NOTTINGHAM ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 3, 2007
Approved 06/12/07
VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Doug Leib, Chair Mr. Kevin Jordan
Mr. Mike Russo
Mr. John Morin
Mr. Jim Howard
Mr. Kevin Bassett, Alternate
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Susan Horton
Mr. Doug Horton
Mr. Dan Burke
Mr. Eric Jennings
Mr. John Riley
Mr. Randall Hale
Chair Leib called the meeting to order at 7:14 PM, stating that Zoning Board Alternate, Mr. Kevin Bassett, would be sitting in for Mr. Kevin Jordan, who was unable to attend this meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
In the minutes of February 27, Chair Leib noted that Mr. Hadley had been identified as a Barrington Selectmen under ‘OTHERS PRESENT’, stating it should be Selectman. He also asked Ms. Chauvey to identify Mr. Bock as a Nottingham Selectman, not just Selectman. On Page 2, Chair Leib noted the word ‘of’ should be ‘or’, and the word ‘not’ should be ‘no’.
Chair Leib asked Mr. Russo to clarify a statement he made on Page 3. Mr. Russo stated that the DOT’s policy or permitting manuals state the policy. Mr. Leib asked Ms. Chauvey to type out Neighborhood Guardian’s instead of using ‘NG’.
Mr. Howard made a motion to accept the minutes of the February 27, 2007 meeting with the above noted corrections. Mr. Morin seconded the motion. Mr. Bassett and Mr. Russo abstained. Motion passed 3-0-2.
In regards to the minutes of January 30, 2007, Chair Leib noted that his name was spelled incorrectly on Pages 1 & 3. He also asked Ms. Chauvey to change the wording “[Mr. Hadley] confirmed…” stating he felt confirmation needed to be asked for.
Mr. Bassett made a motion to accept the minutes of the January 30, 2007 meeting with the above noted corrections. Chair Leib seconded the motion. Mr. Russo and Mr. Howard abstained. Motion passed 3-0-2.
NEW MEMBERS & ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Ms. Chauvey noted that copies of the New Hampshire Planning and Land Use Regulations book had already been handed out and that copies of the New Hampshire Board of Adjustment Handbook would be available at the next meeting. The following documents were distributed:
Building and Zoning Ordinances
Subdivision Regulations
Site Plan Review Regulations
Master Plan
Zoning Board of Adjustment By-Laws
Proposed Application for an Area Variance
Proposed Application for an Appeal from and Administrative Decision
Proposed Application for and Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirements
Proposed Finding of Facts sheet
Chair Leib noted he had found a proposed ZBA checklist in his documents and asked Ms. Chauvey to follow up on it, as well as the proposed Application for a Special Exception, which was not included in the handouts.
Chair Leib stated that approximately a year ago, the ZBA had started to update their forms and By-Laws; however, the process was not completed after the change of staffing. He asked the presiding members to review the documents and come prepared to discuss them at the next meeting. He noted he had documentation from Mr. Bassett on recommended changes to the By-Laws.
Mr. Howard made a motion to elect Mr. Morin as Vice Chairman. Mr. Bassett seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Morin made a motion to re-elect Chair Leib as Chairman. Mr. Howard seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Howard made a motion to elect Mr. Jordan as Clerk. Mr. Morin seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Leib stated that since Mr. Crowell was not present, the Board would wait on the appointment of alternates.
Case 07-01 Application from John Riley for four (4) variances to Article VI Section 2 requiring 20 foot setbacks to allow for a garage to be built with the following setbacks: 12’11” setback from the North property line, 7’ setback from the South property line, 3’ setback from the East property line, and 4’ setback from the West property line. The lot in question is located at 34 Seaman Point Road and is also identified as Tax Map 68 Lot 92. The property is owned by John and Mark Riley.
Chair Leib opened the hearing at 7:30 PM with a history of the meetings on this case. He stated that, after the site walk, members of the board expressed concern at the height of the proposed garage.
Mr. Riley formally withdrew his plans and presented members of the board with new packets. He stated the new plans addressed the height issue. Mr. Riley presented pictures of the burned out garage and surrounding views. He stated that moving the footprint of the garage to the south and into the hill provides Lot 82 with a better view than they had previously because the trees will screen the new garage.
Mr. Riley noted the other issue from the site walk is parking. He stated that to his knowledge there has never been a parking issue at this site, noting they have parked parallel to the road, and on the Horton’s Lot 91. Mr. Riley stated he felt parking would be better with the garage pushed back into the hill. He also noted that there is a ‘buffer zone’ between the North property line and Seaman Point Road. Mr. Riley stated the three parking spaces he has depicted in front of the garage on the new plan are 7’ wide and 18’ deep. He noted there would also be parking in the garage. He stated that improving the parking situation was a primary design goal and he feels it was achieved.
