ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 29, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Julie Matthews, Vice Chairman; Robert Loeffler; Cliff Clark; Roderic Cole, Alternate; and Dan Lloyd, Alternate (arrived 7:21 p.m.). Peter Bealo was excused.
R. Cole was appointed as a voting member for P. Bealo.
Minutes of April 24, 2008
J. Matthews moved, second by L. Ordway, to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2008, meeting. The vote was 3-0-2 (Clark and Cole abstaining).
#08-06: A request from Duane Skofield, for an appeal of the administrative decision of the Planning Board to not permit an auto repair facility. The property is located at 207 Main St, Tax Map 30, Lot 57 in the CI district. The owner of record is DC Main Street Realty Trust.
Duane Skofield, applicant/property owner, and Nick Romano, potential tenant, were present for the application.
D. Skofield offered that he didn’t understand why the Planning Board didn’t allow a request from a potential tenant to open an auto repair facility at his location, since it was a permitted use and there was nothing on the approved plan that prevented it. Mr. Skofield noted that there was an auto repair facility located directly next door and one across the street and slightly down the road from his location. He added that the tenant would be doing primarily electrical diagnostics at this location.
L. Ordway asked what process was followed to make the request of the Planning Board.
D. Skofield reported that he was told that the applicant needed to send a letter of intend to the Planning Board, which was done, and was denied.
The letter sent from the Planning Board to the applicant (Nick Romano) was read for the record. There was a discussion as to the fact that there didn’t appear to be a concretely stated reason for the denial in the letter from the Planning Board.
L. Ordway asked if the location was ever a repair facility.
D. Skofield replied that it was a new building, reiterating that there were others located nearby.
N. Romano explained that is business was primarily computer related but that he didn’t want to dismiss the possibility of being able to offer related repair services.
L. Ordway asked what the proposed hours of operation were.
N. Romano replied that he would like to be open 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
L. Ordway again asked if there was anything that stated the reason for the Planning Board’s denial.
Staff reported that the Planning Board was provided with a copy of the legal notice for this evening. It was also reported that Planning Board staff was numerously requested to provide information to the Zoning Board on this matter and no information was submitted.
D. Skofield noted that his original plan was for contractors such as a plumber and a nail business, which has since gone out of business. He added that he didn’t know at the time of his Planning Board application that it would handcuff him from putting any other businesses that were permitted in the district.
L. Ordway asked if there was any intention to sell motor vehicles there.
N. Romano replied that there was not.
L. Ordway questioned the number of cars that would be on the site.
N. Romano answered that there would no more than what could be handled in a single work day, which was estimated to be no more than five (5), three (3) of which could be put inside overnight.
D. Skofield noted that the back parking area was also fenced and gated.
C. Clark asked what other kinds of things would be done as part of the business, questioning is routine repairs, such as oil changes, would be offered.
N. Romano replied that he would do some general repairs but they would be mainly related to the electronic diagnostic work which was his primary focus.
L. Ordway suggested that there wasn’t enough information from the Planning Board to deliberate in this matter.
Staff reminded that the Planning Board was made aware of this application and numerous requests were made of that staff in plenty of time for them to submit a defense of the denial and that it was not the fault of this applicant that none was submitted.
D. Skofield added that they had waited a considerable time and there was no tenant in this unit at this time. He reiterated that there was a gated, eight-foot high fence and that there were other auto repair businesses located in the same area.
L. Ordway asked if there were any additional questions from the Board. There were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of the application. There was no one. He asked if there was anyone speaking in opposition.
James Convery, 7 Walton Road, offered that he was primary against the application based on the noise issue. He noted that he already heard a lot of the activities that took place at the three-bay repair facility next door (All Tune and Lube) and that the four bays of this building all faced his property.
There was a letter read into the record from J. Convery, Brunhilde Convery, 7 Walton Road and Sheila Clark, 10 Walton Road. The potential for noise issues was noted as the main concern. The letter also noted discussion with the Planning Board where it was stated that there would not be an auto repair facility at this location.
