ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
October 28, 2010
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Julie Matthews, Vice Chairman; Paul Boniface, Alternate; Kim Crapo, Alternate and James Allen, Alternate. Excused were Robert Loeffler, Roderic Cole and Joyce Ingerson, Alternate.
P. Boniface, J. Allen and K. Crapo were appointed voting members for the meeting.
Minutes of September 30, 2010
J. Matthews motioned, second by L. Ordway, to approve the minutes of the September 30, 2010 meeting. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-2, (Allen and Crapo abstained).
# 10-15: A request from Kevin Smith for a special exception under Article X, all sections, to permit a home occupation, namely an office for a construction company. The property is located at 11 Greenough Road, Unit 14, Tax Map 30, Lot 83-4-14, in the LDR District. The applicant is the property owner of record.
Kevin Smith, 11 Greenough Road, was present for the application. He explained that the plan is to run his carpentry business out of his home. He noted that the office where he will run the business will have only a small desk and a file cabinet, and that he keeps all his tools in his truck.
The Board reviewed the requirements for the granting of a home occupation special exception noting the following:
- The application qualifies for a Home occupation under § 220-66, Section B – Craftsman
- There will be no uses that would be noxious or injurious to the abutters
- There will be no use of power tools or a shop at the home
- K. Smith is the property owner
- Only be 3%of the home will be used for the home business
- There will be no storage, signs or any changes to the residence
L. Ordway asked what K. Smith would do with his power tools, how he will store them.
K. Smith responded that he keeps all the tools inside his truck.
- There are no employees working for K. Smith
- There will be no merchandise to display
- No clients will be visiting then business as K. Smith goes to them.
L. Ordway explained the vehicles restrictions and hazardous material restrictions.
L. Ordway stated that, if granted, the Home Occupation permit would be good for three years and would then need to be renewed.
J. Matthews asked if K. Smith had a copy of the deed as they only have a copy of the mortgage note.
K. Smith responded that he thought they had the deed, but that he will get it for them.
J. Matthews explained that he can access his deed online at the Registry of Deeds and then print it out or he can go to the Rockingham County Courthouse and get it.
J. Allen asked if the property was a condominium or was it considered a single family dwelling.
L. Ordway answered that it was a condominium and that he needs the approval of the condominium association and added that they have a copy of that letter.
L. Ordway asked if there were any more questions from the Board and 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.
L. Ordway explained the deliberations process and that, once a matter is closed, there could be no additional input from anyone.
#10-16: A request from Bill Huard and Polly Hogan for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an In-Law apartment. The property is located at 19 Center Circle, Tax Map 40, Lot 39, in the MDR District. The applicants are the property owners of record.
Bill Huard and Polly Hogan,19 Center Circle, were present for the application. B. Huard explained that they would like to build an In-Law apartment in the basement of their home for P. Hogan’s mother to live in.
The Board reviewed the requirements for the granting of an In-Law apartment special exception noting the following:
- There is no change in the existing dwelling and the entrance for the apartment will be in the rear of the house
- The dwelling is a single family home
- The apartment will be about 500 to 600 square feet
- The home is owner-occupied and has been for more than one year
- There will be only one bedroom in the apartment
- One person, P. Hogan’s mother, shall be living in the apartment
L. Ordway noted that they cannot make the In-Law apartment into a condominium or any form of separate ownership.
- They are awaiting results from the NHDES for the septic design approval
L. Ordway added that M. Dorman, Chief Building Inspector, has been to the site during testing and that they are waiting for the results.
- They are using a well for water
J. Matthews noted that they have pictures of the parking and the rear entrance instead of a sketch plan.
- They will be using the existing utility meters
L. Ordway explained what the home owners will need to do in the future, if they have a new renter or the home is sold, under sections J and K of the Article.
L. Ordway asked if there were any more questions from the Board, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or in opposition to the application.
John Alden Palmer, 21 Center Circle, was present to speak in favor of the application.
There was no one present to speak in opposition to the application and the matter was closed.
#10-17: A request from Terri Russell for a variance from Article V, §220-32, to permit a lot line adjustment on a lot that doesn’t have the required minimum 150 feet of frontage on a Town road. The property is located on Nicholas Road; Tax Map 43, Lot 31, in the MDR District. The applicant is the property owner of record.
