TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING MINUTES
06/16/09
APPROVED 09/15/09
Member present, Chairman David Craig, Vice Chairman Harry Piper, Greg Mattison, Ed DiPietro, Robert Todd and Laura Todd, Clerk
Chairman Craig opened the meeting @ 7:10; the April 21, 2009 minutes were approved as written by Greg Mattison, 2nd by Ed DiPietro and passed unanimously.
2009-4 AREA VARIANCE, by Ann Maxfield, 18 E. East Lull Place, Map/Lot 3/23, regarding the addition of front and side porch/deck within the front setback requirements.
Ann Maxfield spoke to her application, saying that her 88 year old Dad lives with her. Her front door has a landing with six steps and she is concerned that this is not a safe exit in the event of a fire or emergency. She explained an ambulance had been there a couple of times and had difficulty getting her Dad out, and if a stretcher had to be involved it would be more difficult.
D. Craig asked how the proposed porch and deck would help.
A. Maxfield said there would be more space to move.
D. Craig asked when the existing house was built, if it could be moved and if the addition had a cellar hole or was on a slab.
A. Maxfield explained the home was a mobile home, a variance with no conditions was granted, 18 years ago for an addition, which is within the setback. The addition could not be moved.
D. Craig noted that the Building Inspector had questioned the distance from the road, with a difference of 38’ or 25’.
It was determined that the new portion would not be extending further than the existing portion extends.
No abutters were present, no concerned citizens.
R. Todd clarified, the main purpose was to provide a means to get Dad in and out of the building, because of his disability, and there is no need to prove hardship.
H. Piper moved to grant the variance with no conditions, 2nd by E. DiPietro, passed unanimously.
D. Craig explained the decision would be mailed with in 24 to 48 hours. Construction should proceed knowing the risk, that someone could appeal the decision.
2009-5 AREA VARIANCE, John & Kirsten Montgomery, Dougherty Lane, Map/Lot 2/21, regarding the construction of a detached two-car garage, within the setback from Dougherty Lane.
R. Todd stepped down from this application because of conflict of interest.
With written permission from the Montgomerys, Kurt Lauer presented the application. Kurt presented a colored plan showing the approx. 2.5 acre property split in two portions on either side of the road. The house side has no room to place a garage. The opposite side has a natural parking area and the proposed location for the garage is 30’ from the road and just in front of a swale.
D. Craig asked what would be involved if the garage was placed over the swale.
K. Lauer said an underground system would need to be installed, which would compromise the garage. Also, would be expensive.
D. Craig asked if other locations had been looked at.
Lauer said nothing was available because of the 50’ shoreline protection act, which overrides local law. This is the best site.
H. Piper asked R. Todd, what is the drainage swale, R. Todd answered runoff from the road and the slope is graded toward the swale.
H. Piper asked if the runoff ended up in the Middle Branch River, Yes.
D. Craig noted the board has a history of respecting the river and watershed and is mindful to protect both.
H. Piper noted that the garage could be topographically moved, but that would create sediment.
There was discussion regarding the woodland buffer and the restrictions. It was stated that there is no case law regarding the right to a garage, but it is not an unreasonable request with a residence. The dimension of the garage would be 26’ x 26’, one story.
K. Lauer reviewed the criteria (see file).
No abutters, no interested parties were present.
Harry Piper moved to approve the application with no conditions, Ed DiPietro 2nd. H. Piper spoke to his motion. Garages are allowed, this is a unique condition, with it being the least damaging location on the site considering the setback from the river and the drainage swale. The hardship is easy to justify. Motion passed unanimously.
D. Craig stated the same caution regarding an appeal of decision.
2009-6 SPECIAL EXCEPTION, Nathan & Nicola Strong, 42 Lyndeborough Road, map/lot 11/1, regarding the use of an accessory building as a dwelling.
D. Craig commented that this is the first application regarding this new ordinance and asked for time to review.
Nic Strong presented the application, stating there is an existing (grandfathered) gravel pit, hut for equipment, house and barn built in 1996 and 1997, and the subject building was built later. The house and buildings are not visible from the road and none are close to any setbacks. The proposed dwelling would be a 400 sq. ft. studio apartment.
Nic explained the process the town used to research and write this article, saying the minimum size is 300 sq. ft. and the maximum is 1000 sq. ft.
H. Piper asked if the dwelling would be in the barn and R. Todd asked if it had it’s own septic.
Nic said yes, to both, they are working through all the necessary requirements.
D. Craig noted that the owner must reside on the same lot as the accessory dwelling.
E. DiPietro asked if there had to be a separate septic, Nic responded that it has to meet the DES approval.
Discussion followed regarding the lot owner requirement to live on the same lot, how that would affect a lease agreement, if the lot was sold.
Warren Houghton (his Mother Rita Houghton, 63 Clark Hill Road) is an abutter. He questioned if the gravel pit was changing. Nic said no, and he was satisfied.
Robert Todd moved to approve this application as presented, 2nd by Harry Piper. Passed unanimously.
D. Craig stated the caution of possible appeal.
2009-7, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, Sean Lutz, 71 Bunker Hill Road, Map/Lot 1/2-5 regarding an accessory building as a dwelling.
S. Lutz said when he originally built his home; he intended to have a in-law apartment. The building he intended to use was a detached building so it was not allowed. So he built the building for a garage, storage and workshop. With the new ordinance he now would like to go ahead with the in-law apartment.
H. Piper asked if this is a conversion of an existing building.
S. Lutz, yes, it has been used as a workshop in the cellar and there is a main floor and a loft. The dwelling would be 900 sq. ft. The loft would not be part of the dwelling.
D. Craig asked about the septic, and driveway. S. Lutz, the septic is separate and already in, the driveway in part of the original driveway. It is within all the setbacks, was built in 2007 and never finished.
D. Craig said that it must meet all the building codes.
H. Piper noted the lot was 26 acres.
R. Todd questioned the steep slopes on that lot, S. Lutz said the area is flat where the proposed dwelling will be.
G. Mattison said the steep slope ordinance was not in use when the house was built.
H. Piper said that it is grandfather, because they are not changing the footprint.
No abutters, or interested parties were present.
H. Piper moved to approve the application with no conditions, 2nd by Greg Mattison. Passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned @ 8:30PM, Harry Piper/Greg Mattison
Respectfully submitted
Laura Todd
06/18/09/approved 09/15/09
| 