J. Convery asked what that deliberation process entailed.
L. Ordway explained that the Board would hear all the matters and most likely make decisions on all the matters at this meeting. He noted that there was a thirty-day window where all decisions were stayed in order to allow those who disagree with the Board’s decision to file a request for a re-hearing. L. Ordway also noted that the valid reasons for requesting a re-hearing under the State’s RSAs were submission of new evidence or a procedural error on the part of the Board. The matter was then closed.
#08-07: A request from Dana Sturk, for a variance from Article V, §220-32J, to permit a structure (garage) within 1 foot of the property line where 15 feet is the minimum The property is located at 14 Walton Rd, Tax Map 30, Lot 42 in the MDR district.
Dana Sturk was present for the application. He explained that he would like to erect a garage on his property and needed a fourteen (14) foot variance.
Pictures of the location were presented to the Board.
D. Lloyd arrived at 7:21 p.m.
L. Ordway asked what prevented the garage from being put closer to the house.
D. Sturk replied that it would put it behind the house and would impact his ability to access his septic should it need repair or replacement.
L. Ordway noted the size of the garage to be 20’ X 30’.
D. Sturk offered that he had reconsidered the size of the garage and would like to now put an 18’ X 28’ structure.
L. Ordway suggested that a one-car garage could be constructed with less intrusion into the setback.
D. Sturk responded that he would like to also have room in the garage for his snowmobile as well as his truck.
The tax map was reviewed to look at the position of this lot next to the abutting lot.
D. Sturk offered that the area next to that side of the property was wooded.
There was discussion of the size of the garage and whether or not alternative sizes would fit on the lot with lesser or no variance relief. It was noted that the lot was .27 acres and was seventy-five (75) feet wide.
L. Ordway asked if there were any additional questions from the Board, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition to the application, there was no one and the matter was closed.
#08-08: A request from Darlene M. Deptula-Hicks for a variance from Article IX §220-58.1.A to permit a 6 sq. ft. residential sign, where 3 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. The property is located at 30 Crane Crossing Rd, Tax Map 56, Lot 3 in the LDR district.
Darlene Deptula-Hicks and Christopher Hicks were present for the application. Ms. Deptula-Hicks explained that they had purchased the Cox Farm and the would like to put up an elegant sign that would now identify the property as Morningstar Farm
L. Ordway noted that the words “performance horses” and the phone number confused him as it alluded to a business being operated on the property, which would not be permitted.
There was a discussion about the sign ordinance and what was permitted on a residential sign. It was noted that all residential signs, including those for approved home occupations, could not exceed three square feet. It was noted that residential signs, not related to approved home occupations, were permitted to identify a residential property.
D. Deptula-Hicks explained that many people stop by the property to look at the seven (7) horses that they have. She added that every farm deserved a name.
R. Loeffler asked why such a large sign was needed if people were already stopping by. He added that there were no other competing signs on the street so there shouldn’t be a problem with the regulation sign.
D. Deptula-Hicks noted that they were the only farm on the street and were hard to miss.
R. Loeffler suggested that made his point that a larger sign wasn’t necessary to locate the farm.
D. Deptula-Hicks offered that it was a very elegant sign and it would be the same if it were smaller. She added that they were trying to be a good neighbor.
L. Ordway asked why the phone number needed to appear on the sign.
D. Deptula-Hicks replied that it was allow friend to call and ask if they could come ride with their family.
L. Ordway suggested that he could see the naming of the farm, but added that the words “performance horses” and the phone number said commercial to him.
D. Deptula-Hicks offered that the Board should visit the farm and see that there was no commercial activity. She offered to provide the paperwork that would prove that all the horses were owned by them.