Mr. Riley then addressed the new plans he submitted stating the garage height was reduced to 22’, and both the cantilever bumpouts and the stairs to the top floor had been removed. He stated for the record that the new setbacks would be 13’ to the north property line, 6’ to the west property line, 12’ to south property line, and 5’ to east property line. Mr. Riley noted that at a height of 22’, the exposure to the south property line would be no more than 14’4”. He felt the view from Lot 82 would be at least two feet less than that since Lot 82 is uphill. He noted the pitch he has planned for the roof is 8/12.
Mr. Riley presented pictures of similar projects including the garages of Mr. Murphy and Mr. Burke. Chair Leib inquired about the height of Mr. Murphy’s garage. Mr. Riley stated he did not know. Mr. Burke stated his garage is 22’ - 24’ high. Mr. Riley stated he felt these examples demonstrate modifications of an existing non-conforming use similar to his request have been approved in the past, including on the lot across the street. The garage on the lot across the street was approved in Case 06-06.
Mr. Howard inquired as to the size of the original garage. Mr. Riley stated tax record state 19’X21’, and the fire report state 20’X30’. Mr. Riley stated he had started to build, but received a letter in October from Mr. Colby, Nottingham Building Inspector, that he could not build a building of the size he had planned. He stated he was never informed there was an issue with the height of the building. Mr. Howard asked Mr. Riley if the previous garage was 19’ across the front and 21” deep. Mr. Riley stated it was opposite of that, being 21’ across the front and 19’ deep.
Mr. Bassett asked if the building could be pushed back into the hill any further to provide more area for the parking spaces in front of the garage. Chair Leib pointed out that with only 13’ to the north property line, Mr. Riley could not get an 18’ parking space in front of the garage. Mr. Riley stated there is a buffer zone from the north property line to the road. Chair Leib stated that that could not be approved as space for Mr. Riley’s parking. Mr. Riley stated they have been parking cars there for 40 years and there has not been a problem. Mr. Bassett asked again if the building could be pushed back into the hill any further to accommodate parking. Mr. Riley stated that he gets into tree roots if he goes back any further.
Mr. Jennings noted for the record that the deed states that if anything other than a garage is built the lot reverts back to Seaman. Mr. Jennings stated that it appeared to be more than a garage to him. Chair Leib read the deed notation for the record. He then stated that the dictionary defined garage as a place for storage or repair of automobiles.
Mr. Jennings asked Mr. Riley how tall the previous garage was. Mr. Riley stated he did not know. He was unaware that height would be an issue and had not researched. He stated he was told repeatedly by Mr. Colby, Building Inspector, that as long as he did not exceed the height restriction set by the Town, it would not be an issue. He stated he became aware it was an issue when he appeared before the Zoning Board for the variances. Chair Leib explained that it would not be an issue if Mr. Riley was not encroaching on the setbacks and did not need to request a variance. He explained that in any case where a variance is required, the Zoning Board is allowed to put restrictions on other items relating to that case. Mr. Riley stated his point was that Mr. Colby had never mentioned that during their
conversations. Mr. Jennings submitted pictures of his own, in which he had used his rubbish barrel for height reference. Mr. Riley stated the building will not have water, septic, a stove, or a kitchen. He intends only to continue the current use of the property. He stated he did not understand why Mr. Jennings had such concerns. Mr. Jennings indicated he is worried about someone turning it into a residence down the road. Mr. Jennings further stated that in the case of Mr. Burke, he had more land with which to work.
Mr. Morin stated he felt these plans were much better than what has previously been presented. He stated that the details provide a much better picture of what is being presented. Mr. Riley offered to drop the roof height another foot, stating that he can only drop it so far. He has been informed by his insurance company that if he goes below 7’ (from ground to roof edge on the south end) it would be considered an ‘attractive nuisance’ and he would not be able to insure the building. Mr. Morin asked if the height of the building blocked anyone’s view. Mr. Riley responded that to his knowledge, it did not. Mr. Morin went over the measurements they had used during the site walk stating that these measurements are much lower and much better. He added that as a resident of
Pawtuckaway Lake and familiar with the roads, he did not feel that Mr. Riley’s proposed parking would infringe upon t he traveled way. Mr. Riley stated he would hang the trailer from the ceiling in order to be able to park his truck inside the garage. Mr. Russo asked about the height of the first floor ceiling. Mr. Riley responded that in keeping with the 18” exposure of the southern foundation wall, it is approximately 9 feet.
Mrs. Horton stated that at the site walk she had felt the size of the building was too big, however, she felt they would adjust. She also noted for the record that as the abutter to both sides of Mr. Riley’s property the Horton’s were ok with Mr. Riley’s current plan. Chair Leib stated he is concerned about building something that is out of place on a lot that is 30’X50’, especially at that height, and lack of parking.
