|
Zoning Board of Adjustment Warner, NH Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2007 Members present Dennis Barnard, Martha Mical, Vice/acting chair,
alternate Rick Davies, alternate Mike Holt, Eric Rodgers, Joanne
Hinnendael, alternate Janice Loz. Deborah
Freeman, recording. Not present: Martha Thoits, Chairman and alternate Ted Young. First case voting will be Barnard, Davies, Rodgers, Hinnendael and
Loz. Case 06-07: Variance -
Deborah and Richard Wilson regarding property located at 314 Brown
Road, Warner, NH, Map 11-Lot 27 R-3 zoning district, request a variance
to the terms of Article 7. C. b., 50’ road setback to add a 16’
addition to the home. Requested
setback estimated to be 22’. Mr. Wilson addressed the board stating the intent of the request for
this variance to the right of way setback is to build an addition to
include 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and minor renovations in the existing
home. Mr. Wilson read into
the record the response written into the application. A. No diminution in value of surrounding properties would be suffered.
The proposed construction
will not detract from surrounding properties because it is consistent
with existing construction. The
nearest abutters house is > 750’ away. B. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Granting
the variance will not alter the rural character of the property or
it’s surroundings. There
is no change in the use of the property. C. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeing it. The
current site has significant building restrictions. The west side has excessive slope to seasonal stream.
Building North would be on top of septic.
South would entail full house renovation to accommodate intent of
addition. D. By granting the variance, substantial justice would be done.
Peaceful co-existence of
family members will be achieved. E. The use must not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. The
nearest abutter’s house is greater than 750’ with no line of sight.
The proposed addition is consistent with the existing
construction. There is no
change in the use of the property. Points of discussion: The drawing submitted states measurements are taken from the center of the road. Corrected measurements were obtained and published in the abutter notices and legal ad. The requested variance is an additional 22’ totaling a setback of 40’ +/- from the edge of the road. The barn is closer to the road than the proposed addition. Acting chair read item N. of the Zoning Ordinance General Provisions: “N. If a building currently exists on the property and is closer to the abutter’s property line or Public right-of-way than the yard requirements for that district, an addition may be added to this building as long as the new construction is not closer to that abutters property line or the public right-of-way than the present construction. Brown Road is a class VI road where his house is located, the
property goes down to a class V road – there is a driveway off the
class V road. Why can’t
you build in the landscaped area? It
would mean removing a newly constructed porch that is off the kitchen
and major reconfiguration to the home – a significant financial
hardship compared to the proposed addition.
The existing house is 26’ x 20’.
This proposed addition will not be any closer to the right of way
than the barn on the property is currently. Chair closed the meeting and opened the public hearing. Richard Cook, a neighbor, does not object to what is being proposed,
but to clarify the variance should be stated from the edge of the
towns’ right of way. From
the stone wall to the edge of the new addition is estimated to be about
9’. Mr. Wilson requested that the variance be amended to request a 45’
variance allowing a 5’ setback from the stone wall, the right-of-way. Stewart Fortune asked how the right of way to the property is
measured – short answer is refer to the road agent. Chair closed the public hearing. Board asked if fire equipment could get to the property.
Mr. Fortune offered a response in the affirmative.
The septic design is for a 3 bedroom home, adequate to support
the additional bedrooms. The
addition will include a full basement. Hinnendael made a MOTION to grant a 45’ variance for all the
reasons stated. Rodgers
second. AMENDMENT made by
Davies, second by Loz to change the MOTION to read: MOTION to approve a
variance of an 8’ setback from the stone wall in front of their house
in order to build a 16’ x 26’addition.
Barnard suggested that the hardship is met, there is no other
place on the property to reasonably add the bedrooms.
Board member added this request satisfies all required answers
for a variance. MOTION
unanimously approved. Mical
reminded Mr. Wilson the decision can be requested to be reheard within
30 days. Case 08-07: Special Exception - Alice
Rolfe, 3 Annis Loop, Warner, regarding property located at 99 Parade
Ground Cemetery Road, Map 10-Lot 55-3 R-3 zoning district, request a
special exception to Use Ordinance table 1, section 2 to build a two
family home as allowed with a special exception. Mrs. Rolfe stated she is asking for a special exception to build an
in-law apartment in the basement of a 3 bedroom home currently under
construction on Parade Ground Cemetery Road to provide protective care
for her mother. The unit
would be a one bedroom with an eat-in kitchen, living room area and
bath. Mrs. Rolfe read for the record her request as submitted with her application: A. The use requested is identified in this ordinance as one which may be approved by the Board in the district for which the application is made.
R-3 zone a two family is
permitted by special exception. B.
The requested use is essential or desirable to the public
convenience or welfare.
To provide protective care for elder parent. C.
The requested use will not impair the integrity or character of
the district or
adjoining districts, nor be detrimental to the health, morals or
welfare. No
change to the exterior of the structure. Close the meeting and open the public hearing. Martha Mical stated she received a phone call from Melvin Anderson, a
neighbor, stating he is just fine with it. Hearing no speakers the acting chair closed the public hearing
reopened the meeting. Boards points of discussion: Board referred to maps to identify location of construction; Ms.
Mical stated she viewed the property and it is not very visible from the
road. Member stated this is
an in-law apartment versus a duplex.
There is no current differentiation between a two family and an
in law apartment in our ordinances.
Mrs. Rolfe is free to rent the unit should her mother no longer
need it. For future
discussion, one differentiation could be whether the unit has a kitchen.