R. Loeffler reiterated that he didn’t see the need for the phone number on the sign.
D. Deptula-Hicks responded that it was to allow friends to call and that it was totally for personal use. She questioned if this was about the sign or the content on the sign.
L. Ordway noted that if the words “performance horses” and the phone number were removed from the sign, the sign would probably be compliant and not require a variance.
D. Deptula-Hicks offered that the sign was already made and that if she couldn’t put it out as she wanted she would be putting it inside the barn. She added that it was a dream come true for her family to own a large farm, and that she would just like to put up a sign that reflected that.
L. Ordway asked if there were any additional questions from the Board, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition to the application, there was no one and the matter was closed.
#08-09: A request from Signs By Russ, Inc, for Starbuck’s, for a variance from Article IX, §220-63 to permit a roof sign. The property is located at 49 Plaistow Rd, Tax Map 26, Lot 67 in the CI district. The owner of record is Federated Realty Five, LLC.
#08-10: A request from Signs By Russ, Inc, for Starbuck’s, for a variance from Article IX, §220-63 to permit a roof sign. The property is located at 49 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 67 in the CI district. The owner of record is Federated Realty Five, LLC.
(These applications were discusses simultaneously)
Russ Baker, Signs By Russ, Inc., was present for the application. It was noted for the record that written permission for Mr. Baker to make the application had been received from both the property owner and Starbucks.
R. Baker explained that this was a low profile building and that the ground to the roofline was only eight (8) feet in height. He offered that the best place to put the signage was on the roof to avoid it being under the overhang. Mr. Baker noted that they were not asking for a larger signs but to be able to place the signs on the roof. He added that the building sat 100 feet from the road and that one sign was only sixteen (16) inches in height and the other was only eleven (11) inches tall.
L. Ordway noted that this was a new building and that the sign ordinance, and the section prohibiting roof signs, was available prior to construction and it should have been considered in designing the building.
R. Baker offered that their original application was for a sign with a single side longer than eight (8) feet, which was not permitted under the former ordinance.
R. Loeffler asked if the applicant would be permitted to have a free-standing sign. It was confirmed that they would and that application had already been approved.
C. Clark asked why the signs needed to be on the roof.
R. Baker replied it was to increase the visibility.
C. Clark suggested that the free-standing sign would provide adequate visibility. He added that the signs could be placed on the façade as he has seen in most of the other Starbucks stores.
L. Ordway asked if there were any additional questions from the Board, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor or in opposition to the application, there was no one and the matter was closed.
#08-11: A request from Westville Realty Investments, LLC, for a variance from Article III, §220-20.9.1, to permit a driveway that does not comply with the minimum set back of 15 feet from the property line for a lot to be created by subdivision. The property is located at 27 Westville Rd, Tax Map 40, Lot 10 (Lot A) in the MDR district.
#08-12: A request from Westville Realty Investments, LLC, for a variance from Article V, §220-34, to permit a lot to be created by subdivision where the opposing lot lines are 35 feet at their closest point where 50 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 27 Westville Rd, Tax Map 40, Lot 10 (Lot A) in the MDR district.
#08-13: A request from Westville Realty Investments, LLC, for a variance from Article III, §220-20.9.1, to permit a driveway that does not comply with the minimum set back of 15 feet from the property line for a lot to be created by subdivision. The property is located at 27 Westville Rd, Tax Map 40, Lot 10 (Lot B) in the MDR district.
#08-14: A request from Westville Realty Investments, LLC, for a variance from Article V, §220-34, to permit a lot to be created by subdivision where the opposing lot lines are 35 feet at their closest point where 50 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 27 Westville Rd, Tax Map 40, Lot 10 (Lot B) in the MDR district.
(There was overlap in the discussion of these applications)
Richard Dickey, property owner, and Michael Garrepy, representing Westville Realty Investments, LLC, were present for the application. M. Garrepy presented written authorization to represent both the property owner and the applicant to the Board.
