Open Meeting at 7:00 PM

Roll Call

Approval of the Minutes of the June 14, 2006 Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the June 14, 2006 ZBA meeting as corrected. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

Case #07-06: Variance – continued from the June 14, 2006 ZBA meeting

Applicant: Irving Oil Corporation, 190 Commerce Way, Portsmouth, NH 03801

Agent: Bohler Engineering, P.C., 352 Turnpike Road, Southborough, MA 01772

Property Location: 32 West Main Street 32 Route 103 West, Warner, NH at Exit 9 of I-89,

Map 14, Lot 8, Intervale Overlay District of the C-1 Zoning District

Purpose: Variance sought for the image upgrade improvements to the property to include signage, color, canopy logos, refacing of gasoline and diesel canopies; and replacement of freestanding sign

Lucien DiStefano with Bohler Engineering represented Irving Oil. He gave new plans to the ZBA members, and said that the new plan reflects all of the changes that they’re looking to make under the new proposal.

Stated that there were concerns at the last meeting about the number, location and size of signage proposed by Irving, so a new proposal is being presented to the Board.

Removed all Irving logos from the dispenser shrouds

Proposed to remove one 30.4 sqft Irving canopy logo – two were proposed earlier

Feel that the proposed building signs are necessary and they’ve not removed any of the building signs. A representative from Irving is at the meeting and will speak on the importance of these signs

Building signs: One Blue Canoe sign, 42 sqft, facing I-89; Two Blue Canoe signs, over the two main entrances, each 14 sqft in area.

Discovered a discrepancy: the old plan said that the existing free standing sign was 206 sqft, but is actually 72.5 sqft

Actual free standing sign that is now being proposed will also be 72.5 sqft; a height variance will be sought because the sign will be approximately 18 feet tall.

Freestanding sign will be a little taller but narrower. Area is less, but will still seek a variance for the height

Total area of signage being proposed has been reduced substantially

New plan – only looking for a little under 193.5 sqft, which is more than the ordinance allows, but feel that based on the type of use that they have – a convenience store/gas station use that requires a certain type of brand notification than standard retail or commercial establishments – it is necessary.

Feel that the sign request is less than Mobil On the Run had, but it is consistent with other gas stations in the immediate area. We understand that Citgo predates zoning, but we still have to take into consideration that they are the competition Our signs will be less than the Citgo station across the street, and we still need to compete to survive

New proposal takes into account what the Board is trying to achieve as well as what Irving is trying to achieve at this location.

Chris Young from Irving, speaking on the importance of the signs requested:

Location of the signage as proposed for the building: the previous owners had the signs located where we believe they are most visible

Signs will be located on the gables on the Market Basket side of the building and a large sign on the gable facing I-89 because these are the visible locations that will present the Blue Canoe brand.

Necessary to get the image of the brand Blue Canoe across

Both gables on the front are very visible from the 103 access road and from the canopy/gas pumps.

Customers, as they are fueling, have a view of the building.

Third sign on the end of the building is the one end of the building that is visible from the off-ramp of I-89

Even with the trees leafed out, you can still see a portion of the building.

Ms. Mical: You need to correct the address on the plan – you’re not on West Main Street; you are on Route 103 West. The one that is recorded needs to be correct.

Mr. DiStefano: We’ll get that from the assessor; we thought this was correct, but apparently not.

Ms. Thoits: She is the assessor.

Ms. Thoits: Will the shrouds remain on the tanks, but with no signs?

Mr. DiStefano: Correct

Ms. Mical: You are going to keep the Irving logo on the skirts?

Mr. DiStefano: Yes. They are there and they will remain.

Ms. Thoits: Is the red light still on the canopy?

Mr. DiStefano: Yes. The blue canopy cover with the red LED strip. It isn’t designed to create a lot of light on the property.

Ms. Thoits: Is the Blue Canoe going to be internally lit?

Mr. DiStefano: We are no longer seeking illumination for the building signs. They will all be externally illuminated.

Mr. Rodgers: I think it’s great.