Mrs. Rolfe confirmed her desire to build a separate unit within the home
that includes a kitchen, further stating this unit would not be large
enough to accommodate children. This
is in an area of single family homes.
A special exception goes with the property – the board can
stipulate conditions of approval such as requiring the building to be
owner occupied. Hinnendael stated this is something that is allowed with a special
exception; for the approval that we are giving it is not going to
inconvenience the public; it is not changing the character of the area
and it is one of those things that it is tough to say yes, because 20
years down the road, but they are property owner, it is family; if I
brought my mother here I would want something like this too.
It is a one bedroom, you are not going to get a family of five in
there because it would not be allowed by public welfare, it would have
to be a single person or a couple. Rodgers stated the need to provide protective care living quarters
for her mother can be provided without building a rental unit in the
home. Hinnendael made a MOTION to approve the special exception stating the
standards of a special exception were met.
Second by Barnard. Potential conditions of approval were briefly discussed without
amendment. Acting chair called for a vote, a yes vote will approve the MOTION to grant a special exception to allow Mrs. Rolfe to build an in-law apartment in her home. Role call: Rodgers no; Davies no; Barnard yes; Loz yes; Hinnendael yes. MOTION passed. Mical reminded Mrs. Rolfe anyone can appeal this decision within 30 days. Minutes of May 23, 2007 meeting.
Rodgers made a MOTION to approve the May 23, 2007 as drafted,
second by Hinnendael, unanimously approved. Communications and Miscellaneous: Relative to case #05-07, special exception to build a two family, John Sheehan submitted a request for a rehearing read into the record as follows: I, John Sheehan, of 570 County Road
Bradford, am submitting this letter requesting that the decision
regarding the above listed case number be reheard. I feel that my request to have a two family
is certainly not an unreasonable use of the property.
The house I am planning to build will look like a single-family
home, not a duplex or double-decker.
I am planning to provide the board with additional information
including more detail, photos, sketches, etc. in support of my request. In addition, the letter denying my original
request states that granting my request would potentially change the
neighborhood to a transient one. I
will be living in the primary unit, and I am planning to house my
brother in the second unit; this is intended to be a permanent
situation. When applying for the application
originally, I asked if I could put it as a single family with an in-law
apartment and was told that it was the same thing as a two-family.
At the original hearing, it was suggested that the two are
different. I would like
clarification on this point. I would greatly appreciate your
consideration in rehearing this decision. Sincerely yours, Jack Sheehan Questions were asked for clarification
relative to new information that would be presented - detailed drawings,
photos. Board reiterated
the zoning regulations do not make a distinction between an in-law and a
two family. Mical quoted
from Mr. Sheehan’s letter “When applying for the application
originally, I asked if I could put it as a single family with an in-law
apartment and was told that it was the same thing as a two-family.
At the original hearing, it was suggested that the two are
different.” He is asking for clarification.Hinnendael asked if details
relative to number of bedrooms in each unit were provided in the
original request. Mical responded information on the number of bedrooms was not
provided; expect it will be provided in the new information if granted a
rehearing. Mical reminded
the board that the case needs to be judged on whether it meets the
criteria of a special exception. Rodgers made a MOTION to deny the request for a rehearing – second
by Davies. Davies referenced information obtained at the April 07 Office of
Energy and Planning Conference seminar relative to ZBA rehearing quoting
“the purpose of a request for a rehearing to give the opportunity to
the board to correct its own mistakes, reconsider a prior ruling.”
Mical read NH Planning and Land Use Regulation 677:2 relative to
rehearing. Davies
referencing page 2 of the May 23 ZBA meeting minutes, quoting Mr.
Sheehans’ application, “Yes, a
duplex will add to the value of my home and thereby increase the tax
base. It will afford
housing for someone who wants to move to the area or who needs a place
to live. Ultimately, it
will provide housing for my disabled brother.” Rogers requested to withdraw his original MOTION – Davies withdrew
his second – MOTION WITHDRAWN. Rogers
made a MOTION to deny the rehearing request due to the fact that
pictures are not going to change items b and c of the special exception
that were discussed at length with neighbors and abutters from that
neighborhood. Davies second
the MOTION. Hinnendael
stated she did not think she should vote, she does live in the
neighborhood and the people who heard the case originally should vote on
the rehearing. Ms. Freeman
clarified no abutters were not in opposition to this special exception. Mical reminded members and alternates all can vote.
Vice/Acting Chair Mical called for a vote, a yes vote will deny
Mr. Sheehan’s request for a rehearing.
Roll call: Loz yes; Davies yes; Barnard yes; Hinnendael yes;
Rogers yes; Holt yes. Board voted yes to deny Mr. Sheehan’s request
for rehearing. Mr. Sheehan
will receive a notice in writing. Mical read RSA 677:4 relative to appealing a decision on a motion for
rehearing so Mr. Sheehan knows what his next step could be. Miscellaneous & Communications: August meeting is currently scheduled for 8/15, is there any
objection or conflict to moving it to the second Wednesday, August 8th
- no objection – August meeting date changed. Davies suggested changing one of the forms, separating the use
variance from the area variance – Mical suggested he present the board
with his proposed form. Davies asked about the procedures to change an ordinance.
Last year Zoning submitted a list without discussion to the
Planning Board. For future,
Mical suggested the ZBA discuss, outline potential changes in greater
detail and provide specific proposed zoning amendment language prior to
submission. Rodgers made a MOTION to adjourn, second by Hinnendael, unanimously
approved. Meeting adjourned 8:35. Respectfully submitted, Deborah Freeman Minutes approved August 8, 2007 |