NOTTINGHAM ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 3, 2008
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED & AMMENDED
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Doug Leib, Chair Mr. Kevin Bassett, Alternate
Mr. John Morin Mr. James Crowell, Alternate
Mr. Jim Howard
Mr. James Morin
Mr. Mike Russo
Ms. Lisa Sears, Land Use Clerk
OTHERS PRESENT:
Paul & Leslie Longueil, Alan Perry, Kevin Simmons
Chair Leib called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. He explained that there was a full Board of 5 members; it takes 3 votes to pass, and reviewed the procedure for the meeting including the 30 day appeal process. He read the first case:
Case 08-02 Application from Alan & Pamela Perry for a Special Exception to Article VI Section A-2, to allow a 30’ setback for a 21’ round, above ground swimming pool. The lot in question is located at 5 Cooper Hill Road, identified as Tax Map 16 Lot 6-2, and is owned by Alan & Pamela Perry.
Mr. Perry addressed the Board and showed Photos of the property. He explained the proposed area in which he would like to place the pool and how it is the only level section in his yard. He noted the distances from property lines and structures. He explained that his abutters are not close and can not see the pool from any view. He also explained that any pool pump equipment or decks would not be put in the setback. He noted he had spoken with abutters and they had said they didn’t have any problems with it. (There was only one abutter present, Paul and Leslie Longueil but they did not speak to this case.) Chair Leib asked about the septic system. Mr. Perry noted that it was in the front and although flat there were too many issues with the area because of the septic for it to work over there. He noted he had
received a Special Exception for his garage.
Chair Leib read the three criteria, including the applicant’s answers. The Chair called for questions or comments from the Board. Mr. Russo agreed that the criteria were met since he believes an above ground pool is a temporary structure.
MOTION by Mr. John Morin to approve Case 08-02 from Alan & Pamela Perry for a Special Exception to Article VI Section A-2, to allow a 30’ setback for a 21’ round, above ground swimming pool. Located at 5 Cooper Hill Road, identified as Tax Map 16 Lot 6-2, and is owned by Alan & Pamela Perry.
SECOND by Mr. Jim Howard
VOTE 5-Aye: 0- Opposed: 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Chair Leib explained the 30 day appeal process.
Chair Leib moved to the discussion for the next case:
Case 08-03 Application for a Special Exception to Article VI Section A-2, to allow a 25’ setback for a garage. The lot in question is located at Freeman Hall Road, identified as Tax Map14 Lot 25, and is owned by Kevin Simmons.
Mr. Simmons explained that he has recently purchased his circa 1840’s Cape style home that he would like to build a detached 24’ x 24’ garage for. He showed diagrams of his property with the placement of the proposed garage and how the property exists now. He explained that the house is where it is due to the slopping of the lot. He explained if he builds the 24’ x 24’ garage within the required 50’ that would only leave him 17’ between the garage and the house. He will still meet the 50’ setback in the front it was just the side setback that he was applying for. He also noted the garage could not be placed on the opposite side of the house because that is where the septic system is. He also explained where the shed is currently but it will be moved further back and the new
garage will go in that area.
Mr. Simmons noted he has no close abutters and that he spoke with most of them and he was not aware of any problems from them.<there were no abutters present> He noted that the proposed garage would be a single story, two stall, 24’ x 24’ with 4 windows. Mr. Russo wanted confirmation of the location of the septic system. Mr. Simmons noted that he was positive of the location as he just had it inspected before the recent purchase.
Mr. Russo had concern of the location of the proposed garage due to the close intersection of three roads. He felt there was a lot of traffic in the area and was concerned about trying to back out of a garage at the location. Mr. Simmons stated that he believes he is 300’ from that intersection. He stated that he was not planning on backing out of the garage. He explained that he doesn’t have a real driveway now. He has areas with gravel, and that is where he is parking now, it is as far off the road as he can. He also noted he will meet the 50’ setback from the road (in the frontage).
Chair Leib read the three criteria, including the applicant’s answers. Mr. Russo asked Mr. Simmons if he considered placing the garage back further into the backyard. Mr. Simmons stated that he didn’t want a long driveway and he didn’t want to encroach on his backyard. He noted that due to slopping of the yard the backyard was small to begin with. Mr. John Morin agreed that 17’ from the house was far enough and that he didn’t think it needed to go even further back into the yard, that 50’ was long enough.
MOTION by Mr. Jim Howard to approve Case 08-03 Application from for a Special Exception to Article VI Section A-2, to allow a 25’ setback for a single story, 24’x 24’garage. The lot in question is located at Freeman Hall Road, identified as Tax Map14 Lot 25, and is owned by Kevin Simmons. The Building permit is to be issued within 6 months.
SECOND by John Morin
VOTE 4-Aye: 1- Opposed: 0- Abstained MOTION PASSED
Chair Leib explained the 30 day appeal process.
Approval of Minutes
April 22, 2008
The following changes were made by Mr. Jim Morin:
Line 203: insert John between Mr. and Morin.
MOTION by Mr. Russo to approve the April 22, 2008 minutes, as amended
SECOND by Mr. John Morin
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed – 0-Abstained MOTION PASSED
Other Business
Chair Leib asked if all the members had a chance to read both letters in regards to their decision on Case 07-08R (Longueil). (May 7, 2008 from the Nottingham Planning Board to the Nottingham Board of Selectmen, and Charlie Brown’s letter to the ZBA on behalf of the Board of Selectmen dated May 20, 2008).