Ms. Thoits: I’m pleased that you’ve been willing to work with us. I did my homework – I drove to Bow, Northwood, Concord and Hooksett.

Ms. Joss: Does the canopy have the chevrons above and below the Irving logo?

Mr. DiStefano: Yes.

Ms. Mical: Did you bring your pictures, Martha?

Ms. Thoits: I did, but I don’t know if we need them.

Ms. Thoits: If we allow you to put the Blue Canoe on the end of the building towards I-89, you’re not going to put the hideous, darker yellow behind it? I noticed that on the other buildings, even though the building was painted a pretty, soft yellow, behind the Blue Canoe you have a bright yellow on a plastic thing that makes it glare out even worse.

Mr. DiStefano: No, the background will be the same as the building – the colonial yellow. It will all be the lighter yellow.

Hearing no further comments, Ms. Thoits closed the meeting and opened the public hearing. There were no abutters at the meeting that wished to speak.

Mr. Richard Cook: I think I’m just an average consumer, and the only sign that I care about is the price of gas and I don’t know that they need any signs beyond what the ordinance allows.

Ms. Annis: The Planning Board would like to know the exact square footage of signage that you are going to grant them. We need to have it in writing.

Mr. DiStefano: We’re proposing 193.31 sqft plus the skirting on the gas pumps, which doesn’t include the 20 sqft for the skirting on the dispensers. That would be a total of 213.31 sqft. of signage.

Chris Connors: I want to support what Rich Cook said, and I think that the LED band, even though it is subtle, does stick out at that location at night. Also want to know if additional or temporary advertising signs would be placed on the shrouds. Would that be allowed with our temporary sign ordinance?

Mr. DiStefano: On top of these dispensers, we now have a shroud, so we don’t have the ability to put a sign on the top of the dispensers. We’re attempting to achieve the heart shape; that’s why we have the shrouds.

Howard Kirchner: I’m not really involved in this, but I don’t see any problem with signs at all based on what else has been approved down there. I don’t see any reason to say no on something like this.

Ms. Thoits closed the public hearing and reopened the Board meeting. She said that since Ms. Hinnendael was not at the meeting, Mr. Rodgers will be voting.

Mr. Barnard: Are the diesel signs still there?

Mr. DiStefano: Yes. It will still be back behind the building.

Ms. Mical made a motion to approve the square footage of the signage for a total of 213.31 sqft specifically: 42.24 on the end facing the interstate, not internally illuminated; 2 Blue Canoe building signs on the building in the small peaks, each to be 14.13 sqft; the monument sign to be internally lit as it is currently at 72.50 sqft; the Irving canopy logo to be 30.43 sqft and will have the LED illuminated band; Diesel canopy logo of 19.88 sqft, not illuminated, The 20 square feet of small Irving logos on the skirts of the dispensers; and nothing on the shrouds on the dispensers. No signs will be hanging in or on the gas dispensers, no logos on the propane tank cages if this item is present; no logos on the ice machines if they have these machines; and no sandwich boards are to be put outside of the building.

For clarification, Mr. DiStefano asked if Blue Rhino would be allowed to be on the propane cage and if the word "propane" could be put on it. Ms. Mical said that she doesn’t want Blue Rhino on the propane cage, but that by law they are probably supposed to have the word Propane. Ms. Thoits said that she thinks that Blue Rhino should be allowed, and Mr. Barnard said that the individual tanks have the Blue Rhino and that they are very visible. Ms. Mical said, when asked, that "Ice" could be put on the ice machine if done so discretely.

To be included in the motion – that Irving has met the criteria for a variance for square footage of signs as stated in their application.

Ms. Thoits called for a vote stating that a Yes vote will grant Irving the square footage for their signs; a No vote will deny Irving the requested variance: Mr. Barnard: Yes; Ms. Mical: Yes; Ms. Joss: Yes; Mr. Rodgers: Yes; and Ms. Thoits: Yes.

