ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
January 06, 2011
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Robert Loeffler; Paul Boniface; Joyce Ingerson, Alternate; James Allen, Alternate; and Kim Crapo, Alternate. Julie Matthews, Vice Chairman and Roderic Cole were excused.
J. Ingerson and J. Allen were appointed as alternates for this meeting.
Minutes of December 2, 2010
L. Ordway moved, second by J. Ingerson, to approve the minutes of the December 2, 2010, meeting. There was no discussion and the vote was 2-0-3 (Loeffler, Boniface and Allen abstaining) and the motion was defeated.
#10-24: A request from James R. Berube, Basement Systems of New Hampshire, Inc. for a variance from Article IX, §220-58.1.A for a 26 sq. ft. sign, which is larger than the 3 sq. ft. maximum allowed. The property is located at 238 Main St, Tax Map 18, Lot 11, in the MDR District. The owner of record is JB Squared, LLC (James and Julie Berube).
James Berube and Kimberly Volpicelli, Basement Systems of New Hampshire, Inc. were present for the application.
J. Berube offered that he was operating two companies from this address and he would like to have a 26 sq. ft. sign that would indicate both businesses.
L. Ordway asked if this was the same lot as the limo service.
J. Berube replied that the lot he occupies was subdivided off that lot a number of years ago and his building is set some 300 feet back from the road. He added that the sign he was seeking was in keeping with a number of other commercial signs in the same area. Mr. Berube specifically noted the signs at Kidder Wrecking and Chaya Brothers Auto Salvage. He noted that he had been operating these businesses at this location for nine (9) years without a sign. Mr. Berube noted the down turn in the economy was making him seek the recognition that a sign would bring.
L. Ordway asked where the sign would be placed.
J. Berube, using the pictures he had provided with his application, noted a location for the sign on the top of a knoll in front of the property.
There was additional discussion noting other commercial signs in the area.
L. Ordway asked how far Mr. Berube’s business was from Route 125.
J. Berube replied that the distance is 7/10 of a mile.
K. Crapo asked if the area was considered residential.
L. Ordway confirmed that it was.
It was noted that this area was formerly zoned as commercial and some time back was rezoned to Medium Density Residential (MDR).
K. Volpicelli reminded that this business was located within a cluster of other pre-existing businesses.
L. Ordway asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or opposition to the application. There was no one and the matter was closed.
L. Ordway explained the procedure for how the meeting would proceed; noting that the Board would hear all applications and then enter into a deliberative session to decide all matters. He noted at that time there would be no additional input or testimony. He explained that should the application be granted there can be no permit for thirty (30) days under the required appeal period.
RE-HEARING – PER THE PETITON OF THE PLANNING BOARD GRANTED DEC 2, 2010.
#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.
Terri Russell, property owner, was present for the re-hearing.
L. Ordway noted that the intent of the Board’s vote at the original hearing was to grant the applicant the proper relief, which was a variance for a lot without adequate frontage on a Town road, but the wording of the motion did not match that intent. He noted that it was not within the Board’s authority to grant a lot line adjustment. L. Ordway suggested that the Board take a vote at this time that would correct that original vote and grant the proper relief.
L. Ordway moved, second by J. Allen, to grant a variance for a lot without the 150 foot minimum frontage on a Town road, superseding their original decision granting a lot line adjustment. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-2 (Loeffler and Ingerson abstaining).
DELIBERATIONS:
#10-24: A request from James R. Berube, Basement Systems of New Hampshire, Inc. for a variance from Article IX, §220-58.1.A for a 26 sq. ft. sign, which is larger than the 3 sq. ft. maximum allowed. The property is located at 238 Main St, Tax Map 18, Lot 11, in the MDR District. The owner of record is JB Squared, LLC (James and Julie Berube).
P Boniface moved, second by R. Loeffler, to grant that application for a variance from Article IX and allow a 26 sq. ft. sign at 238 Main Street.
L. Ordway summarized the testimony presented, noting the following:
- The area was once commercial and is now zoned residential
- There are other commercial businesses in the area with larger signs than the one requested in this application
- The building where the business is located is set 300 feet back from the road so an attached sign would be of no value
- The business has been operating for nine (9) years without a sign
- The applicant is hopeful that a sign will help increase recognition of his business, which has struggled in a down economy
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:
- The application is not contrary to the public’s interest against “Las Vegas” type signage as it is a reasonable size and there are already other signs in the area
- The spirit and intent of the ordinance is to limit the size of business signs in the residential districts. This sign is not contrary to that intent as there are other larger signs already located in the area
- There would be substantial justice in allowing the applicant to have the same benefits that a signage offers to other area businesses
- The existing commercial businesses in the areas already have signage and will not suffer any diminishment of their property values with the addition of this sign
- Route 121A offers special circumstances for consideration as the speeds traveled on this road would make the allowable three (3) square foot sign ineffective
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A. and the motion was granted.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING FILED BY THE PLAISTOW PLANNING BOARD
#10-18: A request from Ronald Brown Investments/Sweet Hill Investments, LLC for an appeal of the administrative decision not to hear an application for workforce housing, made by the Plaistow Planning on October 8, 2010. The referenced properties are located at 62/64 Sweet Hill Road, Tax Map 62, Lots 40 and 41-1 through 41-15, in the MDR & LDR Districts. The applicant is the property owner of record.
A letter from the Plaistow Planning Board, requesting a re-hearing in this matter, was read in its entirety. The Planning Board suggested that the relief request outlined in the application paperwork was different that what was presented at the public hearing and what the Board decided. The Planning Board offered that they appeared at the meeting with a presentation on whether or not the Town had adequate workforce housing, which is what they felt was the request stated in the application.
L. Ordway offered that the Planning Board did make a well-prepared presentation of their study on the Town’s workforce housing; but he felt that the applicant made it clear that their issue was one of due process and the inability to file an application with the Planning Board. He recalled key words such as “constitutional right to be heard” and he voted on that issue, not the adequacy of the Town’s workforce housing. L. Ordway added that he felt Mr. Brown had the right to have his application heard in a public forum and that’s why he voted as he did.
J. Ingerson said that she could see where there might have been some confusion of the issue in the wording of the application. She added that her vote was not based on the Planning Board’s presentation and had nothing to do with the issue of workforce housing, just whether or not Mr. Brown was being denied his constitutional rights. J. Ingerson said it was clear from Mr. Brown’s attorney’s presentation that was the issue that they were seeking relief for was the issue of due process.
L. Ordway added that Attorney MacMillan was quite clear in his presentation that their appeal was based upon denial of Mr. Brown’s constitutional rights. He reiterated that his vote was based upon that issue and was not a vote on workforce housing.
J. Ingerson offered that the application could have been more concise.
L. Ordway moved, second by P. Boniface, to grant the Planning Board’s request for a re-hearing in the matter of Ron Brown’s request to have his application to be heard by the Planning Board.
There was no additional discussion on the matter. The vote was 0-1-4 (Loeffler, Boniface, Ingerson and Allen abstaining). The motion is defeated and the matter will not be re-heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
OTHER BUSINESS:
It was noted for the Board that there has been a filing in Superior Court in the matter of Donald Connolly (setback variance).
There was no further business before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 7:29 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Administrative Assistant
| 