They reviewed each of the items in the Planning Board’s letter to the Board of Selectmen:
1. There is no evidence provided in the decision as to why the curb cut could not be utilized in this case.
Chair Leib questioned if the Planning Board had even read all of the minutes from the meetings of this case; including the wetland scientist’s testimony at the April 22nd meeting.
2. The stipulations identified in RSA 674:41, Erection of Buildings on Streets; Appeals, were not a factor in the decision. RSA 674:41 provides that “no building shall be erected on any lot within any part of the municipality nor shall a building permit be issued for the erection of a building unless the street giving access to the lot upon which such building is proposed to be placed…” All remaining street access to these lots need to be addressed by these stipulations.
Chair Leib noted that this was a lengthy discussion, also. He noted that even if it hadn’t been discussed he doesn’t believe that it would be grounds for an appeal as it as nothing to do with the zoning ordinance <that the application was asking relief from>. Mr. Russo asked about the direction/process this application had come: Mrs. Sears noted the direction this application has gone through: Planning Board, then ZBA, there was no building permit applied for.
There was a brief discussion on attorneys used for the Planning Board and the Town. Mr. Russo presented an article that notes Attorney Teague’s expertise in the area of education. Chair Leib noted that he has experienced “100% approval rating” down at superior court with every case he has been involved with since he has been on this Board. Mr. Russo would like other Board members to entertain the idea of consulting a different attorney. Chair Leib noted that this Board is now so experienced that there is no need to retain counsel. Chair Leib noted that if you’re going to volunteer for this Board then you should be able to read the material and the laws and make an intelligent decision you can live with, without having to run to an attorney every time. He added there may be only certain times when
an attorney is needed. He noted that his opinion was that it appears that the Board of Selectmen, all to frequently, consult attorneys.
Mr. Russo questioned on how he believes the current Board of Selectmen behaves, legally. Mr. John Morin noted that there was no one running against them this year.
They continued to discuss what Attorney Boldt cited in the objection as “bad faith” and they noted that this letter doesn’t contain any reasons why this decision was “unlawful or unreasonable”, which is what is required for a rehearing.
3. Section I.B, Purposes, of the Nottingham Zoning Ordinance was not addressed in the decision. Sections I.B.3 and I.B.6 address concepts as safety. Proposed identification for and access to these proposed lots has not been addressed by the ZBA. The concern for safety is also covered by RSA 674.44, Site Plan Review Regulations, Section II.a.4, and the Nottingham Site Plan Review Regulations, Section II.A.4.
4. It is unclear as to what the “Spirit of the Ordinance” actually refers and yet the phrase is used many times as justification for approval. The minutes seem to indicate this phrase reflects Section I.B.1 of the Nottingham Zoning Ordinance, which states “To preserve the rural character and natural resources of the Town.”
Chair Leib noted that this was addressed when they had a lengthy discussion on the “spirit of the ordinance” and why the ordinances may have been created the way they were. He also noted that they talked at length about the numbering of the driveways and who would handle that.
Chair Leib stated that he didn’t believe the reasons listed in the Planning Board’s letter to Board of Selectmen warranted a rehearing. He asked the other members of the Board for their input. He asked each member if they feel this case warrants a rehearing: Mr. John Morin stated he didn’t believe it warrants a rehearing. Chair Leib added there were many meeting on this case.
Mr. James Morin noted based on, for the meetings he was present at, a rehearing was not warranted. They briefly discussed safety issues, noting that even though the safety concerns were raised, Chair Leib noted that the final say on the safety issues were not for the ZBA to decide.
Mr. Russo noted that although the Planning Board raised some valid issues, as he did, and even though he did not vote in favor of the case, he didn’t think a rehearing was warranted. The Board briefly discussed how Attorney Boldt had requested to be present for any discussion on this case. Chair Leib noted this was not a public meeting and he would not be allowed to address the Board. Chair Leib noted that there was time to do this tonight as he didn’t want to inconvenience the 6 volunteers on the Board, by calling a special meeting, that Attorney Boldt could attend, and still meet the 30 day deadline.
Mr. Russo wanted it known that, after this case left this Boards hands, some of the behavior has inconvenienced the applicant and their attorney and caused them added expense. He explained his experience with the Board of Selectmen and issues he has had with them not keeping non public minutes, and not posting meetings. He believes the BOS needs an education in <proper> conduct.
Chair Leib discussed the process of how cases should flow and to whom a case should go to first. Mr. Russo believes if there were reasonable leadership and counsel in this Town then our three boards would work together better. <Planning, Zoning & Board of Selectmen> He believes that the three Boards should be meeting at least yearly, if not more, including discussion on what “the spirit and intent of the ordinance” means for the Town of Nottingham. He noted that there is no policy for the process.
Chair Leib enquired about the order of his application process with Mr. Longueil. He explained that he had at least 2 informal meetings with Michelle Beauchamp, the former planner, who helped outline the steps he should take for this case. He continued to review all the steps he had taken with the Town of Nottingham and Northwood.
Chair Leib suggested that a solution could be that the Planning Board and Zoning Board hold joint meetings on some projects. Mr. Russo will draft a document for the Planning Board, for the next meeting, for the Board review outlining the possible solution/policy.
MOTION by Mr. Jim Howard to deny the request for a rehearing on the Longueil case.
SECOND by Mr. Russo
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed – 0-Abstained MOTION PASSED
MOTION by Mr. Jim Howard to adjourn the meeting at 8:00pm
SECOND by Mr. Russo
VOTE 5-Aye. 0- Opposed – 0-Abstained MOTION PASSED
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa L. Sears
Land Use Clerk
These minutes are subject to approval at a regularly scheduled Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting at which time the above minutes are corrected or accepted.
| 
