NEWTON BOARD OF APPEALS
P.O. BOX 378 NEWTON, N.H. 03858
MINUTES: Meeting of Tuesday, January 15, 2008
CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman McElroy.
ROLL CALL: Chairman Tom McElroy, Vice-chairman Alan French, Dana Allison, Bradley Cardoso, Jack Kozec, and Alternates Kenneth Pelletier & Charles Melvin, Sr.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: Meeting of December 18, 2007. A motion was made by Mr. French to accept the minutes as written. Second by Mr. Kozec. Motion carries. Mr. Melvin made a voting member for Rehearing of Mr. Pica. Mr. Allison steps down as he was not present for the first hearing.
PUBLIC ReHEARING FOR:
Ronald J. Pica, Sara Realty LLC, Whispering Pines Campground 8 Wenmarks Road Newton, N.H. 03858
Map # 005-01-005
Present: Ronald J. Pica, Attorney John Ryan, and Abutters:
Lois DeYoung (Country Pond Fish & Game), Rob Peterson, Brian Cheney, Bob Johnson, James Baker, Tricia McCarthy (Conservation Commission).
Mr. Peterson inquires about his motion for rehearing on Decisions 1 & 2. Since they are all the same facts, he would the Board to consider putting both rehearings together. "Technically, that's another hearing" replied Mr. French. Since the Board had already opened the Rehearing, they decided to continue this meeting, and then they would consider Mr. Peterson's request for a rehearing. Mr. Peterson said that they should be done together since all the same facts are being presented.
Attorney John Ryan, representing Mr. Pica and Whispering Pines, said that they were not the same facts, since tonight's concern is only #3 of the findings in the Criteria for natural expansion, not #1 & 2. Mr. McElroy asked Attorney Ryan to proceed. Attorney Ryan stated that this was a ReHearing on whether the expansion of the campground will have a substantially different impact on the neighborhood. Review of the facts and evidence already submitted:
1. The expansion area is 500 feet from the nearest residence
2. Real estate appraisal {Exhibit #6) it was concluded that the expansion would have no effect on the value of the properties
3. The traffic report (Exhibit #11) concludes that the expansion would not have a substantial impact
4. Plans for drainage & erosion show no increase in off-site drainage. All is contained on-site with a very complex system.
5. Copies of the Department of Environmental Services approvals and a Campground Compliance Certificate (Exhibits 4, 5, & 7)
From 1999 until today, since we started these proceedings, there have been no complaints from any of Abutters, and no complaints from any Town agency, Police, Fire Dept, or anyone else concerning the operation of the present campground. Attorney Ryan said that he had reviewed all the files, minutes, documents that he had in his file, to find out what it was that the Abutters were objecting to in this project. Here is the list that he came up with, having been submitted and previously discussed:
1. Campfire smoke - no complaints from any of the Abutters
2. Noise - no complaints
3. Beaches - there has been a prior agreement between the Campground and the Town that the Campground can use the Town beach unless it's at full capacity. The expansion will not change that. There is a beach on the property and a swimming pool that can clearly accommodate the 38 new campsites in terms of people who need to use the pool.
4. Boats - there are on average 6 gas-powered boats. No gas-powered boats are allowed for guests that come to visit. No major repairs to boats are allowed at the campground. There is limited dock space. The campground has a DES permit for the use of those docks. There will be no substantial increase in the number of boats at this campground. No complaints have been made.
5. Lake Pollution - the new sites are 560 feet from the shoreline. The leaching fields are 900 feet from the shore. So there is no threat of pollution from these additional 38 sites.
6. Trash - never have had an issue or complaints about trash. These are the points that have been presented to both the Planning Board & the Zoning Board of Appeals. These are all the complaints and responses to those complaints. These are all items that have been drummed-up by the Abutters in order to try to find some reason to deny the 38 new campground sites, this expansion. We submit that there is no substantially different effect on the neighborhood. There will be no change in the operation of the campground. It will continue to have no effect on the Abutters. With that, we submit that we have met the Criteria that require that it have no substantial effects on the Abutters. Those are the facts! Those are the circumstances! That's the record!
Mr. Cardoso inquires about 6 sites that don't have utilities. Mr. Pica adds that he is planning to remove two sites which are closest to Abutters (#52 & 43). If that happens, it will be an additional 36 sites, not 38. Six (6) sites have not been used. There are 2 recreation sites. Mr. Pica also plans to eliminate the horseshoe courts, which are near Abutters, and move them to the other side.