Mr. Hale asked for clarification on the parking issue. Chair Leib stated that whoever owns the road could decide to move the road over or widen the road, using the buffer zone, and this lot would no longer have parking. Mr. Hale stated that his understanding is that it is a private road and the land owners own to the center of the road. Ms. Horton agreed. Chair Leib stated that some private roads are owned, entirely, by individual people, and some are sectioned off and deeded to the property owners, however, Mr. Riley’s deed states a 30’X50’ lot. Ms. Horton stated that the road is pretty wide there and she does not feel he will have a problem. Chair Leib stated the Zoning Board cannot put the Town at risk of liability by approving the parking situation should the Horton house catch on
fire and the Nottingham Fire/Rescue Squad cannot get in and park because Mr. Riley has vehicles in the way. Mr. Riley stated he could park two cars parallel to the garage without going over the property line. Chair Leib asked Mr. Riley if he was set on the 25’ length. Mr. Riley stated he was set on that in order to store an 18’ boat. He again reiterated that this is a continued use, since the collection of smaller boats have been stored in there. He also reminded the board that he wished to install solar heat on the island and he intended to use the upstairs as a climate controlled area to store the cell batteries for that.
Mr. Jennings asked if there was a way the board could document that the structure was never to be inhabited. Chair Leib stated that would be a condition of the approval, if granted.
Mr. Riley noted that he has not had electricity since his garage burned in 1998. He stated he was not in a place to repair or replace it at the time, but is hoping to do so now. It has been a hardship to have no place to store anything from the island or to have no access to power while here.
Mr. Jennings again reiterated his concern with the height of the garage. Chair Leib inquired about dropping the pitch of the roof. Mr. Howard stated he does not understand why there is an issue with the height. Mr. Jennings stated his concern is regarding the height of the building on a non-conforming lot. Mr. Howard stated he would be concerned with the aesthetic appeal of the building. Mr. Riley reiterated that this is a continuation of a pre-existing use.
Chair Leib addressed the five criteria required for a variance.
The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values:
Regarding the diminishing of surrounding property values, Chair Leib stated he does not feel the proposal blends in with the neighborhood. Mr. Riley stated he felt the surrounding property value would not be diminished as the new garage is better than the burned out one. Mr. Morin stated the he feels the new houses that have been developed have already changed the rural character of that area. Chair Leib stated it is the job of the Zoning Board to prevent that from happening.
Mr. Howard stated he does not feel the variance is contrary to public interest.
In regards to the special conditions of the property that make an area variance necessary, Mr. Hale stated that the building being replaced was literally on the property line. Mr. Riley has proposed to move it more toward the middle of the lot.
Chair Leib stated that the building could be built shorter than the proposed 25’ feet, which he felt was another reasonably feasible method. Mr. Howard stated it would not provide the same benefit because Mr. Riley would then have to haul the boat back and forth to Massachusetts or a storage facility. Mr. Howard stated he felt an 18’ boat was an appropriate sized boat for the lake and that Mr. Riley should be able to park it in the garage.
Chair Leib stated he is trying to make a decision that complies with the requirements for granting a variance and fits in with the neighborhood. He also noted that had the board taken a site walk on the Burke property, Mr. Burke would not have been granted the variance for his garage as it was built. He stated it does not blend with the neighborhood.
Mr. Howard made a motion to approve the application of John Riley for four (4) area variances to Article VI Section 2 requiring 20’ setbacks to allow for a garage to be built with the following setback: 13’ from the north property line, 6’ from the west property line, 12’ from the south property line, and 5’ from the east property line at 34 Seaman Point Road, also identified as Map 68 Lot 92, with the conditions that this building is not to more than 22’ high or a habitable structure. Mr. Morin seconded the motion. By a vote of hands Mr. Howard and Mr. Morin voted In favor. Mr. Russo, Chair Leib, and Mr. Bassett voted against. Motion failed 2-3.
Chair Leib again stated he is concerned with parking in front. Mr. Riley stated he would sign documents for the board stating he would not cross the north property line for parking. Mr. Bassett stated he needed to see at least 15’ for parking. Again, it was suggested that Mr. Riley moved back further into the hill. Mr. Riley stated he is not sure any more trees can be taken down. Mr. Morin stated he felt Mr. Riley had done a fine job with the new proposal. He feels it is conceivable the Mr. Riley could park sideways to the lot and not encroach on the road, as many property owners currently do. Mr. Howard agreed, stating it is not a heavy traffic area and the abutters are not concerned with the proposal. Mr. Hale stated there are only two houses beyond Mr. Riley’s lot; it is not at
the beginning of the road.
Mr. Russo made a motion to recess the hearing and final decision to a site walk of the property at 34 Seaman Point Road, Map 68 Lot 92, on Monday, April 9, 2007 at 6 PM. Chair Leib seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Chair Leib made a motion to have Ms. Chauvey to send a letter to Mr. Rourke stating the Board greatly appreciates his years of service and to inquire if he is interested in being an Alternate. Mr. Howard seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Russo made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Morin seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0.
Meeting adjourned 9:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Traci Chauvey
Zoning Board of Adjustment Secretary
| 
