HOLDERNESS ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
HOLDERNESS, NH 03264
December 9, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT Mr. Bass, Ms. DiCosola, Mrs. Webster, Mr. Lions, and
Mr. Rothchild
OTHERS PRESENT Mrs. Bownes – Secretary for the Board
CALL TO ORDER Mr. Bass called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES It was moved by Mr. Rothchild, seconded by Ms. DiCosola to accept and approve the minutes of October 14, 2003 as presented. Vote was unanimous.
DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr. Bass advised that he had received a letter from Mr.
Bird Family Trust Bird notifying the Board that he wishes to appeal the denial and will be forwarding additional information as soon as possible. Mr. Bass advised that to date no additional information ahs been received from Mr. Bird.
Mr. Bass advised that the procedure for an appeal is such that the Board must decide if there is some reason for rehearing the case.
It was moved by Mr. Rothchild, seconded by Ms. DiCosola to deny the request for a rehearing based on the fact that Mr. Bird presented no basis or supportive documentation to justify a rehearing. Vote was unanimous.
C.N. Brown It was moved by Mrs. Webster, seconded by Mrs. DiCosola to have C.N. Brown discuss first why a non-conforming, grandfathered use is permitted use in the ordinance. Vote was unanimous.
Attorney Conklin was present representing C.N. Brown Corp. Attorney Conklin said that he noticed that the term permitted use and the term non-conforming permitted use in the ordinance seems to be used interchangeably. He said that they are not distinguished from one another in the ordinance. Therefore, he concluded that permitted use and non-conforming permitted use are the same thing.
Attorney Conklin introduced Attorney Watts and Mr. Sheehan to the members of the Board.
Attorney Conklin said that one of the issues with the whole flood item, is whether the structure can cause damage, impede the flow of water, etc. He said that C.N. Brown ended up digging out the back of the lot, during the last porject, so that there is not a displacement impact.
Mrs. Webster said that one of the issues is where the chemicals and such would go after vehicles have been washed.
The Board reviewed the memorandum submitted by Attorney Conklin relative to the matter of permitted uses.
Mr. Bass said that special exception is something that goes along with the enumerated specific uses listed in the ordinance.
Attorney Watt provided information relative to accessory structures.
Attorney Conklin said that Mr. Bass is distinguishing between an improvement and a special exception.
Mr. Rothchild asked if the car wash fits within the setback and Mr. Sheehan said it does. Mr. Sheehan reviewed maps of the site for the benefit of the Board.
Mr. Rothchild asked the Board if it was not in a flood plain, would C.N. Brown have to ask for a special exception or variance for the car wash.
Mr. Bass said that at the time the structure was put in place, it was a commercial zone, thus the grandfathering of the site.
Mrs. Webster said that in the original process the Board wouldn’t allow the enlarging of the original building, why would an additional building now be allowed.
Attorney Watts said that in his research he found that the Board does have an option of going the variance or special exception route with this application.
Mrs. Webster questioned a hardship would be present if the variance route was taken.
Mr. Rothchild asked if accessory uses can be defined. Attorney Conklin said that his experience says that an accessory use is something that complements what is already in existence or a natural outgrowth of what already exists.
Mr. Bass said that reviewed section D1 of the ordinance.
Mr. Bass advised if the Board finds that the existing non-conforming use is a permitted use, then by definition this would have to be considered under special exception.
Attorney Conklin reviewed several cases similar to the special exception being requested.
It was moved by Mr. Bass, seconded by Mrs. Webster that the Board move into deliberations. Vote was unanimous.
The Board was asked by Attorney Conklin to review section 1A of his memorandum.
DELIBERATIONS Mr. Bass asked if the Board if they feel the ordinance intended these non-conforming uses to be a permitted use under the ordinance (part 7 of the ordinance).
Mrs. Webster said in her mind the two terms are not interchangeable. Mrs. DiCosola said that case law does make the distinction.
Mr. Bass said that in certain instances the terms are interchangeable, but in this regard he does not see it has interchangeable. He said it is not taking away rights.
Mr. Bass said that it is his opinion a permitted non-conforming use (which is what C.N. Brown has) should be construed as a permitted use under section 5c.
Mr. Bass said that they could come back for a variance or they could argue that this is an expansion of the existing use.
Mrs. Webster said that the two terms describe two different things and this use is not permitted at all in this area at this point.
Ms. DiCosola said that both terms are used in the ordinance, which leads her to believe that they mean different things, otherwise why use both.
It was moved by Mr. Bass, seconded by Mrs. Webster that the Board finds that the term permitted use in section 5c does not mean permitted, non-conforming or grandfathered use. Therefore, the special exceptions under section D of the ordinance do not apply to permitted, non-conforming or grandfathered uses. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Lions expressed his feeling that what is being proposed here is a bit of a stretch.
It was moved by Mr. Bass, seconded by Mrs. Webster that the Board move out of deliberations. Vote was unanimous.
NEW BUSINESS Mr. Rothchild said he intends to contact Mr. Hansen with regard to clarification of the existing language in the ordinance.
Mr. Bass distributed information on proposed language changes to the ordinance. Mr. Bass said that any input should be provided to Mr. Hansen.
Mr. Bass asked that the Board review the definition of family and said that in his opinion this needs to be looked at. This met with the agreement of the rest of the Board.
The Board agreed that perhaps a square footage requirement per individual would be a better way to address the issue.
ADJOURNMENT At 8:30 p.m. it was moved by Mr. Rothchild, seconded by Mrs. DiCosola that there being no further business to come before the Board that the meeting be adjourned. Vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Karen A. Bownes
Recording Secretary
Board Works
| 