Mr. French asks if one of those lots being removed is the one on which one of the Abutters had a problem. No... site 45 will remain. The accusation was denied. It did not happen. Mr. French has a question for the Abutters: "Is there anything that can be done with this project to make it more palatable? To make this less annoying? Mr. Peterson says he can't speak for everyone, but he would say "NO!" because they are already concerned with the campground and the impact it has on them. They already have issues with the campground. Mr. French asks: If Mr. Pica were to make concessions, to build fences, whatever...Is there anything at all that would make this more palatable? Mr. Peterson: No... it's the idea that this will be allowed
to propagate further that doesn't make sense to the Abutters. It's not the expansion per se; it's the campground as it is. Adding to something that is already annoying to the neighbors significantly makes it more annoying... especially when we think that the ordinances are supposed to protect us as well as grant rights. We don't feel that protection!
Mr. Johnson replies that he must vehemently disagree that there have been no complaints from the Abutters. Mr. Johnson tells everyone that he has been to so many of these meetings, with the Planning Board, Selectmen, Zoning Board of Adjustment...and back again! He doesn't personally have it in for Mr. Pica, but this has had an impact on his life on that street...this business & how it expanded right from the get-go when he bought it. This has an impact, and that's why he's here(Mr. Johnson) every time. He has a family & other things he should be doing... instead of being a thorn in Mr. Pica's side... He has legitimate concerns about the negative impact that the campground is going to have on his ability to enjoy his property...and potentially the value of his property.
Mr. Allison asks if they feel that this expansion would have any different impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson replies: It will have an increased impact! Mr. Peterson adds that it's a bigger impact. If it's 38/117, it's 48% bigger. Mr. Peterson says the he has a letter from the Chief of Police stating that the Chief of Police does not have the jurisdiction to allow the usage of the Town beach area. He can't give away Town resources like that. Mr. Pica: It was a meeting between the Chief of Police (Labelle), the Fire Chief, the director of the Recreation Commission (Janice Amero). But there are very few campers that use the beaches, as the campground has its own facilities. Mr. Peterson argues that the campground beaches are un-swimmable, so that's why the
campers use the Town beach. Mr. Johnson recalls that while a group was doing a walk-through this fall, two campers walked out of the campground (in swimsuits & carrying towels), passed them and went on to the Town beach. (Much talking going on...)
Mr. Peterson takes the question and says: Yes, there is one thing you can do for us! Reduce the number of campsites! He continues that annoyances don't go away with an increase. He apologizes for his not being properly prepared this evening, as he thought all this would be moved to next month. He states that he even told 1/2 dozen abutters not to come this evening. Mr. French asks if he is sure that all his points are concerning the third (3) decision. Absolutely! Mr. Peterson says.
Mr. French reminds him that this hearing has nothing to do with the first two decisions, only the third. This is the discussion on "the substantial difference to the neighborhood", and the impact on the neighborhood. No other issues! Mr. Peterson argues that "different" can be size! ". Mr. Kozec reads the third part from the ordinance (page 27) "a substantially different impact on the neighborhood". Discussion on "impact". Examples cited: 1 person going through your yard, 1000 going through your yard. Both impacts are the same - you still have trespassers... Mr. Peterson replies that the Planning Board said that the magnitude of change is what makes it different.
Mr. Johnson gives an example using pollution... Mr. Allison says "Same impact". Mr. Johnson says that the interpretation of the word is not clear, it changes... If a million new people moved into town, it would still be the same? YES! Mr. Melvin says "It's going to be a substantial impact on the schools". Mr. Peterson says that he is also concerned with the liability at the Town beach, a liability first to the Town, but ultimately him.
Discussion on the litigation between Mr. Pica & the Fish & Game... If Mr. Pica cuts down the trees on those 7 1/2 acres, the noise from the Fish & Game will sound louder... and so more litigation...
Mr. Johnson replies that the buffer, which was created, is no longer great since the trees have been thinned out. That's an impact! The sounds of the train are a lot louder than before.
Mr. Pelletier inquires: "You’re saying the impact won't be new, but greater?"
"The neighbors have noticed a difference without the trees and yes, it will be greater." Using the plan, Mr. Pica tries to show the Board that taking some of those trees will not make an impact. It will not increase the sound. Mrs. DeYoung disagrees. Mr. Cardoso inquires at to why they feel that the Fish & Game and the Campground are responsible for mitigating the sound.