M. Garrepy explained that there we two variance requests, one for a driveway that cannot meet the minimum set back requirement and one for opposing lot lines that were not a separated by a minimum of fifty feet away, and that both of these requests were duplicated for each of two new lots to be created by a three-lot subdivision of the Dickey’s property at 27 Westville Road. He noted that with reference to the tow driveways he did not request a specific dimension of relief as he wanted to leave room for the Board’s discretion in the location of the driveway.
L. Ordway noted that this board was used to applicants coming in with a specific plan for them to review and make a decision on.
M. Garrepy showed on the plan where the two new house lots were proposed to be cut out the Dickey’s existing parcel. He showed where the frontage was to meet the zoning requirements and where the driveways were proposed to be located. He noted that they could be located in such a way that they would be the minimum fifteen (15) feet from the abutter’s property line on each side of the driveway, but they would not be fifteen (15) feet away from the property lined shared by the two (2) new lots. Mr. Garrepy added that the driveways would “meander” along in such as way as to go through with disturbing as little natural vegetation as possible.
L. Ordway asked if both driveways were proposed to be within seventy (70) feet of frontage. It was confirmed that they would be. He asked why a shared driveway wasn’t being considered.
M. Garrepy noted that he had originally proposed a shared driveway but that concept did not get approval of the police or fire departments, who wanted either two separate driveways or a town road to be constructed. He offered that they decided against building a town road as that would be additional infrastructure that the Town would be required to maintain.
There was discussion of the ordinance change that now required all driveways to be paved as well as meet the structure setback requirements in the residential district.
M. Garrepy offered they had originally intended to go with gravel drives, but were told by staff that the driveways had to be paved. He added that it is their intention to buffer the neighbors.
C. Clark asked Mr. Garrepy to describe how the lot would be divided into three (3) parcels.
M. Garrepy explained that the lot would be split into three single-family residential parcels, one would be the existing Dickey home and the other two would be for new residential construction.
L. Ordway asked Mr. Garrepy to roughly lay out the driveways for the two lots.
M. Garrepy showed that the drive was for the lot designated for this meeting at ‘Lot B’ as winding through the property but always maintaining a distance of 15 feet from the abutter’s (Lewis) property. He showed the driveway for ‘Lot A’ as more of a straight shot. He noted that other then these variance requests the subdivision of the lots was 100% complaint. He added that they intended to leave the fifteen (15) feet buffer to the abutting properties uncut.
L. Ordway asked what would be the applicant’s ‘Plan B’ if the variances were not granted.
M. Garrepy replied that they would either construct a Town Road or perhaps build a duplex with a single driveway, neither of which would require any relief from the Town. He noted that a Town Road would require more clearing of the natural buffer and would be of a higher impact to the abutters.
C. Clark asked if all possibilities had been exhausted with reference to the layout of the subdivision.
M. Garrepy replied that they had originally looked at it as age-restricted housing but there was a zoning change that made that no longer a permitted use. He explained that with the topography, slopes, sight distance and wetlands there wasn’t a safe way to access the property on the westerly side and there wasn’t enough room to put more than a seventy (70) foot access to the back portion of the parcel where it is currently located. He said that there was thought given to two driveways that would have easements but the ordinances called for the driveway to be within the frontage of the property.
M. Garrepy presented the following evidence with to support the variance application. He noted that the answers were applicable to all the applications.
- A letter was from Jason Quick, Quick Appraisals, was submitted as evidence that there would be no diminishment to the surrounding property values
- The hardship was noted to be in the amount and location of the wetlands on the property, sight distances and slopes, which made this the best location for the driveways but a consequence was there was limited frontage to work with
- The reduction of minimum lot width and the location of the driveways in this area would give safe and reasonable access to the remaining buildable area of the 6+acre parcel while respecting other environmentally sensitive areas of the property
- The area that would not meet the fifty (50) foot property line separation or the driveway set backs is a small portion of the larger lot and will provide safe and adequate access to the property as well as protection to the abutting property owners and therefore is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance
There was a discussion of the pictures that were submitted to show the problem with sight distances if they were to try to locate the driveway in other places.
