her property in the Lyme Center District. This requires special exceptions to encroach further into the Shoreland and Wetland Conservation Districts and exceed the maximum building footprint and lot coverage under sections 8.24 and 8.25 of the zoning ordinance. Vickie passed around a letter from the Conservation Commission written following a site visit. She noted that until she received this letter, she had thought that the small garage of 216 sf next to the house was to be demolished, and had not known about the previously demolished, slightly larger garage of 266 sf on the east side of the existing woodworking shop. She spoke with Joseph Garcia who had marked the demolished garage on his drawing as “existing, to be demolished/removed,” although it had been gone for years. He told Vickie he had drawn it this way as he thought the footprint of the previously existing garage was
a “grandfathered” footprint. Vickie said she did not think it was the role of the CC, however, to instruct the board that the building had been gone too long to be counted in the calculations of grandfathered lot coverage or footprint. Alex Stedman bought the property in 2004, and the garage was there at the time but was soon removed. She said there was an intent to replace it later. Vickie displayed photos and said she had used the town’s floodplain map. While the CC’s letter indicated that a portion of the proposed workshop could be in the floodplain, the town’s map indicates it is not.
Joseph Garcia said that he had asked DOT to mark the right of way from the road, and then he marked the building perimeter 10 feet in from that. He said that the existing buildings are all in the floodplain, and that it would be a benefit to remove one of them. Alan noted that the building is in the hydric soils buffer. Vickie said that the building would be in the wetlands conservation district and the shoreland conservation district but not in the floodplain according to the Town maps.
Ross asked about the use of the building and whether it would be a business. Joseph said that it would be his woodworking and blacksmithing studio. He would have no employees besides himself. Ross noted that the applicant does not own the property, and that the ordinance requires that if a home occupation is to occur, the applicant must be the owner or the employee of the owner. Walter consulted Article 6 and said that the applicant must be a resident on the property. Joseph stated that he lives at this property. Joseph said that the woodworking shop has been on the property for a long time. Alan said that it had been there in 1989 when zoning was passed. Margot, an abutter, recommended consulting the Lyme Historians and asked if there will be retail sales
there. Joseph said no. Ross said it had been Day’s woodworking shop, and that boats were made there, among other things. He said that if a commercial use was intended, the application should go to the Planning Board. He said he thought it sounded like a home occupation, which is allowable.
Walter asked about the foundation for the small building. Joseph said that the concrete foundation is there. Ross said that he had looked carefully at the property in 2000, and that the building was not in good shape at the time. Walter noted that two buildings in the floodplain would be removed and that one would be added outside the floodplain. Alan noted that the proposed building would have a road setback that is similar to others in the neighborhood. Joseph said that he wants to eliminate part of the driveway, although the Old Home Day parade could continue to use it. He said that DOT would allow that. The new building would have its own driveway.
Jim noted that the Conservation Commission had advised that there be no storage of hazardous materials in the building, but that it would be impossible to have a workshop without such materials, so suggested that great care be used in storing them. He did not think that the use could be prevented on this basis. Frank advised making a painting closet with a lip on the floor and a shower liner for storing such things. Joseph said he would store mainly materials to make patinas and that there are probably hazardous materials in the current shop building. He said that he was not leasing the property, but is living there.
Deliberations: Ross proposed grandfathering the foundation of the former garage as lot coverage, because the foundation remained there and there is some material attached to it. Vickie reported on her revised figures using the demolished garage rather than the standing garage.
$ demolished garage: 266 sf
$ workshop to be demolished: 1196 sf
$ existing garage: 216 sf
$ proposed workshop: 1680 sf
$ new driveway (after removing much of the existing drive: 1320 sf
She found a net reduction of lot coverage of 886 sf. She noted that the property is in the Lyme Center District. In this district, 2178 sf of lot coverage is permitted if there were no pre-existing structures on the lot. There is currently 5841 sf of lot coverage. While the lot coverage limit will still be exceeded on the lot, there will be less coverage than
at present. Ross said he did not think a special exception is needed to decrease lot coverage, although Walter disagreed. Vickie said that there will be a net increase of 218 sf of encroachment into the conservation districts.
Ross moved to grant a special exception to sections 8.24 and 8.25 to intrude into the wetlands and shoreland conservation districts to construct a new studio/workshop and to demolish an existing workshop and garage. The applicant proposes to replace the existing workshop with a larger workshop. The permit will be in the name of Alex Stedman, but the application is by Joseph Garcia, who share the residence. Much of the property is in conservation districts, and several existing structures are in the floodplain. The location for the new structure is in the portion of the lot outside the flood zone as shown on Lyme’s Flood Insurance Rate Map. Because the new building will not be in the flood hazard area, the board will not restrict the use of hazardous materials but
testimony from the applicant has been received that measures will be taken to minimize spills. The board believes that enough remains of the former garage to qualify it as existing footprint because of the evidence of intent to reuse the site. A special exception is granted for 218 square feet of encroachment into the Wetlands and Shoreland Conservation Districts under section 8.24. This leaves 282 square feet for future encroachment by special exception.
The applicant proposes to decrease the overall dimensions of the driveway by removing 1890sf and adding 570 sf. A curb cut permit has yet to be received from the state. Existing lot coverage is 6107 sf; after modification, lot coverage will be 5221 sf, reducing the overall lot coverage
by 886sf. This would allow 500 sf beyond 5221 sf for future expansion. A special exception is granted for an additional 484 sf of footprint leaving 16 sf for future addition to the building by special exception. The ZBA determined that no special exception is needed for lot coverage as the applicant proposes to remove a substantial portion of the driveway. Conditions of 10.40 have been met.
The board imposes the following conditions: the applicant must receive a curb cut permit from the state, or return to the board. Because of the proximity of Grant Brook, the board requires special care in using best construction practices to control erosion and sedimentation from the site, and approves the application subject to the following conditions recommended by the Conservation Commission:
Construction plans should include a storm water runoff plan both for the proposed structure and any related hard-scaping (additional impervious surfaces). Increased runoff should be captured to prevent concentrated surface flow, erosion and sedimentation in Grant Brook. The riparian buffer should be re-established with native woody vegetation. Plants with vigorous root systems should be planted to stabilize the stream bank and to slow and filter any surface runoff. The Commission suggests this buffer be as wide as possible up to 50 feet. During demolition of existing structures, there should be no further disturbance of the riparian zone. Efforts should be made to prevent damage to the vegetated buffer and to minimize potential runoff and erosion. Walter seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Margot moved to thank Vickie for her service as zoning administrator, and the other board members and Adair joined her.
Meeting adjourned 10:28 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Adair Mulligan, Recorder
| 