The Fish & Game has already created the buffers required for the noise. If it increases, he will sue the Fish & Game again. It will get noisier without the trees. Mr. French gave the example of the huge walls that are built along the highways as buffers to cut the noise in residential areas.
Mr. Pelletier inquires if a reading of the noise level has been done? Mrs. DeYoung says that there has been no real decibel study.
Mr. Kozec wants to move the question. He feels that everyone is just "spinning the wheels".
Mr. Peterson says that he hasn't given his presentation yet!
Mr. Kozec feels that the appeal was based on the third (3) item, but everything we are hearing is all a repeat of what we have been hearing for the last several months. So, he would like to move the question. He says that so far, he hasn't heard any new information. Mr. French agrees. It's supposed to be new information. Mr. Peterson says that Attorney Ryan could find no reason in any of the minutes that would substantiate the vote taken. That's the problem with these discussions, it's in all of them (#1, 2, & 3). What he is doing is 'encapsulate the reasons & tell you when they were there’. So, for the record, as he mentions, the Supreme Court, when they get this tape, will know exactly where to look for all these references of the things that impact the neighborhood. For some reason,
he says that the last time you voted, there's no record of anything. You just voted. That's not true. There's a substantial amount of supporting information. But. Mr. Peterson says he has new information, which was not presented before...and that it is very pertinent.
At the last meeting, this piece of discussion was held, explains Mr. Pelletier. He goes on to explain that they could have a rehearing on one of two issues: 1) that they present new information that they had not presented at the original ZBA final meeting, or 2) they can state that there was no rationale in the "no" vote to take & go to Court with. The decision to proceed with this ReHearing was not based on new information, it was based on the Board members not giving the substantial rationale. There's no new information. The reason they were able to appeal, was that there was no rationale given when making the decision.
Attorney Ryan tries to explain that we go all the way back to step 1. We hear the evidence that we originally heard, again. A new determination will be made on the impact. You go over the decision, all over again. The Board is reconsidering their determination as well as right or wrong.
Mr. Melvin inquires if that nullifies the previous vote? We should only be acting on that one issue. Polling the voters...asking them YES or NO, and why they voted that way, so that they have evidence to take to Court. That's what they asked for... Mr. McElroy asks if they are ready to take a vote. Mr. Peterson objects. The Board still hasn't heard his presentation. The Board tells him that he must stick to information pertaining to #3. He agrees.
Mr. Peterson says that on September 18, he discussed many of these things and he would like to do it again so that they get into the minutes. At that time (9-18-07), he gave the Board 2 letters that they had submitted to the Planning Board. He wants to pull out some important facts on the impact, so that they'll be on record, in the minutes. Mr. Peterson says he was the author of those 2 letters. The first one had been signed by everyone in the neighborhood. He alone signed the second one. The letters are dated January 10, 2006 and March 23,2007. In the letter (8 pages long) he states that a lot of expansion has already occurred. It's important to realize this at a later point. Many changes to the property have contrasted with what was supposed to be there. Trailers can be seen from abutters' properties. Attorney Ryan objects - this is not new information.
Mr. Peterson explains that the statute says the 'changes from when the ordinances were enacted'. In 1973, there were 25 campsites there. So, our impact is not 80 to 117 sites, but 25 to 117. The numbers are substantial. Mr. Allison says that we must deal with the numbers over 80. Mr. Peterson replies that he's to go from when the ordinance was enacted. Mr. Allison disagrees. He says that it was amended in 2000. We must deal with everything from the enactment or amendment of this non-conforming lot uses starting in the year 2000. Any reference to campsites before that is 'wasting our time'.
Mr. Petersen says that's not fair. If the Board so chooses, he'll be back to appeal that. The impact is from when it was enacted. Mr. Pica explains that he had made the agreement in Court that all sites would have utilities by the year 2000. Mr. Peterson responds that it says 'they have a right to construct up to 80'. The letter from Attorney Ratigan says that 'the Town recognizes 38 sites. The sites were there, responds Mr. Pica, they just needed utilities.
In the 1997 site plan, filed downstairs, it shows 38 sites, says Mr. Peterson. Mr. Cardoso explains that this application for the Planning Board is based on 80. That's what is to be used.