Variance for the height of the buildings

Ms. Mical noted that the applicant hadn’t previously requested a variance for the height of the sign. Mr. Rodgers said that he doesn’t think that we can approve a variance that is requested verbally. The Board agreed, and the applicant said that they would come back next month with an application for the height variance.

Case # 08-06: Variance

Applicant/Owner: Olive Olmstead, 126 East Main Street, Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: same as above, Map 29, Lot 1 R-1 zoning

Proposed Use: Existing house to be removed and replaced with a trailer

 

Debra Haywood, daughter of Ms. Olmstead, presented the case.

· Had an engineer, Provan and Lorber, come to the property to see if the area is in the flood plain?

· Ms. Olmstead has a bad respiratory problem.

· Last flood caused flooding in the basement.

· Talked with FEMA, who had denied any claim. Writ of appeal to FEMA was done, but Ms. Olmstead hasn’t heard anything from FEMA yet.

· A contractor stated that there was $32,000 in damage to the underpinning. The solution is to either rebuild the home or put in a trailer where her mother can actually live. There is a problem with black mold under the existing house.

· Submitted a letter from Provan and Lorber for the height of the land – 411 feet.

Ms. Mical: What is the requirement from FEMA?

Ms. Haywood: The actual requirement is 410 feet. Where she’s actually going to put the trailer is 412 feet.

The Board discussed the location of the property and the location of the trailer.

Ms. Haywood: I also spoke with HUD to ask what a trailer had to be to be approved by them, and they said 1987 and up were considered HUD approved. What has happened with the paperwork is that they hadn’t put the actual presentation of the things in the actual paperwork, but it didn’t cause the trailers to not be HUD approved with a seal. The seals remained on there; the trailers were actually HUD approved but it wasn’t in the paperwork. They had to redo the paperwork, if that makes any sense to you.

Ms. Mical: Are you planning on bringing in a new trailer?

Ms. Haywood: Not a brand new one, no. She can’t afford it. But we’re definitely going to bring in one that is HUD approved and meets the standards.

Ms. Mical: We’re going by the mobile homes section in our ordinances.

Secretary: Mary (Selectmen’s secretary) had given Ms. Olmstead information in writing from HUD and the Building code.

Ms. Thoits: How big is the lot?

Ms. Haywood: 3.1 acres.

Ms. Mical: In our ordinance someplace it says that the trailer has to be HUD approved. I don’t know if it says to the current standards, or just HUD approved.

Ms. Haywood: I don’t know about the town, but according to them, they’re just saying that it has to be HUD approved with the HUD seal stating that basically every safety element is there.

Ms. Mical stated that they’re asking for a variance to put a mobile home on a lot that does not have one. Secondly, they’re getting rid of the existing home so there won’t be two residences on the lot.

Ms. Haywood read the conditions for a Variance into the record:

A. No diminution in value of surrounding properties would be suffered.

There is no decrease in value of surrounding properties; only an increase in living arrangements.

B. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.

I feel that the home that is there now is contrary to public interest because of the shape the home is in. Putting a trailer on this property will not be contrary to the public interest.

C. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it. [The undersigned alleges that the following circumstances exist which prevent the property enjoyment of his land under the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance and thus constitutes an unnecessary hardship.]

The owner has a very serious case of COPD, which is a form of emphysema and living in the existing home is causing undue hardship where her health is concerned.

D. By granting the variance, substantial justice would be done.

Justice would definitely be done by granting this variance where Olive’s health is involved.

E. The use must not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.

If Olive is granted this variance, this will remain her residence. She was raised here and lived here for most of her life.

Mr. Rodgers: The entire existing structure will be completely removed?

Ms. Haywood: Yes, taken right down.

Ms. Thoits: What did you say the year of the trailer is?

Ms. Haywood: We haven’t purchased the trailer yet because we wanted to get the variance first. I called to make sure what their standards are, and HUD said that anything after 1987 is HUD approved. The trailer will be put closer to the road and will be on a slab with skirting around it. This will bring the elevation up somewhat. The house will be torn down completely.