C. Clark asked if the Westville Road Bridge was going to be addressed as part of this plan.
M. Garrepy noted that they were putting this access as far away from the bridge as they could on the straight part of the road.
L. Ordway asked if opening these lots would increase the noise factor from the train tracks.
M. Garrepy, noting that he was not a “noise guy,” offered there would still be a significant tree buffer and the wetlands. He added that there would be some cutting for the house lots but he didn’t think that it would impact the existing buffering.
L. Ordway questioned whether or not there would be an impact to the public interest.
M. Garrepy said that there was a question as to what the public’s interest would be in the separation of the lots. He reminded that the driveways would be set back the minimum fifteen (15) feet from the abutting property lines, just not from each other. Mr. Garrepy offered that this plan was the best for safety and environmental impact, which is always in the public’s best interest.
There was a discussion of the wetlands and the river area.
L. Ordway asked if there were any additional questions from the Board, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of the application, there was no one.
L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in opposition to the application.
Dawn Lewis, 17 Westville Road, offered that she thought there was a discrepancy with the measurements present with the application and with the Town’s maps. She offered that she measured with a wheel from a survey pin and got a different measurement. Ms. Lewis added that she felt the measurement was off by as much as 10-12 feet.
M. Garrepy offered that he did have a survey of the property but he would be happy to ask him to re-check his measurements.
L. Ordway asked if the lot line could be moved for Lot A if Ms. Lewis was found to be correct.
M. Garrepy said that it could by relocating the encroachment of Ms. Lewis’s play ground.
D. Lewis questioned what potential there was for contamination of her well if there was salting of the driveways.
M. Garrepy noted that the survey did not locate Ms. Lewis’ well on the property, adding that the only setback requirement was that the septic could not be within seventy-five (75) feet of a well, and it was not.
There was a discussion of the location of Ms. Lewis’ well and septic.
L. Ordway noted that it was not within the purview of this board to address the question of salting driveways.
D. Lewis presented some pictures of her property.
L. Ordway offered that he would like to have seen a more engineered plan.
M. Garrepy explained that this was the conceptual plan that they had presented to the Planning Board and that since they were looking for some flexibility with the placement of the driveway he didn’t see the benefit to fully engineered plans.
L. Ordway suggested that asking the Zoning Board to grant relief to do what ever they pleased was running a risk.
M. Garrepy reminded that he wasn’t asking for flexibility from the sideline setbacks and was willing to maintain the fifteen (15) feet there, but he would like to be able to make the driveways closer to each other.
Philip Caron, 5 Rutledge Place, Unit #9, offered that he was President of the home owners association and he had limited knowledge of where the septics and wells were located on their property. He expressed concern over potential increase in the train noise, clearing of more trees and making things unsightly.
There was a discussion regarding the notification of the home owners’ association. It was noted that it is the responsibility of the association to notify the Town when there is a change in their board of directors for the purpose of legal noticing.
Bill Lohnes, 4 Rutledge Place, offered that he would also like to see more specifics on where the exact location of the driveway would be. He added that he would like to know about the construction of the driveway and whether or not it would be raised, which could affect runoff to their property.
L. Ordway noted that would be a Planning Board issue and wasn’t part of the issue before this board. He added that the concerns were valid ones and should be addressed to the Planning Board if the plan goes back to them.
There were two letters read into the record
- Nancy Hall-MacLeish and Russ MacLeish, 20 Westville Road
- Robert and Patricia Peters
Both letters expressed concern for noise, number of driveways in close proximity, congestion in the neighborhood and traffic on Westville Road.
M. Garrepy offered that if the Board felt that they needed a more specific location for the driveways that they would be happy to come back.
L. Ordway noted that it was the applicant who could request a continuance and if they felt it would help the Board make a favorable decision it was their call to make.