Mr. Peterson asks that Mr. Pica could request to add a site, and another, and one more,,, and would the Board allow that, it's only 1 site at a time? At what point to we go back to? When they were enacted. Mr. Cardoso says we back to 80 sites. Mr. Peterson replies that on this, he will be going to Court, because it is this that he 'did' check with a lawyer. Mr. Allison replies that in 1973 the 'Zoning Board was enacted'. There were many ordinances that have been amended, so now we go with the new ordinance. Discussion: Mr. Allison asks Mr. Peterson if the Board should make a motion to limit the discussion to 80 sites? Up till tonight, Mr. Peterson still thinks that a 48% increase is huge, substantial. If he were to put on 48% of his weight, that
would be substantial. He would be substantially different. Mr. Pelletier asks him to limit himself to the changes of going from 80 sites to 117 & what would affect him personally. Discussion on numbers that will be used in the voting...
Mr. Peterson asks the Board to recall that at the September 18, 2007 meeting, Jenn Blake, a marine biologist and resident of the Country Pond area, spoke to the Board about the health of Country Pond. She stated that "the pond is in danger!" and that "We should control the things we can." There are things that we can control - and that's expansion in our area. If that pond dies, his property values plummet. Boating - he was happy to see that many of those issues had been taken care of. However, he is still concerned with "Safety issues". Jet-skis and boats move too fast and are too close to the Beach area. Any increase in boats will increase the safety issue. Keep in mind that this agreement allows him to have 8 people per site. Right now, that would mean an
additional 600 people in that area. Mr. Peterson does not believe that this would happen under Mr. Pica's watch. He doesn't suspect that Mr. Pica will be doing this in 10 years. It will be sold to someone. That someone could put up to 8 people in there. And if this is sold at $1,000,000.00 +, someone will have to put 8 there to make back their money.
Also at that September 18 meeting, Mr. Johnson got up and spoke of these concerns - The clearing in the wetlands area, which is the watershed for Country Pond. The clearing continues. These trees are near that area. Mr. Pica is only 200 feet from the ice pond that is back there. That ice pond drains directly into Country Pond. At that same meeting, Bob Johnson made the comment and voiced the concerns of many of us, that there is much more activity on the road — activity from people using the Town beach, the new developments on Heath St., Pond Street. There's a lot of traffic, and a lot of trash- Mr. French reminds Mr. Peterson that Mr. Pica is not responsible for the increased traffic. Mr. French then reminds him that this is not pertinent. Mr. Peterson says that he'll remember that if there's an accident in
that area.
Mr. Melvin wishes to say something without offending anyone. He states that anyone who has a blue Town dump sticker can go to the beach. Nothing can be done about that.
Mr. Johnson also speaks on problems with increased traffic, dog walkers who are afraid, runners who have almost gotten hit around that corner. This increased traffic will have a great impact on residents in that area. Discussion ensues on traffic report, dog walkers. Mr. Pica was asked by the Planning Board to do the traffic study that he presented. The professional lady who did the study does a lot of work for towns. She's good! Mr. Peterson then goes on to discuss what Mr. Gene Tolman had said at that September 18 meeting. He was concerned with more noise, from the railroad train especially. He also showed concern about the trees being cut down, and all that vegetation. You can see that there has been substantial clearing, and there will be a lot more clearing if he's allowed these
new sites. He then progresses to Vic Silva’s expansion . It was shut down because it was over a certain percentage, and that was not allowed. That was the ruling at that time. We understand that that ruling has been changed. The new ruling clearly states that 'it cannot be substantial'.. .He still contends that 48% is substantial.
He moved on to the November 20 (2007) Hearing. Kim Pettit (Chairperson for the Planning Board) spoke. She stated that the Board felt that the size of the expansion was the reason. It was almost unanimous. The Board of Appeals is supposed to find error in that. If you find on size, across the board, on all aspects, that was the decision of the Planning Board... the magnitude! That was the substance for the Planning Board's issues. Mr. French reminds him that the Zoning Board found error in "the natural expansion", not the number of sites. Mr. Peterson continues. At that same meeting, Mr. Johnson had discussed the issue of size. He had been through the campground many times when Mona Spaulding was the owner. He confirms 38 sites. You can check the chart in the January 10 letter. It
clearly shows the 'balloon expansion'. You can look at it! He also discussed the case that Mr. Ryan has used before: The Hampton vs. (Brusk ?) Arcade case. He made a parallel using the Arcade wishing to expand into the gift shop (denied, not natural expansion...need variance.) He states that Mr. Pica is going from woodland to campground. Now, he wants to exceed the footprint. Mr. Pelletier asks Mr. Peterson if he would be willing to accept the completion of the six lots that had never been used? Mr. Peterson replies that if he were asked about the 6 and the stipulation were made that there would be no more, he might agree. Mr. Peterson states that he moved in 1983. At that time, you hardly even knew there was a campground there. Attorney Ryan objects: going over old ground... This whole issue of where we start from. We start from where the Courts stipulated, based upon the case, it was a question of how many
non-conforming campground sites were there - 80 . Mr. Peterson objects "That's not the case! The record doesn't show that!" Attorney Ryan says he knows because he was involved in the case.
