ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 5, 2007
DRAFT COPY___
AGENDA: CONT. COMPLIANCE: SONDRA J. KEENE, 94 Mandi Lane, #205-011
VARIANCE: FRANK G. & SHIRLEY S. BEDNAZ, 401 Wulamat Rd., #103-014
VARIANCE: CHARLES & LINDA VASSIL, 974 West Shore Rd., #101-020
ATTENDING: Dan Bouchard (Chairman), Mike Willingham (Vice Chairman), Lloyd Belbin, Donna Hardy, Sandra Heaney
Alternate: Lorraine Oranatto-Sullivan
ABSENT: Alternate: Susan Colby
OTHER: Lori Ingham (reporter), public
The meeting opened at 7:13 p.m. as the ZBA was held up in setting up due to a Police meeting being held.
MINUTES OF 5/1/07: M. Willingham made a motion, second by S. Heaney, to accept the minutes as read. The motion carried.
VARIANCE: CHARLES & LINDA VASSIL
Mr. Bouchard called the Vassil’s to the front so as to inform them that an abutters’ notice was returned for wrong address to late to be renotified in time for this meeting. He explained that they shall need to get the correct address and we can notify them for the July 3rd meeting instead. Mr. Bouchard also mentioned that their building is in the State right-of-way and they will need State approval, as well.
S. Heaney made a MOTION, second by D. Hardy, to CONTINUE THE VARIANCE FOR CHARLES & LINDA VASSIL TO JULY 3, 2007 BASED ON NOTIFICATION OF ABUTTER. The motion CARRIED.
CONTINUED COMPLIANCE: SONDRA J. KEENE
No-one was in attendance. The Board determined that they would continue this case once more and asked the secretary to notify the applicant.
D. Hardy made a MOTION, second by S. Heaney, to CONTINUE THE COMPLIANCE HEARING FOR SONDRA J. KEENE TO JULY 3, 2007. The motion CARRIED.
-2-
ZBA Minutes
6/5/07
VARIANCE: FRANK & SHIRLEY BEDNAZ
Mr. Bouchard explained the procedure for hearings. The secretary read the application, referral, abutters notified and where the hearing was advertised. There were no phone calls received and there were three answers from Department Heads: Water/Sewer, Highway, and Police.
Ms. Bednaz stated that they are taking down the cottage that was on the property and have an architect designing a new home for them to live in. The new house is shown as far back as they can move it due to trees and the hill. The deck that they want is not as close to the Lake as the present deck but it is in the setback of Shoreland Protection. It will be further away from the Lake than the neighbors.
M. Willingham made a MOTION, second by S. Heaney, to ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AS COMPLETE. The motion CARRIED.
Ms. Bednaz continued by saying that the existing deck has been in existence for 32 years and the new one will be further back than any of the others around her. Mr. Willingham asked if she means that the deck is further back and she answered yes. Mr. Bouchard questioned if the new house is larger and was told that it is. Mr. & Mrs. Bednaz wish to live their with conveniences for elderly and also so that they can have their grandchildren visit. She stated that it will improve the value of the property and is 12’ further back. Denial of the Variance would cause hardship as there is to be a new septic system and they would have to remove trees. Substantial justice would be done due to the same criteria. As to the spirit of the Ordinance, it improves property values as it was just a camp. They need a larger place to live in.
Mr. Willingham asked if they have applied for any permits and Ms. Bednaz stated that they hired an architect and want to get the septic plan first. They are trying to get everything together. Ms. Heaney asked if they are buying a pre-fabricated house. Ms. Bednaz stated that they are not and the design has been done considering the steep slope and the trees. There has always been a deck on the present cottage. The architect cannot go back any further. Ms. Hardy asked where the septic is located. Ms. Bednaz did not know and everyone tried to figure out from the plan. It was felt that it is nearer the Lake and Ms. Heaney stated that it would need a Variance for the septic if this is so. Mr. Belbin asked if it is to have a full foundation and was told that it is. He asked what the letter G on the plan stood for and Ms. Bednaz did not know. Mr. Belbin asked why they aren’t trying another position for the new building and deck so as to conform and again Ms. Bednaz stated that it is due to the slope and trees. Ms. Hardy asked how many trees are there and Ms. Bednaz stated that there are a lot of them. She added that they would also need retaining walls.
