Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
September 16, 2003
Business meeting opens at 6:30 pm in selectmen’s office.
In attendance; Roger Phelps, John Gryval, Dale Sanford, Kevin O’Connell, Daniel Dineen, and alternate Loren White.
Board discusses plot plans it receives from applicants, states when it comes to setback problems, they really should have more detailed information, not estimates. The board questions if they should have applicants submit certified plats, but rejects it for now. Instead the secretary is directed to further screen applications upon they’re submission and to request plot plans and more information if necessary.
8:00 Business session closes as public session opens with case 03-2.
John asks applicant if he feels anyone on the board should recuse themselves, applicant replies no. John asks the board members if any of them would like to recuse themselves, Kevin states he would as to let Loren sit, while he takes the minutes.
John explains the hearing process to applicant, asks the secretary if abutter’s notification verification was received, and Kevin replies yes.
Kevin then presents hearing fee invoice to the applicant ($125.15), the applicant replies that he wasn’t aware of the fee, and didn’t bring his checkbook, board agrees to hear the case with the understanding the applicant will make prompt payment to the town (received 9/17/03).
John asks Applicant to explain why he’s here.
Applicant states while his wife was away, he went to Home Depot to get some supplies as the front steps needed repairs, as a roof water drainage problem needed fixing and while doing the repairs the size of job escalated as he found they needed even more work and the job was progressing well. Applicant also explained that the original steps were three feet away from the house, and the new porch was now five feet away from the house. But the reason he was here was because after he was done, Peter Hopkins approached him.
General discussion of setback requirement for that area.
Map of house, lot, and improvement viewed and discussed.
Dale Sanford states one corner of house is already within setback.
John discusses lot layout, proximity to road, and the railroad ROW.
Roger asks Applicant where the road measurements were taken from.
Applicant states edge of Tar surface.
Roger asks where is actual property line. Is setback from town ROW or road.
Roger asks Peter above question.
Peter states town ROW is usually 15 feet from centerline of road, if variance granted measurement should be taken from property line not road.
Daniel asks when was last addition, where is plot plan?
John asks where road and building location truly are.
Loren states RR has 20 ft ROW
Roger states not much room to work with.
John asks Applicant intention for future use.
Applicant states none, other than temp windscreen during winter.
John asks Peter if he has anything to add, Peter reply’s no.
Board notes steps now covered, He’s hamstrung, honest mistake, project growth,
Applicant states no more work being done, no screens
John asks if they’re any more questions? No
Makes note no abutters showed.
John summarizes case
Roger, if we approve variance can we add condition to impede future growth.
John say’s we can’t, but he’d have to come back before the board.
Roger say’s he feels we’ll have protection from future growth
Daniel Dineen states he’s concerned when it comes to town’s liability on Road,
Loren states he’s not certain where road ends, concern on snow removal etc, doesn’t want to see any repercussions to town.
John asks, any motions? 5 steps or not?
Roger, no 5 steps.
Roger makes motion to grant variance
Daniel seconds,
John asks, any stipulation?
Roger, stipulation is that project stays where it is, no more progress.
Applicant replies What You See Is What You Get
Roger, motion to approve with stipulation of no more construction.
Dan Dineen seconds,
Passes unanimous @ 7:30 pm
Business meeting reopens in remaining time
Schedule meeting approx one month hence: Oct 21 @ 7:00 pm
8:00 PM case 03-4 opens
John explains process to applicant
John asks applicant if he feels anyone on the board should recuse themselves, applicant replies no. John then asks the board members if any of them would like to recuse themselves, Loren states he would as he has an acquaintance with the Applicant.
Abutter notification verification requested by John and received.
Kevin presents bill to applicant ($125.15), applicant explains he wasn’t aware of the fee, and didn’t bring his checkbook, but it’s in his truck, board agrees he can get it later.
John asks Applicant for his story.
Applicant says’ in late May he got septic design back form Henniker Sand and Gravel. With the septic done, Peter Hopkins was called back to inspected foundation footings. Peter OK’d the footings, but later said they where too close, setback was only 65’ from road. Peter then issued a Cease and desist order.
John asks applicant for clarification.
Applicant owns property to sell, states that it’s a spec house. States that D. Cooper and C&M Family Homes are the same. That the foundations’ in and septic system’s approved.
John asks for Building permit?
Peter Hopkins submits a copy for the record.
John asks Applicant to explain the permit.
Applicant says owner on the permit, Edmond Doyle, was the owner of the land at time the permit was filed. Before he closed on the property.
