Greenfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
March 18, 2008
The Zoning Board starts to gather at 7:30 pm and awaits the arrival of the full board. John Gryval opens the public hearing for case 08-1 at 8:10 pm;
John Haithcock, of Hollis, NH for an Appeal of Administrative Decision
and a Variance request from E4-3 of the Zoning Ordinance for lot R9-3-1.
John, Dale, Dan, Craig, and Kevin present. The board looks over the application and decides to hear both segments separately, with the appeal from administrative decision first.
John asks if public notification was properly done. Kevin replies yes.
John asks Mr. Haithcock to present his case.
Mr. Haithcock states the facts will be the same for both cases, and describes how he bought lots in the Michelle-Mason subdivision along Forest road, that he currently owns three lots, two along Forest and the forty-acre lot on the other side of the tracks. Mr. Haithcock states he asked the Code enforcement officer for a building permit for the forty-acre lot and was denied because of lack of frontage on a class five road. Mr. Haithcock states he has a sixty-foot ROW across the tracks from the NHDOT, and that this is a lot of record with a crossing going back to 1847.
Craig; “as a single lot?”
Mr.Haithcock continues that when the Railroad came through they took the deed to the land, and Greenfield gave it a lot number. He tried to get second crossing from the NHDOT, but they won’t give him one. He tried to do a gravel pit, but the gravels no good. He was going to do an industrial development, but the Planning Board has some issues with it. He’s trying to do something with the lot, but keeps meeting obstacles.
John; “With an appeal of administrative decision you’re looking for an error in that decision.
Mr. Haithcock No, Peter didn’t make a mistake.
John states that in that area the town road frontage must not be less then 250 feet, then John read the definition of frontage.
Mr. Haithcock states after Kevin replied to his request for a variance from RSA 674:41 stating that the ZBA couldn’t grant relief from a state law, only local zoning ordinances, he decided the best way to go is with a variance, it’s the only way to go.
John asks if anyone else has anything to say about the administrate decision.
Craig motions to deny the appeal of administrative decision based on the testimony given. Motion seconded and carries unanimously.
Mr. Haithcock states when he was on the ZBA in Hollis, they would allow a little flexibility in the way the applicant worded the appeal for variance, they didn’t insist it had to be worded exactly.
Mr. Haithcock restates the specifics of the case, its existence as a lot of record, and the lots have 250 of frontage, one lot has more. The back lot was supposed to be put on the lot in front. His attorney said he could grant an addition driveway easement into the common driveway, as the easement in place is not exclusive.
Craig;” The front lots have frontage, but the back one doesn’t.”
Mr. Haithcock; ”But the back lot is a lot of record.”
Craig, ”It won’t meet the requirements for granting a building permit.
Mr. Haithcock, ”You could grant one through a variance, one lot on 40 acres would make everyone happy”
Dale asks if the crossing goes over any wetlands.
Mr. Haithcock; ”No.”
The board discusses the plat, driveway, and crossing with Mr. Haithcock.
Mr. Haithcock states he also owns the lot near the warehouses, and asked the NHDOT for a second crossing, but they said no, and he decided not to push the issue.
John notes the 60-foot ROW indicated on plat.
Kevin gives the board a copy of a larger plat shown to the Planning Board during the Industrial PCC.
John; ”Looks like the house would need a wetlands buffer special exception.
Mr. Haithcock replies, “No, wetlands crossing are required, there’s a natural stone bridge there. Even if there were the state would require a permit.
John replies, ”The town would also require a special exception.”
Mr. Haithcock states this plan makes sense to the master plan, it leave a wildlife corridor.
The board discusses variances from frontage requirement.
John, ”Less frontage implies some frontage.”
John asks how big the front lot is, Mr. Haithcock replies 3.9 acres, the railroad took the property from the easement.
Kevin asks if he can move the crossing to the south to line up with his other lot.
Mr. Haithcock replies no, NHDOT didn’t want to talk about moving one crossing, they seemed to want to revoke the original.
Craig asks what it would take to make this happen.
John explains what they’d have to do.
Craig; ”what about the common driveway.”
Hr. Haithcock replies that his attorney said as long as he didn’t grant exclusive right, he could add to it.
Dan; “What does the NHDOT have to say about the crossing.
Mr.Haithcock replies; “The NHDOT says we have the right to use it as a single family house.”
Mr. Haithcock shows John the letter from the NHDOT.
Kevin states his concern with adding an additional driveway to a common driveway that could not currently be granted as the regulation limits common driveways to two accesses.
Mr. Haithcock states he believes he meets the requirements for a variance.
Craig, “But what about the driveway issue.”
Dan; “Looking at the spirit of the ordinance, the land can be used pretty reasonably, what scares him is down the road, he’d hate to make it for one house.
Dan discusses reasonable use of property.
Craig asks if they should close the hearing
John; “or do we want to continue.”
Dan, “He’s asking for one frontage.”
Kevin, “But you can look beyond that’s being asked.”
John starts going over question for granting variance.
Due to the lateness of the night, Craig motions to recess the hearing until March 26 at 8:00 pm. Motion seconded by Dale and carried unanimously.
John states he’d like a legal opinion from town’s attorney.
Kevin agrees to do it.
Meeting adjourns at 11:15.
| 