At this time, Mr. Bouchard asked for public comments, for and against. There were none.
Ms. Bednaz stated that the architect jockeyed the house plan in many ways. The best way is to tear down the old and build new. They want a good septic system. All the houses on each side are closer to the Lake than this plan.
-3-
ZBA Minutes
6/5/07
BEDNAZ VARIANCE continued:
With no other comments forthcoming, Mr. Bouchard closed the public session.
Ms. Heaney felt that this case is not consistent with the spirit of the ordinance due to the required 50’ setback and that this is new construction. There is no hardship as they just want the house to be this size.
Mr. Willingham feels that hardship has been proven. He is familiar with the slope in that area. They are to improve the septic system and the only item before the Board is the deck.
Mr. Belbin feels that there is no hardship. They propose a 35’ x 40’ building which they could scale back and fit without the need of a variance. They want too big a house for the size of the lot. The ordinance is such so that it keeps buildings back from the Lake.
Mr. Willingham stated that it is not up to the Board to determine the size of the house. Mr. Bouchard agreed if the house was already there but this is a proposal for a new building. Mr. Willingham mentioned using the same footprint and it would be okay and Ms. Heaney agreed as it is then considered grandfathered. Mr. Belbin stated that his son built in Maine and had the same problem. They tore down what was there and had to conform to the present setbacks that are in place. Ms. Hardy stated that the architect can design a plan to accommodate the lot.
L. Belbin made a MOTION, second by S. Heaney, to DENY THE VARIANCE FOR FRANK AND SHIRLEY BEDNAZ AS IT WILL NOT DENY REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT THE LAKE FROM THIS TYPE OF ENCROACHMENT.
The motion CARRIED: 4 for and 1 opposed.
Ms. Bednaz said that this means they could stay in the same footprint and infringe on the Lake more. Mr. Bouchard agreed that this is the way the ordinance is stated and said that the applicant does have 30 days to appeal. He then signed the denial sheet and will e-mail the wording for the reasons to the secretary on Friday.
CONTINUED COMPLIANCE DISCUSSION: SONDRA J. KEENE
Ms. Keene had arrived and explained that she has been unable to get a signature from the abutter but has a proposal that she would file with the deed. The Board informed her that they had already continued her case until July 3rd and that, if she asks them to open this again, they would have to deny her case as they need an agreement signed by the abutter. Ms. Keene stated that she would go along with a continuance.
Ms. Keene then continued by saying that the Planning Board is waiting on this approval in order to finish the Site Plan review. The abutter will not sign anything so she has this covenant that she will attach to her deed and she wants the ZBA to approve her Special Exception based on this. It has not been recorded yet because the abutter wants some changes made. She then asked what is suitable for the ZBA. Again, the Board explained that she needs a signed agreement with the abutter. Ms. Keene stated that the abutter will not cooperate and she distributed copies of what she has.
-4-
ZBA Minutes
6/5/07
KEENE COMPLIANCE HEARING DISCUSSION:
Again, Mr. Bouchard explained that by trying to get the Board to accept this agreement without signatures could cause a denial and her only recourse would be a rehearing. Mr. Willingham asked if she has exhausted all possible negotiation with the abutter. Mr. Belbin stated that he would like to see her deed and how it refers to the right-of-way. Ms. Keene stated that it says nothing on her deed. She then asked for a continuance and the Board explained that she already has this.
Ms. Keene stated that she owns 3 lots there and the Bed and Breakfast is only on one of them. Mr. Bouchard said that she should try to get a suitable signed agreement between she and the abutter. If she cannot get the abutter to sign, he would advise her to get her attorney involved. Ms. Keene again asked what she needs. Mr. Bouchard stated that we have told her several times and we need to continue with the meeting. This case is continued to July 3, 2007. Ms. Keene then asked for a copy of these minutes. Ms. Laferriere explained that she has one week to get them done and, as soon as they are ready, she will call Ms. Keene. Ms. Keene can then get a copy made and there is a fee.
