Greenfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
March 25, 2008
The Zoning Board gathers at 7:30 pm
. John Gryval re-opens the public hearing for case 08-1 at 8:00 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.
John reads a letter arrived today at the town from Mr. Haithcock stating that he cannot attend tonight due to a family medical emergency. Mr. Haithcock also asks the board if the meeting can be postponed so he may be there to answer any questions the board may need answered.
The board discusses the letter, it’s request, and that since they’re in the deliberative portion of the hearing, public input is not generally allowed unless requested by the board. .
Kevin makes motion to continue to deliberative portion of the hearing, until the time that the board feels they need more input, at which time the hearing will be continued to the following Tuesday night.
Motion seconded by Dan. Motion passes unanimously.
The Board reviews the specifics of the case as presented.
After a short discussion, John asks the board if they’d like to start the variance questions. The board replies yes, motion is made, seconded, and carried to move the questions.
John proceeds with question #1
The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values.
The board discusses the issue with discussion focusing on the additional driveway between two houses that is not there now, the additional traffic to the common driveway, and the expansion of a common driveway that currently would not meet the driveway regulations.
The board motions to vote, motion seconded, and carries.
The board votes on the question; Two no, it would not diminish surrounding property values; Three yes, it would diminish. Motion does not carry.
John moves to question #2
Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
The board discusses the issue with discussion on similar cases the board has handled in the past, what if anything makes this one different. Safety issues such as increased traffic, and how the frontage requirement is there for emergency vehicle access.
The board motions to vote, motion seconded, and carries. The board votes on the question; Five No. Motion does not carry.
John moves to question #3;
. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because:
a. the zoning restriction as applied to the property interferes with the reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment such that:
b. that no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because:
c. the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others.
The board discusses the fact that the property has been used reasonably in the recent past as it’s been logged and could be used for other things such as horse paddock, field, or woodlot. Although the lack of frontage was a pre-existing condition when he purchased the lot, he still needs frontage to build on it as a house lot to allow for emergency vehicles. And granting a variance from the frontage requirement for this case would create an unfair condition for all the other lots along the Railroad bed that lack frontage.
The board motions to vote, motion seconded, and carries. The board votes on the question; Five No. Motion does not carry.
John moves to question #4
Granting the variance would do substantial justice because
The board discussion focuses on the fact that the condition existed when he purchased the property. That it would be an injustice to others in the same position.
The board motions to vote, motion seconded, and carries. The board votes on the question; Five No. Motion does not carry.
John moves to question #5
The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because
The board discusses the ordinance, the reason for frontage requirements in zoning ordinances and state law, and the primacy of health and safety requirements in those ordinances and laws.
The board motions to vote, motion seconded, and carries. The board votes on the question; Five No. Motion does not carry.
Craig motions to deny variance request, seconded by Dan, board votes and motion carries unanimously Motion to close hearing for case 08-1 made at 8:40, seconded and carries unanimously.
Board motion to accept minutes from March 18, 2008 with the following corrections delete line 121-138. Change “10:15” to “11:15Z.” Motion seconded and carried unanimously.
Board motion to accept minutes from March 11, 2008 with the following changes,
Line 42 delete “concern.” Motion seconded and carried unanimously.
Motion to close meeting made at 9:10 by Craig seconded by Dan, motion carries, meeting ends.
| 