"And I read the documents of your case!" replied Mr. Peterson.
Attorney Ryan thinks that all this is irrelevant. To go over this again, again, again.... Mr. Peterson disagrees. He believes that all that information is pertinent, whatever the number is! We should go back to that number... The Settlement Agreement says that they could build from that 38. See Exhibit 9. At the last meeting, the Board took the Vote, and right before the vote was taken, (he forgot who said it) but someone said, " So really what we're trying to decide is if 48% is a substantial number..." Everyone gave a nod. Mr. Peterson says that he still contends that that (48%) is a substantial number, and that shows a substantial impact, just by its magnitude. He also contends that 48% is the wrong number...but you can still use that because it will still support
the situation. Use that number... that's what they say it is...but I still say it's wrong... Use this number, and he is sure the vote will be the same as it was last time.
Chairman McElroy asks if someone is ready to make a motion. He asked if Fish & Game had anything more to add to this issue. Mrs. DeYoung repeated that Mr. Pica should not be allowed this expansion. 48% is tremendous! What he is going to do on that land will have a definite impact on the situation with us and it's only going to increase. We are already in litigation and it's always the Fish & Game who is at fault. If it's allowed, it will just grow bigger and have more problems for them. As Abutters, they feel this should stop.
Mr. French recalls that at a meeting or two ago, Mr. Pica had said that he was going to put a buffer between his land and the railroad tracks.
Mr. Pica says "We will have a buffer. Yes!" Then, Mr. French asks him if that's still true. Mr. Pica replied "Yes! It's still true!" Then Mr. French asked Mrs. DeYoung "Is that going to alleviate your fears?" Her reply was not positive. Mr. Pica explained that the Fish & Game already had a 30 foot buffer on their side. The tracks are buffered by their land on the other side. He showed the Board on the Plan. He pointed out the site and told them that they would be doing "controlled cutting", that they were working with Conservation. They will cut only where necessary to get the trailers in, and where people can have a fairly decent sized flat site. These sites are 70 feet long. They are not going to be allowed to use the whole 70
feet. Trees between sites are wanted. That has been done all through the campground. Only when it was necessary did they cut down trees.
Mr. Cardoso asked if there had ever been an Acoustic Study, a Noise Impact. Mr. Pica said that they had had an engineer do a Sound Reading. Attorney Ryan explains that there are two (2) cases in litigation. One of them is based on 'Common Law Nuisance'. In 2004, the Gun Club cut down and excavated over 160 thousand cubic yards of earth and cut down a number of trees. Based on our Acoustical Engineer's calculations, that increased the perceived decibel level from about a level of 50 to somewhere near 70 or greater. The cause for their case against the Gun Club is their activity in cutting down the buffering vegetation and eliminating the terrain buffer.
Case #2, the Planning Board imposed conditions that they mitigate noise "as much as possible". In their opinion, the Planning Board did not hold them to that standard, and they have asked the Court to review that. Depending on the outcome of those cases, it will determine whether a) the Gun Club is guilty of Nuisance and b) if that have reasonably complied with the Planning Board decision. The Court will resolve both cases and that will end the relationship between the Campground and the Gun Club in terms of the legal rights of both parties in terms of the noise and whether the ruling of the Planning Board has been satisfied. The Planning Board says it was satisfied, the Campground says it was not satisfied. The Court will decide.
Mr. Peterson says that he has pulled up a letter from Attorney Ryan, dated April 2000, stating that there are 38 sites. He says he has mentioned this at numerous meetings and hearings. He apologizes that he could not pull that up at the time. Also, Exhibit 1 of the Settlement Agreement says they are approved to construct and utilize but not exceed 60 campsites.
Attorney Ryan wants to know where the number 38 appears.
