Greenfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
April 25, 2006
Board convenes at 7:30 pm and goes over mail. Sitting on the board is John Gryval, Dan Dineen, Kevin O’Connell, Roger Phelps, and Loren White.
Board reads minutes for case 05-8. Motion made to accept minutes as read, motion seconded and passed unanimously.
Board reads minutes for case 06-1. Motion made to accept minutes as read, motion seconded and passed unanimously
At 8:00 pm John opens case 06-2.
Linda Freeman, 29 Quarry Circle, Milford, NH for properties R9-30 and R9-36, Old Coach Road, for the following;
Appeal from an Administrative Decision: Denial of Building Permit and Appeal for Variance from section III.G.2 of the Greenfield Zoning Ordinance.
Appeal under 674; 41.II
John asks of notification, Kevin states abutter notifications sent out, notices placed in local papers, town offices, and post office.
John reads and presents Ms. Freeman’s Attorney with an invoice for the hearing.
Standard Postage $.87
Registered Postage $41.76
Advertisement Fee $100.00
ZBA fee $50.00
Total $192.63
Atty. Cullen states they haven’t the funds tonight, but will forward it to the town.
Atty. Cullen notes that the public notices stated only two of the three appeals, the variance, and the appeal from administrative decision and not the appeal under 674:41.II, but that that was probably his fault because he requested the appeal under 674:41.II in an letter attached to the application and not the application itself.
Board agrees to hear the three appeals.
John asks Atty. Cullen to deliver his case.
Atty. Cullen states his client would like to build one house on Coach Road, a class VI road, and put land into open space, and that the lot is not distant from a the class V portion of Coach Road. Atty. Cullen reads 674.41.II and states that the property is not far from the class V portion of Coach Road, and that they’re willing to insert a deed restriction prohibiting further subdivision until class V status of Coach Road is attained, but not a conservation easement.
Atty. Cullen further states that since a major goal of the town’s master plan is preservation of rural character, and the guarantee that these 75-acre lots are not subdivided would meet that goal.
Atty. Cullen finishes his presentation with a discussion of application of area variance test, the Bocca case, and how the Bocca case applies to his clients’ property.
John states that under 674:41 a town could grant a waiver, but without a section under town policy, it wouldn’t happen, and he wouldn’t suggest the town do that as the town would be sued in the case of and failure to provide emergency services by any subsequent owner.
Ms. Freeman states she has no plans to subdivide.
Atty. Cullen clarifies that the permit goes with the land, but that his client has no plans to subdivide.
Roger asks if there is another way in.
Atty. Cullen;” It would be nice to come in from Lyndeborough Mountain Road, but the bridge’s washed out.
John: “How about coming in from lot 36?”
Atty. Cullen:” She’d still have to cross the creek”
Dan:” How do you plan to access the lot?”
Atty. Cullen;” Ms. Freeman has asked to have the class VI road discontinued by the Planning board. And would like to use the old road a her driveway”
John asks if anyone would like to speak in favor of the application.
Abutter Daniel Laguerre asks of access to the property and accessing property on class VI roads
Kevin explains 674:41 to Mr. Laguerre.
John asks if anyone else is in favor.
Abutter Gregory Nadeau states he has a fire pond on his property, but that it’s not accessible from Coach Road, he also states he wants to know the possibility of the town upgrading the road.
Board states it doesn’t know.
Town person George Rainier asks when did Ms. Freeman purchase the property.
Ms. Freeman: “ February 2001”
George states RSA 236.9 requires permission to upgrade a class VI road, What would prevent Ms. Freeman from upgrading Coach road to clad V status.
Atty. Cullen:” she’d have to petition the town.”
George;” She could go that route.”
Atty. Cullen: “ We don’t want to upgrade the road, we want to keep it as a class VI, so there’s no development.”
George: ”Are there more lots on the way to the Freeman property, what about them?”
Atty. Cullen: ”They have access on a class V.”
