ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
April 30, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Julie Matthews, Vice-Chairman; Robert Loeffler; and Dan Lloyd, Alternate. Peter Bealo; Roderic Cole; and Paul Boniface, Alternate, were excused
D. Lloyd was appointed as voting members for this meeting.
Minutes of March 26, 2009 Meeting
J. Matthews moved, second by R. Loeffler, to approve the minutes of the March 26, 2009, meeting. There was no discussion and the vote was 3-0-1 (Ordway abstaining).
L. Ordway noted that there were only four (4) members sitting on the Board for this meeting and that three (3) yes votes would be required to affirm any motion. He added that under State RSA any applicant had the right to request to continue until there was a five (5) member board.
#09-04: A request from David Bowles for a variance Article V, §220-32I, to permit an addition to be built be within 3 feet of the property line, where 15 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 152 Main Street, Tax Map 41, Lot 16 in the CII District. The applicant is the owner of record.
David Bowles was present for the application. He explained that he had an existing one-bedroom house and would like to expand to allow for an additional bedroom and a dining room. Mr. Bowles offered that he had recently taken down a 20’ X 20’ garage and would like to put the addition on that same footprint while expanding it another nine (9) feet closer to the road. He noted the footprint was already just three (3) feet away from the property line so the additional nine (9) feet would be in violation of the side setback requirement. He added that if he used the existing footprint without the expansion the existing rooms would only have a finished width of nine (9) feet. It was further noted that the septic was directly in back of the house and the well to the left side of the dwelling therefore
making expansion in either of those directions not possible. Mr. Bowles added that he had considered adding a second floor but due to the age of the dwelling, built in the 1940s; it wouldn’t be possible without significant upgrades to the structure of the building.
L. Ordway asked what type of structure was located to the right of the proposed addition.
Barbara Robinson, 154 Main Street, noted that her property was to the right of the subject property and that there was a small fence between the properties.
D. Bowles added that there was a distance of approximately nineteen (19) feet to the edge of a gravel driveway, which was next to the abutter dwelling.
L. Ordway asked if D. Bowles was relocating the front door.
D. Bowles replied that he was, adding that the new addition would still be set back farther from the street than the existing dwelling.
L. Ordway asked how much frontage the parcel had.
It was noted from the tax map that there was 79 feet of frontage.
D. Bowles offered the following evidence in support of his variance request:
- There would be no diminishment to the surrounding property values as the addition would be done to match the character of the existing dwelling and would be aethestically pleasing, therefore increasing its value and the value of the neighborhood. It was also noted that the roofline would be constructed to match with the existing dwelling, which was not the case with the garage
- There is a benefit to the public interest to have an aesthetically pleasing dwelling thereby increasing the value of the neighborhood
- There is no other place for the addition to go, the septic is in the rear of the house and the well is on the left side. The house was originally constructed as a 1940’s camp with 2 X 3 studs, which will not support adding a second floor to the property. If the addition was expanded to the rear of the former garage footprint, instead of the front, the same variance request would be needed
- There would be substantial justice in allowing reasonable expansion of the dwelling therefore increasing the value of the property and enhancing the neighborhood
- It is not contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance as the addition would not be any closer to the property line than the existing footprint
L. Ordway asked if there were any questions from the Board, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of the application.
B. Robinson noted that she was in favor.
James Vitale, 161 Main Street, offered that D. Bowles had shown him the plans and there were no objections, adding that he thought it would make the house look more symmetrical.
L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in opposition to the application. There was no one.
There was no additional input and the matter was closed.
#09-05: A request by Steven Murray for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an in-law apartment. The property is located at 92 Newton Road, Tax Map 68, Lot 8B in the ICR District. The applicant is the owner of record.
Steven Murray was present for the application. He explained that he was in the process of building a new residence combine with a commercial business (his wife’s art gallery) and he would like to also have an in-law apartment for his mother.
It was noted for the record that combined business/residential was a permitted use in the ICR (Integrated Commercial Residential) district and that Mr. Murray had already gone through the Planning Board process for site plan approval.
The Board reviewed the requirements for the granting of a special exception for an in-law apartment with the following findings:
- The in-law apartment would be located in a single-family dwelling
- There will be entrance through the garage (there would be another garage for the main residence on the other side of the building)
- The in-law apartment will be 576 sq. ft.
- There will only be one (1) bedroom
- Mr. Murray’s mother and her husband will be the occupants
- The main residence is not a condo
- Well and septic have been verified by the Department of Building Safety
- Proper floor plan was submitted with application
- The building will still have the appearance of a single-family dwelling
- All utilities for the in-law apartment will be on the main residence’s meters
L. Ordway reminded Mr. Murray that should the property be sold the special exception for the in-law apartment ceases and any new owners would be required to get their own special exception to continue the use of the unit.
R. Loeffler asked when S. Murray intended to occupy the building.
S. Murray replied that they were hoping to have the business portion done before June 1, and the rest of the dwelling within six to eight weeks. He noted that the lease would be up on the current gallery location at that time.
