PRELIMINARY
Greenfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
November 18, 2009
The Board met at 8:00 pm with John Gryval, Loren White, Roger Phelps, Kevin O’Connell and Craig Pettegrew present. Audience present: Craig and Katherine Morrocco, abutters, and Ed & Chris Ordzie, applicants.
John explained the Board of Adjustments procedures to audience and then started with opening the public session with the Pledge of Allegiance. Points explained where that the session will either close, or stay open with a possible site review with additional information gathered at the site review. Once all information is gathered, the public portion of the case is closed for the deliberative session. No further information can be given by anyone at that time.
John explained the cost to the applicant and asked for payment ($183.24).
Ed Ordzie presented the following:
The old tent/shed, dimensions 26x24x12, gave up the “ghost” last February during the heavy snowstorm. Several high value items need to be stored and protected outside of their home and this is the purpose of the new Quonset structure. Placement would be in the same location as the old tent/shed. He relied on the person who put in the pad site for the setback requirements – and was quoted “25’ from property line.” Sadly, he found out from the building inspector, Peter Hopkins, that the setback requirements are 50’ from property line. The new structure won’t fit on current location without a variance. To move the location back toward southeast corner of the lot would require tree removal, fill hauled in, and a change of placement of the structure. Mr Ordzie
quoted “Rancourt” decision “which facilities to the benefit of agriculture and/or rural living are to be retained. Emphasis will be placed on the preservation of open space, rural tranquility, woodlands, waterways, scenic views, historic and otherwise unique features.” He also stated that any other placement of the structure would be closer or into the wetlands on his property.
Also any other placement on the lot would butt up against another setback requirement. Rest of lot is heavily treed, has a stream running thru the northeast corner of property, lots of fill would be required to fill slope of land should he relocate site.
Craig and Katherine Morrocco were asked to present their comments. Both had looked at the aerial pictures that Mr. Ordzie copied to a disc for the Board’s perusal. (Note: only Board received disc for meeting, abutters did not receive this info.)
John then presented the 5 criteria needed for answering before a decision can be made.
The proposed use would not diminish surround property values because:
Mr. Ordzie stated that with the addition of the shed, his property taxes & values would likely increase, thus raising the comparable values of the surrounding homes.
Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:
The shed would not be visible from most ground-level viewing.
Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because:
Any other location will cost substantial financial cost to the applicant via cost of tree removal, hauling of fill to level slope of land. If the location is moved to north, the driveway would need to have any extension. Mr. Ordzie quoted the Boccia/”area” variance…as in dealing with setbacks. “In other words, assuming that the landowner’s plans are for a permitted use, but special conditions of the property make it difficult or impossible to comply with applicable setbacks or other restrictions, then the area variances might be necessary from a practical perspective to implement the proposed plan.”
Granting the variance would do substantial justice because:
The owners will be required to purchase significant amounts of fill and perform significant leveling to create a new pad site and access. Also the structure would be a property enhancement, bringing in higher value to property taxes, increase comparable value to surrounding homeowners, it structure will not impinge on wetlands and will preserve the character of the zone.
The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:
The type of structure is common to both other nearby areas of Greenfield and surrounding communities. The proposed location is virtually invisible. Functionally, merely replacing an existing, uncontested shed-type structure with a superior one.
Roger commended the applicant on his complete and thorough application. He asked Mr. Ordzie how close to the boundary line was the old tent? Mr. Ordzie replied that “builder” measured off from the edge of the pad where the tent tie-downs were and it is approximately 25 – 27.’ If pad were to be moved 25’ north of that location, lots of fill would be required to be brought in.
Craig asked if there was a slab there now? Mr Ordzie replied, “No. The building requires a 2’ foundation and he will be putting hardpack in that area as the building is self-supporting. Again he states 25’ north of present location, will require lots of fill to level another site. Craig then asked if the builder said that the setback was 50’, would he have put in the tent? Mr. Ordzie replied that the tent was a temporary structure and it would have been a moot point.
Craig Morrocco stated that so far all that he heard hasn’t really heard a good reason to place the shed in the present location – financial hardship isn’t seen by him.
Katherine Morrocco stated that it is wonderful living in this rural town for many years and have always gone along with whatever was decided by various Boards, but feels that this structure would change her view/character of and to her home. John thanked her and Craig for their input.
Kevin stated that perhaps Craig & Katherine Morrocco should go to Planning Board with their concerns.
Chris Ordzie stated that they are trying to keep as small a footprint in the town as possible.
Kevin stated that he felt the public session should remain open because he feels that a site review is needed to make sure that the request for the variance setback – that that location is the only spot truly available on lot. The rest of the Board agreed to a site review at 8:00 am on 11/21. Loren will review the site on 11/19 at 6:30 am.
John explained to the Ordzie’s that no decision will be made until session is reconvened on 12/9. Any comments made during site review will be sent to Secretary for inclusion in the minutes.
Case 09-2 adjourned at 8:50 pm.
Board then review the preliminary minutes for 10/14/09. Roger motioned to change line 29 to “should have town counsel.’ Craig 2nd motion, all approved the changes. 4 ayes closed the meeting.
Case 09-2, resumed at 8:08 pm, December 9, 2009 with the Pledge of Allegiance. Additional board members present: Dan Dineen.
Site reviews were done as follows: Loren White visited and reviewed the Ordzie’s property on 11/19 with Mr. Ordzie. John Gryval, Craig Pettegrew and Kevin O’Connell visited and reviewed the site on 11/21 and Roger Phelps visited and reviewed the site on 12/2/09. John explained to the Ordzie’s that no decision was made during the site reviews and the public information portion of the November 18, 2009 session or additional information from the Ordzie’s and/or the abutters is still open.