George: “On the corner of the Freeman property is the Fletcher graveyard, did they come into any information on this during the deed research.
Linda Freeman: “The Cemetery is there, I own the land, exclusive of 3 rods for the cemetery. It’s deeded to the town, and is the towns’ original cemetery. I’d like to keep it up and fix it. “
Mr. Nadeau asks if the town has access to the cemetery.
John discusses a case in Nashua and how it relates to access to the cemetery.
Kevin asks Atty. Cullen. “ You talked of conserving the land. Why not a conservation easement?”
Atty. Cullen explains that although he’s done them in the past and he’d love to draw up one, Ms. Freeman is not willing to do that at this time.
Kevin:” I don’t see where the deed restriction is any more restrictive than the current subdivision regulations. The Zoning regulations require a lot to have frontage on a class V road and subdivision regulations prevent the Planning boards from creating a non-conforming lot.
Atty. Cullen replies that subsequent owners could appeal as they are doing now.
Linda Freeman states that a conservation easement isn’t out of the realm of possibility, but not now.
John wants to state, in the spirit of openness that George Rainier is a selectman in Greenfield, but that he’s here tonight as a citizen, and not in an official capacity.
John closes the public session at 9:30 pm
Roger states he’s concerned with what happens tomorrow, if the requirement is 350 feet it has to be that way.
Loren asks if proposed building lot on lot 36.
Kevin: “The proposed driveway is”
John goes over the variance questions.
1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values.
John: “Sees this as OK”
2. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest
Dan:” What happens tomorrow?”
Roger: “ Agreed”
John: “ OK, worst case. What if someone wanted to build?”
Roger: ”If she brought the road up to snuff, that’s another story”
Dan: ”What happens it the lot changes ownership?”
John: “ What if something happens? Loren?”
Loren:’ I’m uncomfortable with the class VI road status. I don’t know if we can deem it a driveway. I deem a driveway is for personal use. Are we as a town going to destroy a class VI road so someone can use it as a driveway?
3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner.
John:” It’s not a condition of the land, It’s where the land is. That was known to the owner when they purchased the property”
Dan:” Is it written anywhere that it was not?”
John:” Goes back to where a reasonable and prudent person should have known.”
4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice.
Roger: ”To the land owner only. It wouldn’t be until she brought the road up class V as Daniel Laguerre did, she could d do the same.”
John: “ Each case stands on its own, we’re not denying use of the property what it was intended for.”
5. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
Dan: “Granting clearly not to the spirit of the ordinance.”
John: “ I’ll play the devil’s advocate, the spirit keeps it a house on 72 acres!”
Roger: “ What of the other owners.”
Dan; “I wouldn’t have a problem if the road was upgraded to the land.”
Kevin: “You mean to the abutment, not the 350 foot frontage.”
Kevin;” I thought when we first got this, that we’d be discussing a small length of class VI road, not the full length of the properties. I don’t have a problem with access off a class V road with diminished frontage, 674:41 doesn’t discuss frontage, it’s concerned with access.”
John: “ I tried hard to find a way, but it’s rural agricultural land. Frontage is the requirement in the ordinance. I looked at back lots; in no case shall lot be less than 100-foot frontage. I looked in open space development, that has to have frontage giving access to the lot. I may have sounded like I was trying to agree, But I can’t find a way. Three separate ordinances state frontage on a class V. I don’t see any way I can vote affirmative.
John asks if anymore discussion required,
Board replies no.
Roger motions to deny appeal under 674:41.II
Dan seconded, passes unanimously.
Roger motions to deny appeal for Variance from section III.G.2 of the Greenfield Zoning Ordinance.
Dan seconded, passes unanimously.
Roger motions to deny appeal Administrative Decision: Denial of Building Permit
Dan seconded, passes unanimously.
Board discusses denial wording.
Motion to close hearing made at 10:50
Seconded and passed.
Kevin O’Connell
| 