Peter says that’s OK; it’s done, and not unusual.
John reaffirms that at the time of building permit, application Doyle was owner. John questions why 5 acre and 100 foot setback stated on building permit is not accurate in the appeal.
Applicant admits Building permit was wrong.
Audience member James Goddard- Realtor, questions permit, says 5 acre was on deed.
Kevin states town records show 3.9 as actual lot acreage.
John Gryval goes over application for appeal, questions setback.
Realtor states that if the 100-foot setback is enforced, the house will be in a hole, and 100-year flood zone.
Applicant states Meridian shows house scales out at about 65 feet.
John discusses hardship section III on application with the applicant, the applicant states he called Peter to inspect footings, Peter OK’d footings so the foundation followed.
Applicant states that the plans from Meridian were OK’d.
John states the plans are state approved for the septic location, not house location.
John questions to part 5 of application, flood plan map is displayed and asks Peter if the map’s representation is accurate? Peter replies that it’s OK, but not accurate, it’s from 1978, a new map being done.
John explains map to forum and calls a 5 min recess.
Meeting reconvenes at 8:30 pm and the applicant pay’s filing fee.
John displays new map, explains states map not finished, not recorded or date stamped by town.
Dr Khouw asks why he’s filling in wetland, that he didn’t think that was legal.
John asks applicant for plot plan, Applicant looks, but says he can’t find one.
Applicant states Meridian shows house 65 feet from road, 20 foot from back to floodplain.
John states plat plan weak at best, and asks where is house actually?
John asks applicant if he has any more information in support of his case, applicant replies no, that’s all he’s got.
Peter shows board photos, and describes them.
John marks them BI-1 to BI-4
Peter talks of application, 100-foot setback. Reads letter from Meridian.
Peter states he looked at the lot, and admits making mistake in measurement, he states that he was worried about footing soil composition, and didn’t notice setback till after foundation was poured. He states building could go back but there’d be no back yard, and that he would rather see building where it is.
Darrel Cooper will have to come up with plot plan per new requirements, certified for small lot.
Board questions Building Inspector about measurements for foundations, what was the intent to approve footings?
Peter replies soil compositions, not location, overlooked setback.
Dr. Khouw; lot 28, he says he understands the lot is un-build-able, has reduced acreage, is in floodplain, and is worried about he precedent this will set, if it’s all forgiven. If the zoning laws circumvented, why do the laws exist? Everything’s so vague, all this stuff happens, and then he wants variance.
Chair; each case stands on own merit, this case won’t set precedent.
Eileen Khouw states yellow house across street sump runs constant, that the septic system has failed, and Cavander road has flooded out within 100 years.
Chair replies that septic systems are now more stringent.
Abutter Bill Brooks states he’s walked the land before and that it’s always wet, questions the granting of exceptions.
John; The lot’s always wet?
Brooks; Yes
G Rainer; If a variance is granted any new owner might not know problems wet property allows.
J Hopkins; Since the footings were allowed within 100-feet, he thinks the variance should be allowed.
Eileen Khouw; Does the Building Inspector measure lots, or take word of applicant.
Dr. Khouw; if footings is bad enough, do you follow it with a house!
Chair; No, that’s why we’re here tonight
G Rainier; Planning Board Comments?
Secretary reads comments from planning board.
Peter Hopkins shows board Building permit hand sketch for plot.
Daniel Dineen asks applicant where the 100-foot came from.
Kevin asks applicant if he looked at the 100-foot dimension after the excavation?
Roger adds who determined where the foundation location was to be set?
Applicant stated Henniker Sand and Gravel scaled the septic plan to place the foundation.
Daniel states he’s been in construction a while, and that you don’t scale drawings.
Eileen Khouw asks why septic plan has 3.5 acres. John Gryval answers 3.5+/- could be 3.9 actual.
Peter submits copy of Deed. Deed shows dimensions not acreage.
John summarizes case.
Eileen Khouw asks about future expansion of house and questions if they could fill wetlands. John explains setback cannot be further reduced and wetland cannot be filled.
At 9:35 Roger motions to close public session and is seconded by board.
John calls for a 10-minute recess, seconded by Board.
Meeting reconvenes at 9:45 with Roger saying we need to look at the property.
Dale Sanford and Dan Dineen agree.
Roger asks if we have enough information, Dan say’s only what’s on the permit, John reiterates the Permit is flawed, 100 foot setback too small and the 5.0 acres is actually 3.5 or 3.9. Roger restates 100 foot is required, that it looks like another project started wrong, leaving us in the middle.