Mr. Rodgers said that he feels that a trailer would be an improvement over the house that is there, and there wouldn’t be any decrease in surrounding property values. Ms. Thoits asked what the difference in price is between a manufactured home and a modular home. Ms. Mical said that a mobile home is on a chassis, and a modular home is not.

Ms. Haywood: The price is about the same, but a trailer decreases in value and a modular home increases.

Ms. Thoits asked if the Board remembered a previous case where the applicant had a trailer/mobile home brought from the manufacturer on a platform instead of a chassis so that it would meet the requirements. She said that case was different because she thought that the home being purchased and brought to the property was a new home.

Hearing no further discussion, Ms. Thoits closed the Board meeting and opened the public hearing.

Howard Kirchner, abutter: I’ve lived next to my neighbor for over 20 years. She is a good neighbor and I’m very much in favor of granting the variance in this situation. It will be a definite upgrade to her property. I understand the economic situation and I feel that Olive deserves this right and I have no objection at all.

Chris Connors: I think that this is a great thing that you’re trying to do, but I’m concerned about setting a precedent. Would you work with the Planning Board to insure that the trailer is put on that site in a sensitive manner? How is the town going to protect what the ordinance is requesting? The ordinance clearly states that it’s not allowed. The only process that I know of that can help ensure that is something like a site plan review, which the Planning Board usually only conducts in this town for something like a commercial property or a two-family unit.

Ed Mical: I’m here as Warner’s Emergency Management Coordinator. You also need to look at the floodplain development ordinance. This property is designated as a special flood hazard area.

Ms. Haywood: It is except for this small peninsula area, which she lives in. I had an engineer actually come in and do the elevations – I just gave them the paperwork.

Mr. Mical: Did they certify that that isn’t in a special flood hazard area? By the engineer? And that’s where you plan to put the trailer? The concern that I have is that Warner has been in the National Flood Insurance Program for several years and I would hate for us to do something that’s against the National Flood Insurance Program. Looking specifically at Article VII, 2(c), it specifies that a mobile home is supposed to be on a foundation, elevated and permanent.

Ms. Haywood: Yes, on a slab with tie-downs.

Mr. Mical: I just wanted to be sure that the Planning Board is aware of that.

Mr. Mical looked at the paperwork submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mical: Whenever we apply for grants through FEMA, they ask us if we’re in compliance with the National Food Insurance Program. If we’re not, we risk not being able to apply for grants.

Ms. Thoits: Are you satisfied with the paperwork submitted?

Mr. Mical: Yes, it appears to be in order.

Mr. Kirchner: As an abutter, I can testify as to how high the water gets down there. It’s never been as high in 70 years as it was this past May. They were above water at that time and the section of the railroad track below my house – it just came up to that and it is an uphill grade from there up to her property.

Ms. Joss: How far from the road will the trailer be?

Ms. Haywood: Where Mom is located now is about 120 feet from the center of the road, so we’ll probably be about 85 feet from the center of the road.

Ms. Mical: And are you at least 75 feet from the river?

Answer: Yes. Probably 150 to 200 feet from the river.

Mr. Barnard: Are you going to use the existing septic system?

Answer: Yes. There will be two bedrooms; she has three now.

Ms. Thoits closed the public hearing and reopened the Board meeting.

Ms. Mical: Would you be willing to subject the approval of a variance on the fact that the trailer would be removed when your mother no longer needs it?

Ms. Haywood: Absolutely. If that’s what it takes to get the trailer and make my mother comfortable.

Ms. Olmstead: I don’t have any problem with that.

Ms. Thoits and Ms. Mical said that they felt that addressed Ms. Connors question or statement. Ms. Thoits said that the hardship is there and she needs to be able to live where she can breathe. The hardship is proven because of her health.

Ms. Mical made a motion to grant the placement of the mobile home on Map 21, Lot 1 for the life of Mrs. Olive Olmstead, it to be removed within a year of her not living there. The trailer needs to comply with the entire flood ordinance and must meet the HUD requirements. We feel that the applicant has fulfilled the requirements of a variance as read into the record.