Tim Peloquin, Promised Land Survey, LLC, was present to represent T. Russell for the application. He explained that T. Russell has owned both lots (Lot 30 and Lot 31) since 1986. He added that in 1987 a lot line adjustment was done to make Lot 30 bigger. T. Peloquin stated that both lots have existed for a long time and that they were subdivided in the 1960’s. He explained that it appeared that the original developer had wanted continue Nicholas Road down to the lot line and the dashed lot line to the back land (he shows this on the site map he has presented to the Board) that wraps around to another newer development that he feels the developer had intended to continue across, he is not sure of the name of the street. T. Peloquin stated that the developer had originally divided off 14 lots and that lot
31 is the 15th lot. He explained that back in 1987 when the lot was deeded it included the dark line he shows on the survey as the cul-de-sac on Nicholas Road and it was called a temporary turn around on the original plan. He said back in 1987 when the lot line adjustment was done that it was given specific mathematical dimensions and the deed reflected these. He honored the 1987 plan and deed when he went before the Planning Board to file a lot line adjustment, but the issue came up as to whether there was enough road frontage or where the frontage was. He added that the Town’s attorney sent T. Russell a letter saying that the frontage of lot 31 is uncertain.
L. Ordway asked T. Peloquin to come forward to the Board to discuss the survey map with them and answer some questions.
T. Peloquin clarified what area he was referring to as the cul-de-sac on the map and added that nothing actually existed out there, that it was never built.
L. Ordway asked what was the existing road frontage is for lot 30.
T. Peloquin replied that it was about 140 and 100 totaling approximately 230 feet.
There was more discussion regarding the frontage on both the original plan and his survey and the cul-de-sac/turn around.
J. Matthews asked if they would disrupt the pavement that was there.
T. Peloquin stated that they just want to go with what the deed says. He added that they would not disrupt the pavement unless the fire department asked them to do so, but said that he does not think the Town wants to do anything but keep it like it is.
L. Ordway asked what the plan for lot 31 is.
T. Peloquin answered that she has legal lot of record anyway and added that they came in for the lot line adjustment to give her more area to the back.
L. Ordway asked how T.Russell will have the frontage if she does not build the turn around.
T. Peloquin responded that the frontage is not based on pavement but on the right of way.
P. Boniface asked what the frontage is if they do not expand the circle.
T. Peloquin answered 90 feet of frontage.
L. Ordway asked if they grant the lot line adjustment, will it be recorded on the deed and was answered yes.
J. Matthews asked if T. Russell owned both parcels of land and was answered yes.
There is more discussion on the lot lines and the frontage.
T. Peloquin stated they are asking for the Boards help in clearing up a title problem.
L. Ordway noted that the storage shed will need to be moved.
T. Peloquin replied yes, and added that they will still have 185.65 feet of frontage.
L. Ordway asked if there were any questions from the Board on this matter and there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or in opposition to the application.
Alexander Brown, 13 Nicholas Road, was present to speak against the application. His concerns are:
- The utilities will need come across over his property
- He said there is only 80 or 90 feet of frontage
- He does not know who owns the property
- He does not want to see this across the street from his house
- Two acres out of the five acres are wet lands
- He would like to see property accessed from Arbor Lane.
L. Ordway explained that most of A. Browns concerns are Planning Board issues and that only the lot line adjustment is before the ZBA. He added that if the cul-de-sac is the same on the new map as the one on the 1985 map then there is the proper amount of land.
Also present against the application was Pamela Valliere, 30 Kingston Road. She explained that the dry land the new home is proposed to be built on is directly in her back yard. Her only concern is the easement that runs through her property and should the house be sold, that someone might want to use the easement to access the property.
T. Peloquin rebutted saying that most of these concerns are Planning Board issues, and that he would like to work together with all involved to come up with conditions of approval that help everybody out including his client. He added that they would like to make the temporary turn around the real turn around and clear up the title.
There was no more discussion on this matter and the case was closed.
The Board adjourned for recess at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened at 7:45 p.m.
DELIBERATIONS
# 10-15: A request from Kevin Smith for a special exception under Article X, all sections, to permit a home occupation, namely an office for a construction company. The property is located at 11 Greenough Road, Unit 14, Tax Map 30, Lot 83-4-14, in the LDR District. The applicant is the property owner of record.
J. Matthews moved, second by P. Boniface, to grant the request for a special exception under Article X to permit a home occupation at 11 Greenough Road, Unit 14, and the case was opened for discussion.