He then asked if there were any more comments, information from the applicant. Mr. Ordzie responded, “ I am pursing this doggedly, as the letter of the law enables proper use of my property assuming the use is consistent with zoning and area laws. Given that the use in my mind is proper then it comes under the special exception of the town’s ordinances. I empathize with the abutting neighbors and am willing to compromise and plant trees that will obstruct the neighbors view of my building. John commented that there are 3’ saplings on the northside of the pad which is softening the view from the neighbors.
Mr. Ordzie, addressing the denial would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner, then reiterated his previous comment about the “BOCCIA” decision: BOCCIA/”area” variance…as in dealing with setbacks. “In other words, assuming that the landowner’s plans are for a permitted use, but special conditions of the property make it difficult or impossible to comply with applicable setbacks or other restrictions, then the are variances might be necessary from a practical perspective to implement the proposed plan.” Mr. Ordzie stated that the cost for the fill, digging, and reorienting would be a hardship for him -- $5, 000. Craig Pettegrew asked if that amount would in addition to the original cost. Mr Ordzie, replied “yes.”
John stated that he had received additional information from an abutter. He then read for the record and to the audience a letter from Craig and Catherine Morrocco. (Letter is in Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Book.)
John requested the size of the building. Mr. Ordzie replied 20” x 30” x 14”. He also stated that given the unique setting of the building that it will still be an obstructed view for the abutters, but that he would further enhance the vegetation with additional saplings. Chris Ordzie stated that it is already a forested area with 100 year old pines and the enhancement will take time to fill in.
John closed the public informational portion at 8:27 pm. Roger Phelps motioned that the Board enter the deliberative session and Loren White seconded the motion.
He stated that he could no longer accept evidence and that the applicants can stay and listen to the Board’s discussion if they chose. It was also stated by John that all Board members could discuss the application, but only the original 5 members, John Gryval, Loren White, Kevin O’Connell, Roger Phelps and Craig Pettegrew could vole on the matter. Dan Dineen was in attendance for the 2nd portion of this meeting. It also explained that a vole of 3 members would either grant or deny the application.
Deliberations began with Craig Pettegrew asking that the Board go through each of the “famous” 5 questions that are required.
The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because:
Kevin O’Connell pointed out that the abutters have raised the question concerning values of property when they attended the first meeting.
Roger Phelps commented that the town ordinance was put in place by the voters and should be adhered to.
Craig Pettegrew stated that at the time the pad was built, the builder should have known about the town’s 50’ setback requirement. Clearly the builder misunderstood.
Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:
Kevin O’Connell said “taking a mistake and making it permanent is contrary to public interest. Craig Pettegrew stated that it definitely is contrary to the abutters interest and they are part of the public. John Gryval commented that the rural/agricultural setback is 50’ and the 27’ setback is contrary to the public interest.
Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because:
Kevin O’Connell stated that the Board can’t “grandfather” legal use when it wasn’t legal when it was first constructed. The hardship to the owner was created by the builder.
Dan Dineen asked if the structure could be placed elsewhere on the property. The Board responded, “yes, it could be reoriented further north.”
The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:
Craig Pettegrew commented that working our way through the 5 questions is how we determined whether we can deny or grant an application. Unfortunately the additional cost doesn’t make a hardship, and it is contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. The Board understands that a uniqueness to the situation for the owner would help in getting this accepted, doesn’t see this.
John Gryval stated that “he’s trying to find a way to pass this, but the “spirit of the ordinance” doesn’t let me vote in the positive.
Dan Dineen commented, “that if it makes sense to the applicant, but not to the abutter, then it is not in the spirit of the ordinance.
John Gryval stated that the applicant can still do what they want to do, but in a different location.
John Gryval then stated that he would read each of the 5 questions again and asked for a yea or nay from each member.
- The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property value: No, it would not diminish the property value. All members agreed.
- Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:
Kevin O’Connell – it is contrary to public interest.
Loren White – it would not contrary to public interest
Craig Pettegrew – it is contrary to the abutters interest, thus it is contrary to public interest.
Roger Phelps – it is contrary to public interest.
- Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because:
Kevin O-Connell – no unnecessary hardship to the owner.
Loren White – no unnecessary hardship to the owner
Craig Pettegrew – no unnecessary hardship to the owner
Roger Phelps – no unnecessary hardship to the owner
John Gryval – no unnecessary hardship to the owner
Kevin O’Connell, “New Hampshire is a hard state to work in for building purposes. So the cost of fill, digging, and reorientation of a site is part of criteria of building in NH.”
- Granting the variance would do substantial justice because:
Loren White – no substantial justice in granting application.
Roger Phelps – no substantial justice in granting application
Kevin O’Connell – no substantial justice in granting application
Craig Pettegrew – no substantial justice in granting application
John Gryval – to alleviate an injustice by granting an illegal variance is not in compliance with substantial justice.
- The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:
Craig Pettegrew – setback request inconsistent with town ordinance, definitely not in spirit of the ordinance.
Kevin O’Connell – no, not in compliance with the spirit of ordinance.
Loren White – for the general welfare of applicant this is in the spirit of the ordinance.
Roger Phelps – no, not in compliance with the spirit of ordinance.
John Gryval – no, not in compliance with spirit of ordinance.
Roger Phelps motioned at 9:05 pm that the Board of Adjustment deny the application for a variance from article G2, section III of the zoning ordinance to permit a 27’ setback from property line for Edmund Ordzie. Craig Pettegrew seconded the motion. Vote taken as follows: 4 denying application; 1 opposed.
John informed the Ordzie’s of the Board’s decision. Also explained that the notice would be received in 3 days and that they could appeal within 30 days. Roger motion for adjournment at 9:15pm. Craig Pettegrew seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 9:16pm.
| 