Discussion between Mr. Peterson and Attorney Ryan on Settlement Agreement and letter- Mr. Peterson contends that it's really 200%, not 48%...but they'll use 48%, which is in itself a substantial number.
Mr. French asks Mr. Peterson how he stands on the ReHearing of the other 2 criteria. Will he pursue the issue if the ruling this evening is in his favor? Mr. Peterson replies No... but if it were in favor of the campground, he will come back to the Board. He will withdraw his request if the vote is in favor of the Abutters. That's his opinion, but he'd check with the other abutters.
Chairman McElroy asks if someone is ready to put a motion on the floor.
Mr. James Baker, who also lives on Country Pond, on the peninsula across the wetland from the campground, says that he reviewed the Assessor's cards and found that there are 54 year-round residential properties on the Newton side of Country Pond and 16 seasonal. That's 70 in all. He spoke of the value of the lake as a resource to the Town. He, and the Wilders Grove Owners Association, is concerned with all issues concerning the lake. The tax assessment for 2006 was over $20,000,000. In addition to those properties mentioned, there's the Haverhill Boys' Club and the Campground. He relates how there have been serious problems these last three (3) years with Cynobacteria, which is caused by stagnancy and lack of oxygen in the water. Conservation is working on that, and they are concerned with the number of
bodies in the lake.
Mr. Pica restates that on the new sites, the septic is 900 feet from the lake, that all septics are 4 feet above the seasonal high water, that he was approved by the Shoreline Protection Act, and that he exceeds the DES requirement of 250 feet from the water, and the Town's requirement of 75 feet. All of the septic systems had to be brought up to code by the year 2000.
Mr. Peterson reminds everyone about the ice pond... Mr. Kozec responds that it the Shoreline Protection checked it, they checked it all...
The Fish and Game is concerned that there are many sites that appear to be too close to the railroad. Mr. Pica says that the Planning Board made a request (in 2002?). not a condition, that he fence the whole line near the tracks... And there is fencing... And Mr. Pica says that they intend to continue the fencing beyond the area, if they develop that area. There is no fencing on the Plan provided but Mr. Pica says that they will do it!
Next came Tricia McCarthy from the Conservation Commission. She voiced her concerns about the tree cutting and the effect it will have on the watershed. Water is the most important resource that we have. Statistics show that every tree absorbs 400 gallons a day. So for every tree that's cut it means that we are removing part of the watershed. Mr. Cardoso asked if the Conservation Commission had the right to grant the campsites use of the Town Beach? Ms. McCarthy said no that it was the Recreation Commission and the Selectmen.
Mr. Pelletier says that wherever the decision was made, be it Selectmen's meeting. Rec Commission meeting, or Town meeting that's who has that authority. Mr. Pica adds that they don't encourage the use of the Town beach but that they should perhaps attend a meeting. He then explains all the issues he has worked on that were not even required by the Town or the State. He & Mr. Pelletier discussed the required maintenance of the septic systems. They discussed catch basins, separators, trenches, and how they must be an inspection every year.
Chairman McElroy asks if someone is ready to put a motion on the floor so the Board can vote on the issue.
Mr. Kozec makes a motion to move the question.
Discussion of what a yes/no vote means... and a reminder that an explanation of why the person voted that way is necessary. YES means that it does not have a substantial impact. NO means it does have a substantial impact on the neighborhood.
Motion made by Mr. Kozec - "the expansion will have a substantially different impact on the neighborhood". Second Mr. Melvin.
VOTE: 3 Yes/ 2 No.
Mr. French voted Yes, based on evidence presented here by both sides and on education received at NH Municipal Law Committee courses that we take to further our education.
Mr. Peterson questions.
Attorney Ryan objects, with all due respect, that we are hearing the vote and should not have a comment on each vote.
Mr. McElroy voted Yes. He felt that there would be some impact on the neighborhood, but not substantial.
Mr. Cardoso voted Yes. He changed from the last vote. He now feels that the expansion will not have a substantial impact on the neighborhood. He did so because of 2 new pieces of information. 1) There were no disturbances noted in the Police Reports. 2) the existence of 80 decibels of noise there now. He does not think you can increase that with more people. It will not happen.
Mr. Kozec voted No. He feels that the addition of 38 campsites will definitely have a substantially different impact on the neighborhood. His numbers say that there could be anywhere from 60-144 additional people on those sites.
