ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 7, 2007
9/4/07 jrl________
AGENDA: CONT. COMPLIANCE: SONDRA J. KEENE, 94 Mandi Lane,
#205-011
VARIANCE: RHONDA DOWNING, 4240 River Road, #209-004
ATTENDING: Dan Bouchard (Chairman), Mike Willingham (Vice Chairman), Lloyd Belbin, Donna Hardy, Sandra Heaney
Alternates: Susan Colby, Lorraine Oranatto-Sullivan
ABSENT: ----
OTHER: ----
The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF 7/3/07:
Mr. Willingham questioned page 2, 5th paragraph, last sentence, in which he stated that Mr. Bednaz did agree but Mr. Willingham did not understand the waterline section. As no-one could come up with a clarification, it was determined to leave this as is. On page 3, 4th paragraph, 3rd line, delete “not”.
S. Heaney made a motion, second by L. Belbin, to accept the minutes as amended. The motion carried.
CONTINUED COMPLIANCE: SONDRA J. KEENE
Ms. Heaney stepped down and Ms. Oranatto-Sullivan replaced her.
Mr. Bouchard read the fax received from Norma Barney in which she apologized for not attending and stated that she has contacted legal counsel regarding the changes to the deed.
Mr. Bouchard then asked if Ms. Keene had a copy of the agreement with her. Ms. Keene stated that the Board already had a copy and Mr. Bouchard admonished her for her attitude and asked for a simple answer. Ms. Keene stated that she did not. At this point, Ms. Keene’s Attorney, Tom Cooper, represented her along with Les Mills, Granite State Surveying. Attorney Cooper explained that the reason that they do not have a signed agreement is because, despite their best effort, they have received no response from Ms. Barney. Now Ms. Barney is saying that she has changes (as read from the fax).
-2-
ZBA Minutes
8-7-07
COMPLIANCE FOR SONDRA KEENE continued:
Mr. Mills stated that, in approximately January 2007, they applied for this Special Exception. He was not involved until then. Mr. Mills then read the conditions placed on this case. He stated that, from day one, Ms. Barney said that she was not going to sign an agreement or get a lawyer. On March 28th, they went to the Planning Board. Mr. Mills spoke with Ms. Barney and asked her concerns which were for signage, the access and the brook. Ms. Barney was at the Planning Board meeting and did not object to anything at that time. She did say that she wanted to speak with her attorney about the agreement as she had just received a copy that evening.
Since this time, Ms. Barney keeps telling them that she has sent the agreement to her attorney and to Mr. Mills, with the changes she would like, but nothing has ever been received. As Ms. Barney does not seem to want to cooperate, this restricted covenant (agreement) would be in the best interest of the town as it will be recorded and can be enforced. Mr. Mills continued to say that the right-of-way was in existence before Ms. Barney purchased her property.
The covenant was presented and was checked against the previous copy that the Board had received. It was found to be one and the same and the attorney assured the Board that it will be recorded. There will basically be no signs except at the cul-de-sac, which they feel is not in Ms. Barney’s best interest but is what she has asked for. All maintenance and insurance will be born by Ms. Keene, as stated in the covenant. Under the circumstances, Attorney Cooper asked the Board to consider what they have presented as in compliance.
Mr. Bouchard asked if there was anyone present to represent Ms. Barney. Receiving no answer, he closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Bouchard explained that he has given Ms. Barney two chances to come in (he wrote 2 letters to her). Mr. Willingham stated that, in all fairness, Ms. Keene has come in but Ms. Barney has not. The agreement has considered the signage and Ms. Barney’s concerns. Ms. Hardy agreed.
Mr. Belbin asked if Ms. Barney got a copy of the agreement and Mr. Mills answered that she got a copy in March. Mr. Bouchard stated that this case has gone on way too long.
At this time, Mr. Bouchard held a VOTE to GIVE MS. KEENE COMPLIANCE APPROVAL. The Board APPROVED unanimously and the Notice of Decision was signed.
-3-
ZBA Minutes
8/7/07
VARIANCE: RHONDA DOWNING
Ms. Laferriere read the application, list of abutters notified, stated where the hearing was advertised and that there were no telephone calls nor written responses received.
Ms. Downing stated that they would like to have a two-family dwelling but is short 12,000 sq. ft. They have received an updated septic approval (#CH2007089142) and Ms. Downing presented the plan. She then stated that their well is on an adjoining property with deeded rights (the deed was shown to Mr. Bouchard). A discussion followed as to where the new section would be located. Ms. Downing stated that it is to be used for her daughter and son-in-law and will be attached to the existing structure, connected by a garage.
M. Willingham made a MOTION, second by L. Belbin, to ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AS COMPLETE. The motion CARRIED.
The five requirements for a Variance were then addressed:
1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest: Ms. Downing stated that it would not devaluate the property. There will be no real change except for an addition.
2. Use variance: The zoning restriction as applied interferes with a landowner’s reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment; no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property; the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. Ms. Downing did not feel that it is contrary to the ordinance and will increase taxes.
3. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Wayne Roswell, septic designer in this case, asked to speak and was told that he could speak to Ms. Downing. Ms. Downing then relayed that this is a grandfathered lot of 40,000 sq. ft. with a well on the adjoining property, which give more space. If this was on town water, they would not need a variance at all.