Ms. Thoits called for a vote stating that a Yes vote will grant Ms. Olmstead a variance to be placed on her property during her lifetime, to be removed within a year after it is not occupied by Ms. Olmstead and that it must meet HUD requirements; a No vote will deny the requested variance: Mr. Barnard: Yes; Ms. Mical: Yes; Ms. Joss: Yes; Mr. Rodgers: Yes; and Ms. Thoits: Yes.

Ms. Mical stated that the applicant still needs to meet all HUD requirements and must go through the Selectmen’s office to complete the building permit process.

Mr. Cook, Selectmen: Make sure that you are able to prove – through a certificate in the trailer or something – that the trailer is HUD approved. We’ve been in situations in the past where the applicant was unable to prove the HUD approval and we’ve been unable to help them prove this. It’s not on the title – usually it’s stamped on the structure itself.

That will be required before you can receive a certificate of occupancy.

Ms. Mical: When you find a mobile home, you might even ask for the certification that it is HUD approved before you purchase it, and bring in this paperwork and make sure that it is acceptable to the Building Inspector.

Ms. Thoits: Yes, that is a good idea.

Case #09-06: Variance

Applicant: Glen Davis, P.O. Box 28, Warner, NH 03278

Property Owner: Jon Pearson, 13 Bridge House Rd., Webster, NH 03303 same as above

Property: North Village Rd. Map 9, Lot 19 OR-1 Zoning

Purpose: Construction of a residence with a 50 ft. setback instead of the 100 ft. required.

 

Applicant/Owner: Glenn Davis,

Property Location:

Proposed Use: Construction of a residence with a 50 foot setback rather than the required 100 feet.

Mr. Davis presented his application for a setback variance. He stated that he is now the owner of the property.

· Asking for a 50 foot setback for the property placement of the house on the lot

· The house would sit better on the lot for drainage purposes.

· It is not a huge piece of land, but it is flat where it will sit.

· The house would be 250 feet back from the road

· The lot is surrounded by conservation land on three sides.

· There is an approved septic system plan in place.

· He described to the Board, using a drawing, where the wetlands are on the lot and where the abutter’s house is.

· He described the runoff and where it goes on the lot.

Ms. Mical stated that a variance had been granted for the lot next door to this lot for the same situation.

Mr. Davis read the variance criteria into the record:

A. No diminution in value of surrounding properties would be suffered.

Can hardly see right hand neighbor, conservation land to the rear and right. 360 feet from the road. New larger home being built will increase their value.

B. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.

New home, clean up garbage on lot, will benefit public interest and help to pay for new school.

C. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it. [The undersigned alleges that the following circumstances exist which prevent the proper enjoyment of his land under the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance and thus constitutes an unnecessary hardship.]

House placement is crucial to the driveway and surrounding area and boundaries, as well as run-off.

D. By granting the variance, substantial justice would be done.

Yes, a must to properly accommodate this house on proposed property boundaries.

E. The use must not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.

Only benefits to surrounding homes and the public can come from a variance on this lot.

Ms. Joss: I think that this is the logical place for the house and it preserves the wetlands below.

Mr. Barnard: How many acres do you have on this piece of land?

Mr. Davis: I think it’s about 1.8 acres. The town doesn’t have it down as that. I think it’s about 81,000 sqft. I forget. Size is almost double what the town has it down as. No one knows the exact size of the lot. The only pin that’s not marked is one corner. The road frontage isn’t known.

Ms. Mical: This lot wasn’t surveyed. The Chandler Reservation was surveyed, and the pins placed on the boundaries of your property are now considered to be the property lines. The notes on the septic design say that the building area is 43,000 sqft, which is an acre.

Mr. Davis: That’s actually the cleared area. I don’t know the size because there’s one pin on the left hand side on the road, there are two back pins – but then there’s another pin in the front. I have to get a surveyor out there to actually find out because you don’t know the actual road frontage of the lot. The only pin that’s not defined is the right hand pin, which is way down here. There’s a stone wall, but it’s not clear if this stone wall is actually a boundary.