Mr. Melvin voted NO. First(1), clear-cutting trees near the railroad tracks would not be good. People would be in litigation forever. Possibility of someone from the campsites getting run over by a train – there is nothing on that plan that shows he is going to put up fences or anything else to protect these people. And, of course, 2) the neighbors have been outstanding… He explained that he was involved on the first Plan. He signed it. The only reason he signed it was because of the fact that he was ordered to by the Court. He was very displeased when they went to Court, and the Selectmen got a little bit scared, and cut a deal. It was approximately 40-50 sites in the beginning, they gave them 80. They’ve had their expansion! He
doesn’t feel they should get another. That’s how he’ll vote on the variance as well. He’s not going to change his mind. Enough is enough! He’s owned this property 8 years. There’s no reason in the world why he could not have taken this to the voters to change the zoning.
Mr. French made a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals agrees that this is a natural expansion of the campground. They have satisfied the three(3) criteria for natural expansion. Second by Mr. McElroy. No discussion. Vote: 3-2. Motion carries.
Mr. Kozec made a motion to close the Hearing. Second by Mr. Melvin. All in favor. Motion carries. Hearing is closed.
Mr. French inquires about having a ReHearing on Mr. Peterson’s request. He makes a motion “Does the Board agree to accept the ReHearing application of Mr. Peterson and the Abutters of Whispering Pines for next month’s meeting… Only on #1 and 2 of the natural expansion criteria, which were not substantiated?” Second by Mr. Melvin. No discussion.
Vote: 3 Yes (Mr. Kozec, Mr. Melvin, Mr. French)
2 No (Mr. Cardoso, Mr. McElroy) ReHearing granted.
Mr. Melvin steps down. Mr. Allison is now a voting member.
Public Hearing for: Michael Garrepy (for Equity Trust – Scott Boches, owner)
For property at Peaslee Crossing Road & Quaker Street, Newton, NH
Map #007-06-009-1
Vote on a Continuation of Michael Garrepy’s Hearing.
Mr. Allison makes a motion to continue Mr. Garrepy’s hearing till the March meeting. Second by Mr. Kosec. Vote: All in favor. Continuation granted.
Public Hearing for: William Grimes
82 Wilders Grove Road
Newton, NH 03858
Map #002-04-001
Request for appeal from Residential A Zoning Ordinance, Section XIX, Paragraph 3, dealing with NON-Conforming Structures.
The Applicant is requesting 2 side lot line variances, and a front center line of the road variance in order to build an addition.
Mr. Grimes tells the Board that he is proposing to build a 2-car garage (26’ x 26’) on the street side. He explains that the overhang is included in the numbers. The Board reviews the Plans. Mr Allison inquires about the odd shape. The bump-out is for the stairway from the garage to go upstairs, and the entrance to the house.
Review and discussion of the plans.
Mr. Pelletier asks the use of the second floor. Mr. Grimes answers: “A break room. I have a 50’ television.”
Mr. Pelletier asks him about closets. “No!” Mr. Pelletier tells him that if there is a closet, it is considered a bedroom. There is no increase in bedrooms.
Criteria:
1. …Property values – Satisfied
2. …Benefit Public Interest – Satisfied
3. …Unnecessary hardship – Satisfied
4. …Substantial justice – Satisfied
5. …Spirit of Ordinance – Satisfied
Mr. Allison makes a motion to grant 3 variances:
1. A variance of 44 feet 7.2 inches from the center of the right of way to the closest point of the new addition,
2. a variance of 23 feet 10.8 inches from the left side of the lot to the closest point of the new addition,
3. a variance of 4.8 inches from the right side of the lot to the closest point of the new addition,
as proposed by the Plan of 82 Wilders Grove Road as drawn for William Grimes, prepared by James M. Lavelle Associates, LLC, dated December 31, 2007, and revised January 14, 2008 (PROJ#079-2007).
Second by Mr. Kozec. Vote: All in favor. Motion carries.
Chairman McElroy explains the 30 day right to appeal.
Mr. French makes a motion to close the Hearing. Second by Mr. Kozec. Motion carries.
New business:
1. Review the changes made to the 2008 Budget
2. Mr. Peterson’s letter of request – He must be notifies that he must fill out an Application and cover the costs of a ReHearing.
Old business:
1. Planning Board minutes
2. Selectmen’s minutes
ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made at 10:30 pm by Mr. Allison to adjourn. Second by Mr. French. Motion carries. Next meeting to be Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 7:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeannette S. Clark, Secretary
| 