COMMUNICATIONS:
The LGC listing of Local Officials Workshops will be in the office. The LGC “Knowing the Territory” and “How to Regulate Junk & Junkyards were thought to be of use to Matt Nebesnik, Land Use Officer. The NBI Land Use Law seminar will be in the office as well as the May 2007 Town & City magazine. The LGC annual conference announcement will be posted in the office. Ms. Hardy took the NHLGC Junkyard Licensing Enforcement notice to read.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
ZONING BOARD APPLICATION FORM (As suggested by Matt Nebesnik):
The following suggestions were made:
1. To add the web address to the first paragraph.
2. Under Variance, property values is not a criteria. The criteria should be the State’s criteria.
3. Special Exception, 2nd page, needs the criteria.
4. There is duplication for any appeal and should be all in one.
5. Also, for any appeal (page 2), the applicant must be present, should be added.
6. On page 3, a paragraph should be added as to the hearing process.
7. The fee for abutters notices should be $7.00.
8. As to the information pages (5-14), this information should be brought to the
Hearing and not be a part of the application.
9. The “For Town Use Only” square should be placed on the first page of the application.
It was determined that Mr. Bouchard will meet with Mr. Nebesnik with these suggestions on Friday.
-5-
ZBA Minutes
6/5/07
ZBA BYLAWS:
The following changes are to be made to the ZBA bylaws:
1. “Members” - change the number of alternates to 5 so as to conform to the State laws.
2. “Officers” – The reference should be RSA 673:8 & 9 and the wording in 1. & 2. should change from “in the month of March” to “at the first meeting following town meeting.
3. “Alternates” – change from “three (3)” to “five (5)” and delete #3 entirely.
4. “Removal of Members” – in the second line, change “schedules” to “scheduled”.
5. “Meetings” – 1. change from “Wednesday” to “Tuesday”. 4. Move “E. Public Hearing” to right after “Approving Minutes of Previous Meeting” and correct the rest of the lettering.
6. “Public Hearing” – M. first line, after “present” add “, when appropriate,”.
7. “Notice of Public Hearing” – 2. change “permit coordinator” to “land use officer”.
8. “Applications” – C. add “a thirty dollar ($30.00) advertisement fee, and seven dollars ($7.00) abutter notice fee per abutter including applicant.”
9. “Decisions” – change “permit coordinator” to “land use officer”.
10. “Conditional Compliance” – 1. change from “Forty Five (45)” to “Ninety (90)” days.
11. “Rehearing” – change “twenty (20” to “thirty (30)” to comply with the State.
12. “Appendix A, page 1 & 2” – These forms should be combined into one form for both a “granted” or a “denied” single page.
A discussion was held in regard to Joint Hearings. Mr. Bouchard pointed out that these are Joint Hearings, not Joint Meetings. Mr. Willingham feels that they must be well defined. Mr. Bouchard noted that the applicant must be the one to request a joint hearing. He does not agree with joint hearings with the Planning Boards as the two boards should work autonomously. If a joint hearing is called with the Planning Board, as allowed by the State, the Planning Board Chair must run the hearing but the two Boards would have to deliberate separately. Mr. Bouchard checked and learned that Ashland doesn’t have lots of joint hearings either.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. Bouchard asked that the alternates join the Board once the hearings are done and we go into discussions.
Ms. Oranatto-Sullivan asked if, in the case of Sondra Keene, if the requirement is that just on the agreement and she was told that it is. A discussion followed as to what recourse to follow if the abutter will not sign. It was determined that there must be a written agreement in order to finally approve the Special Exception.
-6-
ZBA Minutes
6/5/07
NEW BUSINESS continued:
Mr. Bouchard asked the Board to notify him (the Chairman) if any of them think that he is allowing too much discussion to go on. This would be a help to him, he feels.
A discussion followed, using tonight’s case as a guideline but for future consideration, in which Mr. Willingham expressed that the case would be improving the conditions on the Lake. The members agreed that it would but that the ZBA is a judicial board and must determine based on the criteria set forth at the time. As long as there is a Zoning Ordinance, the Board must follow it or else we might as well not have one.
With no other business, M. Willingham made a motion, second by S. Heaney, to adjourn at 9:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Laferriere, secretary