Ms. Thoits closed the Board meeting and opened the public hearing.

There were no abutters present who wished to speak.

Richard Cook: The town is an abutter because it is the Chandler Reservation. Are there other constraints that limit the choice of his house location? I understand there is a wetland there, and I’m not sure how it relates to the house. Does the septic design show the placement of the house in relation to the wetlands?

Ms Mical: Yes.

Mr. Cook looked at the septic design with Ms. Mical and Ms. Joss. He had no further questions.

Ms. Connors: How can he ask for a setback if he doesn’t know where the property lines are?

Ms. Mical: He knows where the back lines are and that’s what he’s asking for a setback variance.

Ms. Connors: In terms of setting a precedent…

Ms. Mical: We’ve already set one – we gave the neighbor the same variance.

Hearing no further discussion, Ms. Thoits closed the public hearing and reopened the Board meeting.

Mr. Rodgers: Given the chance that there is no possibility of a house on the abutting property, and the fact that the setbacks are for privacy, I feel that he should be given the variance.

Ms. Thoits: One of the things for an area variance criteria says that the benefits being sought cannot be achieved by some other method reasonable feasible for the applicant other than an area variance. Are you satisfied that he has met the criteria for a variance?

Ms. Mical: Because of the wetlands…

Ms. Joss: If he moves his house further down, then he pollutes the wetlands.

Ms. Thoits: I just wanted to be sure that you’re satisfied.

Ms. Joss made a motion to grant the variance to place his house no closer than 50 feet from the rear boundary and side boundary. Mr. Rodgers seconded the motion. Ms. Mical added that he meets the criteria for an area variance due to the fact that a lot of the criteria are affected by the wetlands on the property. Mr. Rodgers seconded the amendment to the motion.

Ms. Thoits called for a vote stating that a Yes vote will grant Mr. Davis a setback variance; a No vote will deny the requested variance: Mr. Barnard: Yes; Ms. Mical: Yes; Ms. Joss: Yes; Mr. Rodgers: Yes; and Ms. Thoits: Yes.

Communications and Miscellaneous

Barbara Annis: I wanted to speak to the Board tonight, long before we’re doing changes in the zoning ordinances and that sort of thing. It appears that many of the zoning ordinances that we currently have on the books have given you some problems this year. I would like to extend an invitation to the Zoning Board to make suggestions to the Planning Board that would help to make your lives a little easier. Some new changes, some new zoning ordinances, etc. I don’t know whether you want to do this at your meetings and then submit the changes to the Planning Board in writing and then the Planning Board will take it up at some later point, or whether you would like to come to a Planning Board work session and discuss this with the Planning Board. I would like to issue the invitation.

Ms. Thoits asked the ZBA if they had any comments.

Mr. Rodgers: Didn’t we just go through revising some of this stuff?

Ms. Thoits: Yes, but we do it every year.

Ms. Annis: An example would be the hotel’s application and the 20,000 sqft limit on building size. The Planning Board looked at the definition and said it wasn’t what they meant when it was written. You’ll be getting another application from RAW on height. Another one is coming from the new owner of Lamora’s property on Route 103 for another home business for a variance to apply for a home occupation permit. Lamora had the same business at that location, but he was granted that before the ordinance for home business was in place. The current ordinance speaks to the business being no more than 25% of the size of the dwelling, but in this case the business is in an accessory building.

Ms. Mical suggested that the Board look over the zoning ordinance as individuals to see if there is anything that jumps out to the individual members, then bring those comments back to the ZBA’s meeting to discuss it. If the Board decides to take any items forward, it can then be taken to the Planning Board. The Board was in agreement.

Ms. Joss: Should we schedule a meeting before our regularly scheduled August meeting?

Ms. Mical: What if we met at 6:30 to the August meeting? We could discuss this first before the applications.

Ms. Annis and the Board stated that they would like to have the discussions on changes to the ordinances in November and the public hearing and decision in December.

Adjourn

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn. The motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 PM.

Minutes approved: August 9, 2006