R. Loeffler asked what type of business would be on the parcel.
S. Murray noted that his wife owned DeClerc Gallery, an art studio currently located at 160 Plaistow Road.
L. Ordway asked if there any additional questions from the Board; there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or in opposition to the application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
#09-06: A request from James Dow for a special exception under Article X, all sections, to permit a home occupation, namely and office for a landscaping company. The property is located at 106 Willard Way, Tax Map 38, Lot 73, in the MDR District. The applicant is the owner of record.
James Dow was present for the application. He explained that he would like to have an office in his home for his landscaping business. Mr. Dow explained that he would only be doing paperwork and there would be no customers coming to his location.
L. Ordway asked where Mr. Dow’s landscaping equipment was stored.
J. Dow replied that it was kept at Bresnahan’s Storage.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a special exception for a home occupation with the following findings:
- The business use would be secondary to the residential use of the property
- The business is permitted under §220-66C
- There are no noxious uses by way of noise, odor, dust, fumes or electrical fluctuations, no equipment would be stored on the property
- The use of the building has always been residential and the residential use was established prior to the business use
- The business will be conducted within the residential dwelling using +/- 9% of the living space
- There will be no outdoor storage.
- The business will not change the residential character of the dwelling
- There is no current request for a sign, but the applicant is allowed up to three (3) sq. ft.
- Mr. Dow is the sole employee of the company
There will be no exterior merchandize displays
- There is sufficient off-street parking; no customers come to the home.
- There would be no storage of flammable materials in the home
- There are no covenants in the deed that would prevent there from being a home occupation
L. Ordway noted that should the special exception be granted that Mr. Dow could be subject to random inspections by the Building Inspector and that his permit would have to be renewed every three (3) years.
L. Ordway asked if there any additional questions from the Board; there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or in opposition to the application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
DELIBERATIONS
#09-04: A request from David Bowles for a variance Article V, §220-32I, to permit an addition to be built be within 3 feet of the property line, where 15 feet is the minimum. The property is located at 152 Main Street, Tax Map 41, Lot 16 in the CII District. The applicant is the owner of record.
J. Matthews moved, second by D. Lloyd, to grant the request for a setback variance at 152 Main Street.
L. Ordway summarized the evidence presented in support of the application noting that the dwelling was built as a camp in the 1940s, when the building codes were very different and therefore it wouldn’t support a second floor addition. The locations of the septic and well prohibited expansion to the rear and left sides of the current dwelling. The (former) garage roofline did not match the dwelling, where the new addition would. The property would be improved by the addition of the bedroom and dining room. The existing footprint was already three (3) feet from the property line and this addition would only be extending that existing intrusion, not increasing it. There were no objections from the affected abutter.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A and the variance was granted.
#09-05: A request by Steven Murray for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an in-law apartment. The property is located at 92 Newton Road, Tax Map 68, Lot 8B in the ICR District. The applicant is the owner of record.
L. Ordway moved, second by J. Matthews, to grant the request for a special exception to allow an in-law apartment at 92 Newton Road.
L. Ordway summarized the evidence submitted in support of the application. He noted that this was new construction and would be a combined use that would include the wife’s business, a single-family dwelling and the in-law apartment. L. Ordway added that the resident was said to be the applicant’s mother and her husband and all other requirements were met.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A and the special exception was granted.
#09-06: A request from James Dow for a special exception under Article X, all sections, to permit a home occupation, namely and office for a landscaping company. The property is located at 106 Willard Way, Tax Map 38, Lot 73, in the MDR District. The applicant is the owner of record.
R. Loeffler moved, second by D. Lloyd, to grant the request for a special exception to allow a home occupation, namely and office for a landscaping business, at 106 Willard Way.
L. Ordway summarized the evidence submitted in support of the application. He noted that there were no plans for a sign, equipment was to be stored offsite, and there would be no customers would be coming to the home.
It was noted to be a classic application.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A and the special exception was granted.
NON-PUBLIC SESSION
L. Ordway moved, second by R. Loeffler, to enter into non-public session under RSA 91-A:3:II (c) and (e) (legal and reputation).
Roll Call Vote:
L. Ordway – yes
J. Matthews – yes
R. Loeffler – yes
D. Lloyd – yes
L. Ordway noted that at 7:36 p.m. he as adjourning the public portion of the meeting and the Board would be going into a non-public session. He announced that the Board would not be returning to a public session or a cable broadcast.
Results of the vote taken in non-public session
L. Ordway moved, second by J. Matthews, to request that Sumner Kalman, Esquire, represent the Zoning Board of Adjustment in the matter of Ronald Brown v. Plaistow Zoning Board of Adjustment as filed in Rockingham County Superior Court. There was no discussion on the motion.
Roll Call Vote:
L. Ordway – yes
J. Matthews – yes
R. Loeffler – yes
D. Lloyd – yes
J. Matthews moved, second by R. Loeffler, to exit into non-public session, which was entered into under RSA 91-A:3:II (c) and (e) (legal and reputation), at 7:54 p.m. The minutes of the meeting, with the exception of the vote take, are to be sealed until the resolution of the Brown matter.
Roll Call Vote:
L. Ordway – yes
J. Matthews – yes
R. Loeffler – yes
D. Lloyd – yes
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
