ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
January 07, 2010
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Julie Matthews, Vice-Chairman: Robert Loeffler, Peter Bealo; Roderic Cole; and Daniel Lloyd, Alternate (arrived 7:31 p.m.).
Minutes of December 3, 2009
L. Ordway moved, second by R. Loeffler, that approval of the minutes of the December 3, 2009, meeting be postponed to the next meeting to allow the members more time to review them. There was no discussion and the vote was 5-0-0.
#09-29: A request from BTR Build & Remodel, Inc. for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an in-law apartment. The property is located at 69 Kingston Road, Tax Map 44, Lot 49, in the LDR District. The property owners of record are Timothy & Jan Adkins.
Robert Bowen, BTR Build and Remodel, Inc. was present for the application.
R. Bowen explained that the mother of the property owner is disabled and currently living in Maine and the family would like to move her to their home. He added that the basement was remodeled in the 1980’s and they would like to convert it to an in-law apartment.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of an in-law apartment special exception with the applicant. The following was noted:
- The structure is a single-family dwelling
- No new entrance is being added and the current entry door is to the side
- The in-law apartment was presented at 740 sq. ft. but the applicant noted there may be some unexpected field changes needed and in no case would the in-law apartment exceed 750 sq. ft.
- The single-family dwelling is owner occupied
- There will be only one bedroom
- There will only be on person living in the apartment
- The apartment cannot be converted to condominium or any type of separate ownership
- The septic plan has been updated for the in-law apartment and approved by New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
- The well is adequate
- A sketch of the lot was submitted, using the septic plan
- All utilities for the in-law apartment will be on the same meters as the primary dwelling
- If the primary dwelling is sold the special exception is not transferable and ceases to exist
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or in opposition to the application for an in-law apartment at 69 Kingston Road. There was no one and the matter was closed.
L. Ordway explained the procedure for the public hearing and how they are deliberated.
#09-30: A request from Pro Bark, Inc. for a variance from Article IX, Table 220-58.1 to permit a 9.4 sq ft sign where a 3 sq ft size is the maximum allowed. The property is located at 51 Kingston Rd, Tax Map 43, Lot 19, in the LDR District. The property owner of record is JPPN Properties, LLC.
Jeff Brown, Peter Brown and Valerie Sutton, Pro-Bark, Inc. where present for the application.
J. Brown explained that they would like to put a 9.4 sq. ft. sign at the entrance to their property so that trucks coming to their site would be able to find them before passing by them. He said that they felt a three (3) sq. ft. sign would be inadequate. Mr. Brown explained that they were currently giving driver’s landmarks to aid them in finding their driveway.
L. Ordway asked if there was currently a sign for the business.
J. Brown said there was only their name on the mailbox.
L. Ordway questioned how far the business was located off the road.
J. Brown answered the business was located approximately 400 feet from the road.
L. Ordway inquired why they needed a larger than three (3) square foot sign in the residential district.
J. Brown explained that trucks were not seeing their driveway until it was too late for them to turn so they then had to find a place to turn around and come back. He added he felt it would be better for traffic flow in the area if the trucks could find their driveway easier.
L. Ordway asked why they haven’t tried a three (3) sq. ft. sign to see if it would work.
J. Brown replied that he didn’t think it would be large enough to identify the location of the business.
There was a brief discussion of the dimensions of the proposed sign, which was depicted on posts and included a manual reader board at the bottom.
J. Brown noted that he would like the overall height of the sign to be six (6) feet but that he could live with five (5) feet.
R. Loeffler asked how long Pro Bark had been in business.
P. Brown replied eleven (11) years.
R. Loeffler questioned why they had not seen the need for a sign up to this point.
P. Brown offered they had only been in Plaistow for six (6) years.
R. Loeffler noted they could have had a three (3) square foot sign all this time and then they would know if it was effective for them or not.
V. Sutton explained that she was the one who had been working with the sign company and they told her that a three (3) sq. ft. sign would not be readable for oncoming traffic. She added that their originally suggested design was larger and she told them it needed to be cut in half.
R. Loeffler replied that he could see where a larger sign would get more notice, but he felt that large signs were less relevant in these times of GPS (Global Positioning Systems).
V. Sutton offered that most of their traffic is tractor trailers and are not equipped with GPS.
R. Loeffler expressed doubt that the lack of a sign is suddenly an issue after six (6) years.
J. Brown noted there are obstructions on the side of the road from both directions when approaching their site. He suggested that truck traffic would already be past their driveway before spotting a smaller sign.
L. Ordway asked what the purpose of the reader board.
J. Brown answered that it would be to advertize their seasonal products.
L. Ordway offered that it would be difficult granting a variance for a larger sign that included a reader board when the stated purpose for the larger sign is to identify the location of the business.
J. Brown replied if they couldn’t have the reader board, they couldn’t. He said that there business was mostly wholesale but they would like to market to some street traffic as well.
L. Ordway reminded that they were still in a residential area and they were asking for a sign that was three (3), noting that if the reader board was deleted the sign would only be two (2) times larger than what is allowed.
Pro Bark was asked if they would like to amend their application, deleting the reader board. The representative of Pro Bark asked what appeal processes were available for them should they not amend the application and proceed. They were explained the process for requesting a re-hearing of this matter as well as how to make an application for a new variance. They chose to continue with the application as it was originally submitted.
P. Brown offered that someone seeing the name “Pro Bark” on a sign might not know what products and services were offered by the business and that was why they were requesting the reader board as well.
L. Ordway asked if the Board has any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of Pro Bark’s variance application. There was no one. L. Ordway asked if there was anyone speaking in opposition.