There was no additional discussion and the matter was closed.
The chairman called for a break at 8:52 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 9:02 p.m.
DELIBERATIONS:
#08-06: A request from Duane Skofield, for an appeal of the administrative decision of the Planning Board to not permit an auto repair facility. The property is located at 207 Main St, Tax Map 30, Lot 57 in the CI district. The owner of record is DC Main Street Realty Trust.
R. Loeffler moved, second by J. Matthews, to grant the appeal of the administrative opinion on the Planning Board and permit the applicant to have an automotive repair facility at 207 Main Street.
L. Ordway recapped the evidence presented earlier in the evening noting the following:
- The concentration of the business will be on electronic automotive diagnostics
- General automotive repairs may be offered but would most likely be related to what was discovered during the diagnostics
- The reason for the Planning Board’s denial is unclear
R. Loeffler noted that the use is permitted in the district and that he saw nothing that should prevent the Board from granting this appeal.
There was a discussion regarding the lack of information from the Planning Board. Staff was directed to write a letter to the Planning Board asking that when an appeal of their decision is filed or they send an application to the Board that they provide this Board with adequate information related to the position of the Planning Board.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
#08-07: A request from Dana Sturk, for a variance from Article V, §220-32J, to permit a structure (garage) within 1 foot of the property line where 15 feet is the minimum The property is located at 14 Walton Rd, Tax Map 30, Lot 42 in the MDR district.
C. Clark moved, second by R. Cole, to grant the noted setback variance request at 14 Walton Road.
L. Ordway recapped the information presented during the discussion noting the following:
- The application is to have a 20’ X 30’ garage to the left of the house
- If it were moved there wouldn’t be access to the septic should it need replacement or repair
- The applicant is looking for a larger garage in order to also have a workshop in the garage
- The closest abutter to the proposed garage did not come to the meeting or express any concerns
R. Loeffler suggested that granting a fourteen (14) out of fifteen (15) foot variance was too much. He suggested that the structure could be located a little closer to the house and be downsized.
C. Clark suggested that if the affected abutter had a problem with the application they would have been at the meeting. He offered that it was important to be able to access the septic if it needed repairing.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:
- There surrounding area was wooded and there most likely would not be an impact to the surrounding property values
- There is no public interest in a residential garage
- There are other alternatives such as downsizing the garage to a one-car structure, therefore there isn’t a hardship.
It was suggested that if the septic was that old and there was concern that it would soon need to be replaced that the applicant should consider relocating the septic to accommodate the larger garage and the setback.
C. Clark noted that was not a practical suggestion since the applicant did not say it was in bad shape just that he wanted to maintain the accessibility, the septic could last a number of years without trouble. He reminded that the property was only seventy-five (75) feet wide.
L. Ordway suggested that it might be an oversized building for this lot.
- The applicant has a right to build a garage but has other options that would not require a 95% variance
- The spirit and intent of the ordinance is to provide separation and this is just too close to the property line to be in line with that intent
R. Loeffler suggested an attached garage be looked into.
J. Matthews reiterated that there were other options that the applicant should consider and therefore there was no hardship.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 2-3-0 (Ordway, Matthews and Cole dissenting), the motion to grant was defeated and the variance denied.
#08-08: A request from Darlene M. Deptula-Hicks for a variance from Article IX §220-58.1.A to permit a 6 sq. ft. residential sign, where 3 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. The property is located at 30 Crane Crossing Rd, Tax Map 56, Lot 3 in the LDR district.
J. Matthews moved, second by R. Loeffler, to grant the request for a six (6) sq ft residential sign at 30 Crane Crossing Road.