John agrees the board should look at the property, states we have lack of detail from the builder. Dan asks what we are looking for by doing a site review; John says uniqueness of the lot. Dan asks where is the 100-year flood zone, John says on the Meridian map.
Kevin says he’d like to see some documentation showing where the 5-acre on the building permit came from.
Dan says Peter made a mistake, but it needs correction. John asks if there are more questions, would we like to reconvene at the site?
Kevin asks for clarification of 100-year floodplain location.
Dan reiterates the building permit process wasn’t followed through. John asks how much didn’t take place, Dan answers why have building permit process, so many variables, I can’t make a decision.
John replies that Peter did say it was a build able lot. Roger adds within ordinance or “build able lot”, John: No, it doesn’t conform. Setback’s 60 as opposed to 100 feet.
Dale questions whether town is liable. Dan replies that builder stretched but that Peter didn’t catch it.
Roger asks for recess for site inspection, Dale seconds, John reminds we should all be there, all five members currently here.
John moves to recess until meeting at the site on Saturday the 20th, at 9:00 am. Then to reconvene on Tuesday Sept. 23 at 7:00 pm., and since we’re not accepting new information, no new noticing is required.
Motion made to recess, seconded at 10:20 pm.
John explains to the gallery.
All five Board members meets on Saturday 9/20/2003 at property on Cavander Road, looks at property, takes measurements, little discussion follows and adjourns.
John reconvenes meeting on Tuesday 9/23/2003 at 7:10 in selectmen’s office. Summarizes case.
Roger states we’ve faced with this situation before we get it, it’ s difficult to come to a decision, when we should have had it prior to starting, trying to make decision as though noting existed, It’s difficult not to look at the applicants situation, but we’re suppose to look at this as though noting exist there.
Dan asks if there is any way to get a plot plan? Or is asking the question moot, as no more evidence is allowed. John says it is possible to get it from the landowner. Dan asks for water demarcation, three-year floodplain, build-able lot? John says the current map show 100 year, and when we walked in on Saturday it looked wet in the 100-year area. Dan asks if the house can go in further, is it now in the only place.
John states he doesn’t have a concern voting yes or No. Roger asks Dan if more information will help us decide, if factual.
John states we’re punishing owner for condition that exist.
Dale replies he thinks we’ve discussed it to death. Roger replies Meridian says it’s OK. John counters that Meridian’s saying the septic is possible.
Dan say’s he has to decide if any other location is possible. John suggests we can make owner order a soil map. Dale shows southwest being possible location, but map shows floodplain, not wetlands.
Dan makes motion for more information from applicant. Roger asks “what”, Dan replies plot with floodplain. States “give me some information to decide where the house can or can’t go”.
John say’s he doesn’t know if it’s appropriate.
Dan asks if information can be provided for 100-year floodplain location.
Roger questions what’s it going to get us.
Dan: proof that the house has no other possible location.
Roger seconds Dan’s motion, Kevin say’s we need to be specific in what we ask.
Dan states the applicant need to prove the Variance is needed, not desired.
John states motion on the floor to require more information from the owner, describes process for mapping wetlands. Discussion on certified plat requirements, request wording.
Vote on motion to require more information from Applicant/Owner. Motion carries 3-2.
Kevin asks if meeting should be posted and noticed, John states yes.
John explains situation to Mr. Cooper. That the Board wants to find any possible location that fits within zoning requirements.
John reminds to set next meeting upon reply from applicant, to post and notice, and CC to Planning board, ConCom, Building Inspector, Board members.
Dan states as a point we did ask for plat plan, but were told one not available.
Motion to recess at 7:56 pm, seconded and passed.
Meeting reopens on 10/7/2003 at 7:00 pm.
All five original members present.
Kevin states he has two letters from George Rainer that George would like read into the record.
John asks if further evidence should be allowed.
Roger asks if more info can be brought in, he feels it should. John says he feels it shouldn’t.
John consults ZBA guidelines.
John motions to open correspondence and enter into the record, voted down.
Plat shown by applicant and explained, discussion on setback, wetland location, and other possible location for house.
Certified plat shows scale and Board uses to determine that may be able to go back further.
Roger motions to Deny Variance from setback allowance,
Dan seconds, motion carries and request for variance denied at 8:40 pm.
John explains case to Mr. Cooper, and summarizes to gallery.
Discussion on wording on Denial, noticing of abutters, and posting.
| 