L. Ordway summarized the application noting the following:
- Classic home occupation
- The office will have a desk and a computer
- There will be no clients visiting the home office
- There will be no storage, tools, lumbar or a sign
J. Matthews asked what about the Board not having a copy of the deed.
The Board decided to make it a condition of approval that they receive a copy of the deed.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The Vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
#10-16: A request from Bill Huard and Polly Hogan for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an In-Law apartment. The property is located at 19 Center Circle, Tax Map 40, Lot 39, in the MDR District. The applicants are the property owners of record.
P. Boniface moved, second by J. Allen, to accept the request for a special exception under article VIII to permit and In-Law apartment at 19 Center Circle and the case was opened for discussion.
L. Ordway summarized the application noting the following:
- Classic In-law apartment request
- Meets all the criteria
- Area is under 800 square feet
- No changes made to the exterior of the building
- The entrance is in the rear of the home
- The apartment will use the same utilities meter
- P. Hogan’s mother will reside in the apartment
There was no further discussion on this matter. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
#10-17: A request from Terri Russell for a variance from Article V, §220-32, to permit a lot line adjustment on a lot that doesn’t have the required minimum 150 feet of frontage on a Town road. The property is located on Nicholas Road; Tax Map 43, Lot 31, in the MDR District. The applicant is the property owner of record.
J. Matthews moved, second by L. Ordway, to grant a variance from Article V, §220-32, to permit a lot line adjustment and the case is opened for discussion.
L. Ordway offered the following summary:
- Heard testimony from surveyor T. Peloquin that the existing paved area of the cul-de-sac was not what was on the original plan from 1987, and that the proposed cul-de-sac on the new topographic site map dated August 19, 2010 represents the original plan exactly.
- They are asking for a lot line variance to include the cul-de-sac in the frontage, which would give T. Russell more than the 150 feet of required frontage on lot 31.
L. Ordway mentioned that the new lot line would allow the storage shed to be on lot 30, but noted that it was not before the Board yet.
J. Allen asked if the Board has seen a map from 1985.
J. Matthews stated that she did not think they had.
The Board spent some time looking at and discussing the maps.
L. Ordway explained that the piece of existing land in question is a small fingernail shaped turnaround that was undeveloped by the Town, not as big as the cul-de-sac on the original or proposed maps. He added that they cannot subdivide the lot unless they have the cul-de-sac. He questioned that they have no map dated 1985, but stated that they do have testimony to it.
The Board discussed and looked for the map with the 1985 date.
L. Ordway noted the lot line adjustment dated 1987.
J. Matthews reads that the subdivision was approved in 1965 for 14 lots with a pork chop lot remaining and the plan reflects a temporary turn around. She added that the Town has been maintaining it all these years.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance, noting the following:
- The Variance is not contrary to the public interest
L. Ordway stated that it is in a residential neighborhood and the plan is for a residential unit, therefore it is not contrary to the public’s interest.
- The spirit of the ordinance is observed
L. Ordway said yes, it will be a residential lot.
- Substantial justice is done
L. Ordway stated that the issues are with the abutters they heard from tonight, the utility poles spoiling A. Browns view and the right of way running through P. Valliere’s property.
J. Allen noted that the right of way was on her deed when she bought the home.
L. Ordway feels if the Board grants the new lot line that it will be accessed by Nicholas Road, therefore not causing harm to the general public.
- The Values of surrounding properties are not diminished
L. Ordway stated that the development of this lot with a residential house would solidify the neighborhood and increase property values.
- Literal enforcement of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship
J. Matthews noted that the hardship must be in the land, not financial.
L. Ordway stated that this means if they do not grant this lot line change then they are depriving the owner of the use of her property. He added that the 1960’s map had a much larger turnaround, matching the proposed plan, than what exists out there and that there is plenty of road frontage if they include the turnaround.
J. Matthews asked if he meant that the lot was made substandard by not being finished, that the Town created the hardship, and she was answered yes.
L. Ordway clarified that the hardship is in the land.
J. Allen asked if they could get a dated 1985 map.
L. Ordway said he thinks they have the map in the 2010 one and he added that they have had enough information presented to them.
J. Allen mentioned that the larger cul-de-sac can be safer for the neighborhood, allowing two fire trucks into it.
J. Matthews noted that the developer did not finish it, and now the owner is stuck with an unbuildable lot, that was originally intended as a house lot. All agreed.
There was no more discussion on this matter. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
There was no further business before the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Laurie Pagnottaro
Recording Secretary
| 