L. Ordway recapped the evidence presented earlier in the evening noting the following:
- Ms. Deptula-Hicks wants to change the name of the farm to Morningstar Farm to differentiate it from the former name of the Cox Farm
- The applicant is looking for the type of horses and the phone number to be shown on the size to encourage discussion about the horses
- The look of the proposed sign has the appearance of a commercial use
- The sign has already been constructed, which is not a concern for the Board as part of this process
R. Loeffler reminded that there are no other competing signs on the road and that it would not be easy to miss the farm. He offered that the applicant reports the sign to not be advertising for a commercial use, but he wasn’t sure if he did or didn’t believe it.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:
- There is a question as to how the values of the neighborhood would be affected since the proposed sign tends to suggest a commercial use of the property
J. Matthews suggested that the public upon seeing the sign would most likely see it as a commercial use.
- The public interest is not impacted as the public has no interest in whether the farm is called “Morningstar” or “Cox” Farm
- There is no hardship in the land that requires there to be a larger sign. There may be a hardship if there is a business operation there, but that isn’t a permitted use and therefore cannot be considered
- The applicant would be permitted to erect a complaint sign therefore there would be substantial justice
- Granting the variance would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance which is to provide residential identification signs without them impacting the residential character of the neighborhood.
There was no additional discussion of the motion. The vote was 0-5-0, the motion to grant was defeated and the variance request denied.
#08-09: A request from Signs By Russ, Inc, for Starbuck’s, for a variance from Article IX, §220-63 to permit a roof sign. The property is located at 49 Plaistow Rd, Tax Map 26, Lot 67 in the CI district. The owner of record is Federated Realty Five, LLC.
#08-10: A request from Signs By Russ, Inc, for Starbuck’s, for a variance from Article IX, §220-63 to permit a roof sign. The property is located at 49 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 67 in the CI district. The owner of record is Federated Realty Five, LLC.
R. Loeffler moved, second by J. Matthews, to grant the request for both of the roof signs for Starbucks at 49 Plaistow Road.
L. Ordway offered that he didn’t recall anything in the testimony that would lead him to believe that there was any kind of hardship to allow the Board to grant a variance.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:
- There would be no diminishment of the surrounding property values, these is a commercial use located in the commercial district and surrounded by commercial properties
- There is nothing contrary to the public interest considering the number of roof signs that are grandfathered
It was suggested that the number of roof signs lead to them no longer being allowed.
- There is nothing in the land that presents a hardship to require roof signs
It was suggested that the hardship was created when the building was constructed and therefore Starbucks created their own problem.
- There is no gain to the public by a business having a roof sign so there is nothing to impact substantial justice
- The application is directly contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 0-5-0, the motion to grant is defeated and the variance denied.
#08-11: A request from Westville Realty Investments, LLC, for a variance from Article III, §220-20.9.1, to permit a driveway that does not comply with the minimum set back of 15 feet from the property line for a lot to be created by subdivision. The property is located at 27 Westville Rd, Tax Map 40, Lot 10 (Lot A) in the MDR district.
R. Loeffler moved, second by J. Matthews, to grant the request for a driveway with the fifteen (15) foot setback for a lot to be created by subdivision at 27 Westville Road for Lot A.
L. Ordway summarized the evidence presented during the application noting the following:
- There was no concrete location for the driveway shown of the plan as the applicant was looking for some flexibility in the location
- It was proposed that the driveway would meet the setback from the property line with the abutter but not with the other lot to be created as part of the subdivision
- The tree buffer would be maintained
- There was a letter from an appraiser to evidence that there would be no diminishment of the surrounding property values
R. Loeffler suggested that the Planning Board would have purview over the meandering of the driveway. He reminded there was the option of a shared driveway with a duplex situation.
L. Ordway offered doubt that there wouldn’t be diminishment of the Lewis’ property value with the granting of this variance.
R. Loeffler added that he felt the value would suffer if there was a road constructed.
R. Cole noted that the driveways would be within the lot frontage it was up to the Board to decide if they could be so close together.