4. Substantial justice is done. Ms. Downing stated that this will make an improvement of the existing building.
5. The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished. Ms. Downing stated that it meets all the other requirements.
Mr. Bouchard then asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition. None came forth. He then asked for anyone in favor and again had no response. The public portion of the hearing was then closed.
Ms. Heaney stated that the septic plan is an improvement and asked if the approval is just for the new design or will they also put it in. Ms. Downing stated that it will go in.
-4-
ZBA Minutes
8-7-07
VARIANCE: DOWNING continued:
Mr. Bouchard asked how many bedrooms are planned as the septic is for 4 and their plan shows 3. Mr. Roswell stated that the septic plan is for 4 but they do not have to put in that many. Ms. Downing stated that 3 bedrooms are planned.
Mr. Belbin cautioned the Board that, once they get this approval, they do not have to come back to the ZBA. Mr. Willingham stated that the resident has been honest with their intentions and have done more than they may have needed.
Ms. Heaney asked if there is any restriction in the deed for the size of the building. Mr. Bouchard said that there is not. Mr. Belbin stated that the land is lacking 25% of the total land area required for this project. There are to be two houses but they shall be connected. As to help with the taxes, the taxes will be the same for the lot but will only go up for the building portion. A young couple usually has children. One student in Bristol cost $5800 after State funding in 2005. We would not be gaining and he was concerned about setting a precedence. Mr. Willingham compared this with the condos on the Lake where residents are only here for a couple of months which should offset this. Mr. Bouchard stated that we do not set precedence unless a case is identical to another.
Mr. Willingham stated that the applicant could have built a garage and an addition without coming in at all. Mr. Belbin and Mr. Bouchard felt that the Land Use Officer would have been involved then.
Ms. Heaney looked at the 25% coverage by structure and said that it would come to 10,000 sq. ft. for a single house. Mr. Belbin mentioned that they could build up to 35’ in height. Ms. Heaney stated that Mr. Nebesnik, Land Use Officer, looked this case over and she trusts him.
At this time, Mr. Bouchard asked if the Board wanted any conditions put on, such as, if they want any more bedrooms they must come back. Mr. Belbin stated that they are not required to come back to the ZBA once the Variance is approved. Ms. Hardy reminded everyone that they are voting on this plan alone.
Mr. Bouchard then called for a VOTE for APPROVAL. The motion FAILED, 1 for and 4 against. Mr. Bouchard signed the Notice of Decision and explained that there is a 30-day appeal time line.
COMMUNICATIONS:
OEP 2007 Fall Planning/Zoning Conference notice – Ms. Heaney and Mr. Bouchard showed interest.
Ad for certified floodplain manager – to be held a short time.
Memorandum agreement between the Town of Bristol and Blueberry Shores at Newfound LLC was read.
Planning Board agenda for 8/8/07 was read.
July/Aug. 2007 Town and City magazine will be in the Planning/Zoning office.
DES Shoreland Variance for Vassil was read.
BOS meeting for 8/9/07 at 5:30 pm was read.
-5-
ZBA Minutes
8-7-07
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
Ms. Heaney asked if we give a Variance and the State does also, do we need both. Mr. Bouchard answered yes and gave the example of a State requirement of a 50’ setback and a Town for 60’, we would still need the variance for the additional 10’.
Ms. Heaney then questioned a deeded right-of-way, such as in the Keene case. A discussion followed and it was felt that the use was given in the deed for the original users and any new owners later on.
Mr. Bouchard felt that we probably offer to continue a hearing if the applicant comes in as ill prepared as Ms. Downing was.
Ms. Colby questioned what the denial reason was and stated that she felt that the applicant did not understand the reasoning. Mr. Bouchard explained that the reasons will be spelled out on the Notice of Decision. Both Ms. Colby and Mr. Willingham expressed their disappointment in the way this was handled. The Board felt that they could have considered it if it had been for a small amount but this variance was for a huge amount. Mr. Belbin expressed that he does feel sorry for them as the price of land has gone way up and it gets to be burdensome for the young people.
Mr. Willingham reverted back to the Keene case and stated that the restrictions that Ms. Keene has put in have devalued her land. Mr. Bouchard mentioned that Attorney Waugh says that we should not put a restriction on that deals with something from another party. Ms. Heaney stated that Ms. Barney should have retained an attorney. Mr. Willingham added that, even so, Ms. Keene has bent over to accommodate Ms. Barney. He added that, in the beginning, Ms. Barney agreed and thanked the Board. Mr. Willingham feels that perhaps someone talked to her after.
Mr. Bouchard mentioned RSA 673:15 that allow us to compel someone to appear. It also allows us to be able to remove conditions due to a change or if they no longer are required. Mr. Bouchard also stated that Robert’s Rules allows the Chairman to call for a vote when we have a Variance. If there are conditions, then there must be a motion made.
Mr. Belbin asked if anyone has heard that Blueberry Shores is selling moorings. Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Willingham stated that they cannot do this. Some thought that they rent them.
Mr. Belbin asked if Alexandria gets to use Wellington for free. Some thought that they do while others thought that the town pays $2500 to the State and they have to get a $3.00 sticker.
The secretary announced that Matt Nebesnik, Land Use Officer, will be leaving for a better job. The Board was sorry to hear this but could understand.
With no other business, M. Willingham made a motion, second by S. Heaney, to adjourn at 8:32 pm.
Respectfully submitted, Jan Laferriere, secretary