Dominic Sola, 46 Kingston Road, offered that the design of the sign was very nice but his concern was for the size of the sign and the welfare of his family. He noted that traffic in the area exceeds the posted speed limits and he felt that a larger sign would be distracting to drivers. He expressed concern that a larger sign would decrease his property values.
D. Lloyd arrived at 7:31 p.m.
Paul Holmes, 55 Kingston Road, noted that he has lived in town for more than 55 years and his fear was that if Pro Bark’s variance request was granted there would be nothing to prevent Atlas Motors from requesting a large sign as well. He added that it would no longer look like a residential area, but a business zone, with a larger sign. Mr. Holmes stated that he felt three (3) sq. ft. would be adequate.
Denise Huber, 48 Kingston Road, offered that she has lived across from this property for 23 years and she didn’t recall any other business at this location having a sign. She added that they chose to locate their business there and should have known the restrictions on signage before moving in. Ms. Huber expressed concern that the reader board would encourage more retail traffic to the business and mean more traffic for the neighborhood.
Paul Huber, 48 Kingston Road, said that he understood the need to advertize a business, noting that he had a small home business and was not allowed to have a sign.
It was explained that legitimate home occupations could make an application for a three (3) sq. ft. sign with a permit.
A letter from Thomas Cullen, 63 Kingston Road, was read into the record. Mr. Cullen’s letter expressed the same concerns voiced by those in attendance.
P. Brown noted that he didn’t think Atlas Motors could get a sign in Plaistow as their business was located in Newton and they only had an easement over their (Pro Bark’s) property for access to Kingston Road.
L. Ordway asked if there were any further questions, there were none and the matter was closed.
The chairman called for a break at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:46 p.m.
DELIBERATIONS:
#09-29: A request from BTR Build & Remodel, Inc. for a special exception under Article VIII, all sections, to permit an in-law apartment. The property is located at 69 Kingston Road, Tax Map 44, Lot 49, in the LDR District. The property owners of record are Timothy & Jan Adkins.
R. Loeffler moved, second by P. Bealo to grant the request for a special exception to permit an in-law apartment at 69 Kingston Road.
L. Ordway recapped the application noting the following:
- The in-law apartment would be less than 800 sq. ft
- Only one (1) person would be living in the apartment
- All utilities were on the primary dwelling meters
- No new accesses were proposed
- The resident is a relative of the property owner
L. Ordway noted that application to be a classic in-law apartment.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
#09-30: A request from Pro Bark, Inc. for a variance from Article IX, Table 220-58.1 to permit a 9.4 sq ft sign where a 3 sq ft size is the maximum allowed. The property is located at 51 Kingston Rd, Tax Map 43, Lot 19, in the LDR District. The property owner of record is JPPN Properties, LLC.
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Cole, to grant the request for a variance to allow a 9;4 sq. ft. sign at 51 Kingston Road.
L. Ordway recapped what was presented for the application noting the following:
- 9.4 sq. ft. is being requested to aid truckers in finding the business location
- Traffic routinely travels at speeds greater than posted and trucks are often past the site before they see it and have to turn around and go back
- Neighbors are worried about the proliferation of business signs in their neighborhood
- Atlas Motors does not have frontage on Kingston Road and therefore could not be granted a sign without a variance
- Abutters are concerned about decreasing property values
- Applicant was not willing to delete the reader board and downsize their request as they wanted the reader board to advertise their seasonal products for retail sales
The Board discussed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:
- One abutter did express concern that their would be a decrease in their property values
- The public’s interest is that this areas be maintained as a residential area and the surrounding property owners do not want a larger sign
R. Loeffler suggested that the reader board no longer made the sign directional in nature but was for retail advertizing.
P. Bealo offered that he felt it would be in the public’s interest that truck drivers, their trucks loaded with wood, be able to find this business and not have to turn around and come back. He added that while an abutter did express concern over his property value there was no evidence presented proving there would be a loss.
J. Matthews, noting her background in real estate, offered that it would not affect property values as the business and the sign would already be existing and would have to be disclosed to potential buyers.
L. Ordway reminded that there had been changes for the hardship criteria and the courts were now leaning again towards there having to be a hardship in the land for a variance to be granted. He offered that this section of Kingston Road was curved and heavily treed; adding that any truckers that traveled without GPS in this day and age were stupid.
J. Matthews offered that GPS wasn’t 100% accurate adding that she’s been told that she’s at her destination while still being four (4) houses away.
L. Ordway noted that it was still close and would put a driver on guard to be looking for the address.
R. Loeffler said that he didn’t see the correlation between the stated hardship and the size of the sign, since a three (3) sq. ft. sign was an option and they had yet to explore it.
J. Matthews agreed it was an option but noted that hill and the trees would probably make a three (3) sq. ft. sign ineffective.
R. Loeffler suggested that home occupation would be in to request larger signs.
R. Cole offered there was a concern over the precedent that would be set allowing a larger sign in the residential districts.
- The general public would lose the residential nature of the neighborhood with the larger sign
- There may be a loss to the general public if trucks are not able to locate the business and they had to turn around and come through the area a second time
L. Ordway suggested that they needed a sign but he wasn’t convinced that a larger sign was necessary as they had not yet tried a compliant, three (3) sq. ft. sign. He said that he would feel differently if they had tried a three (3) sq. ft. sign over the past five (5) years and could show that it had been ineffective.
- The application is definitely contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance which is to restrict the size of business signs that are allowed in residential districts.
L. Ordway reiterated that it sticks in his mind that they had not yet tried a three (3) sq. ft. sign.
The Board discussion this sign in comparison to an application made by the owners of property on Crane Crossing Road (former the Cox Farm). It was noted in that case that sign was for a residential property and the application was denied.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 2-3-0 (Ordway, Loeffler and Cole dissenting) and the request for a variance was denied.
There was no further business before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