L. Ordway offered that the driveways would be nearly common and questioned whether or not it would amenable to the police and fire departments.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:
- There was the potential of diminishment of the property value for Ms. Lewis
- The number of abutters here to protest showed that the public was not interested in seeing the driveways this close together
- There is a hardship in the land with the location of the wetlands, which meant there were not a lot of other locations for the driveway
R. Cole suggested that there might be alternatives to how the lots were divided that might offer better locations for the driveways.
L. Ordway added that elevations were not presented to show the slopes of the land and whether or not there were other locations for the driveways.
- There was no gain to the general public by the addition of two new houses in an already congested neighborhood
- It was directly contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance, which is to provide separation of the driveways
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 0-5-0, the motion to grant is defeated and the variance denied.
#08-13: A request from Westville Realty Investments, LLC, for a variance from Article III, §220-20.9.1, to permit a driveway that does not comply with the minimum set back of 15 feet from the property line for a lot to be created by subdivision. The property is located at 27 Westville Rd, Tax Map 40, Lot 10 (Lot B) in the MDR district.
R. Loeffler moved, second by L. Ordway, to grant the request for a driveway with the fifteen (15) foot setback for a lot to be created by subdivision at 27 Westville Road for Lot B.
It was noted that all the same discussion and review of the variance requirements would be as applicable to Lot B as they were to Lot A.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 0-5-0, the motion to grant is defeated and the variance denied.
#08-12: A request from Westville Realty Investments, LLC, for a variance from Article V, §220-34, to permit a lot to be created by subdivision where the opposing lot lines are 35 feet at their closest point where 50 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 27 Westville Rd, Tax Map 40, Lot 10 (Lot A) in the MDR district.
J. Matthews moved, second by C. Clark, to grant the application to have opposing lot lines that do not meet the fifty (50) foot separation for a lot (Lot A) to be created by subdivision.
L. Ordway noted that this was the same area as the proposed driveways.
R. Cole added that it appeared to him that they were just trying to stick the lots and the driveways where ever they could.
L. Ordway reminded that the Dickey’s did have the right to subdivide their property.
R. Cole expressed concern over the precedent that would be set by granting the application and the types of lots that could be potentially created.
- The Board felt that as with the driveway applications there was the potential of diminishment of the property value for Ms. Lewis
- The number of abutters here to protest showed that the public had an interest in seeing properly subdivided lots
- There is a hardship in the land with the location of the wetlands, but it was felt that the paperwork submitted was insufficient to allow the Board to see if there were or were not alternatives to the closer lot lines
R. Cole questioned if they bought the property knowing it would be difficult to subdivide.
It was noted that this property had been owned by the Dickey’s for many years and zoning had changed many times over those years so it would be difficult to tell if they would have had issues subdividing at the time they acquired the property.
L. Ordway reminded that they did have the required amount of frontage but that much of it was unusable.
R. Loeffler reminded that there were alternatives to the two single-family homes talked about.
L. Ordway added that it was noted that they could put up a two-family without asking for any relief.
- There is no gain to the general public by the granting of the variance
- The ordinance is in place to prevent the formation of odd-shapes or “pork chop” lots, granting this application would be directly contrary to that spirit and intent
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 0-5-0, the motion to grant is defeated and the variance denied.
#08-14: A request from Westville Realty Investments, LLC, for a variance from Article V, §220-34, to permit a lot to be created by subdivision where the opposing lot lines are 35 feet at their closest point where 50 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 27 Westville Rd, Tax Map 40, Lot 10 (Lot B) in the MDR district.
J. Matthews moved, second by R. Cole, to grant the application to have opposing lot lines that do not meet the fifty (50) foot separation for a lot (Lot B) to be created by subdivision.
It was noted that as was the case with the second driveway setback application, this was a mirror image to the application for the less than fifty (50) foot opposing lots lines of the previous matter and the arguments would be the same.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 0-5-0, the motion to grant is defeated and the variance denied.
The chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:59 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
