TOWN OF HOLDERNESS
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING MINUTES
TOWN HALL
HOLDERNESS, NH
July 12, 2005
CALL TO ORDER Mr. Barbera called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT Mr. Barbera, Mr. Bass, Mr. Rothchild, Mr. Lyon
UPDATE The Board was brought up to date from Bob Rothchild concerning Case #285-05-05, Squam Family, LLC Agent: Hinds Septic Design Services. Tax Map 101 Lot 36. (application for a variance from Article IV, Section H - variance from the location of septic tank/pump chamber, 12 feet from the property line). This case was brought before the Holderness Zoning Board at their June 14, 2005 meeting.
Mr. Rothchild was asked at the June 14, 2005 ZBA meeting, to contact Hinds and communicate to the company, the concerns of the Board, relative to the frequency of inspection of the new system on this particular parcel. The Board was also concerned at that time, about the system in the event that the system malfunctioned or failed to function. Additionally, the Board wanted to know how the company would handle such an event and deal with the concern of frequency of inspection.
Mr. Rothchild reported to the Board that he had talked with company officials, who assured him that the company would draw up a detailed inspection protocol. The Planning Board had been informed of this development and were in favor of it, as was the was the Holderness Zoning Board.
MINUTES It was moved by Mr. Lyons, seconded by Mr. Rothchild to accept and approve the minutes of the June 14, 2005 meeting as presented. Vote was unanimous.
HEARINGS Mr. Barbera advised that the application is for a variance
Case #286-05-05 from Article IV, Section H, Item 2 and Section K. He
Barbara Noyes Trust stated that the trust is looking for a variance of the 45’
Map 213-4 setback from the leach field to the well; a 25’ setback from
Agent: Steve Hering the stream to the leach field, and a variance of 25’ setback from the wetlands to the leach field.
The Board reviewed a map of the parcel. Mr. Hering, Agent for the Barbara Noyes Trust, noted that the two abutters wells are 20’ and 19’ respectively from the property line. He stated that the applicant is seeking relief from an onsite well. The Board was advised that the abutters wells were pre-existing (not meeting the town requirement) at the time of the sale of the property (Jan. 2003
Mr. Hering advised that a portion of the parcel, due to the flow of the stream on the property and the banks existing on the property, made portions of the property unusable.
Mr. Barbera called for public and abutters input.
Mr. Barbera acknowledged that he was in receipt of a letter from Ms. Susan Smith Palmer expressing to the Board her concerns that the property was not unbuildable and that she did not see any hardships concerning the use of the property. In the letter, Ms. Palmer asked that the Board deny the variance request.
Mr. Barry Wescott, real estate agent representing Barbara Noyes, advised the Board that not granting the variance would create a hardship, in that 1.9 acres of the parcel would not be usable.
Mr.. Dick Mardin advised the Board that the abutters wells were established in the 90s and had been in existence for at least 10-15 years and were established before his appointment.
Mrs. Barbara Noyes read the letter submitted by Ms. Susan Smith Palmer for the benefit of those present.
Mrs. Noyes advised that the parcel was a recent transfer sold to the Noyes’ in January 2003, with the intent to add to the lot. Mrs. Noyes noted that her daughter owned the parcel below the parcel under discussion. She stated that the addition would be a play area for the grandchildren. Mrs. Noyes stated that the lower parcel was owned by Joe and Eileen Noyes.
Mrs. Noyes advised the Board that not granting the variance would create a hardship.
It was the consensus of the Board, that there being no further public input to be heard that the Board enter deliberations on the matter.
Mr. Barbera raised the concern about the leach field’s proximity to the stream and the possibility of contamination as well as concerns about the topography of the parcel.
Mr. Bass shared similar concerns, but pointed out that the building would block contaminants from the leach field and that there was no risk, if the leach field system was properly maintained.
Mr. Lyons raised the concern that the land is unusable with the abutters wells so close to the property line.
It was moved by Mr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Lyons that the Board close deliberations. Vote was unanimous.
It was moved by Mr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Rothchild to accept the variance as requested and shown on the map presented, noting that this is a hardship caused by topography and the location of the abutters wells within the setbacks. Vote was unanimous
All parties to the application were advised that they had 20 days in which to appeal the Board’s decision and request a rehearing. Additionally, in the event that they were not satisfied with the rehearing ruling, they could appeal the application decision to the Courts.
Case #287-07-05 Ted and Carrie Gadbois, Tax Map 226-17 came before the
Map 226-17 Board to request a Special Exception for seasonal use of their garage as a showroom and retail sales per D.1.b.3.
Ted and Carrie Gadbois reside at 20 Meadowview Drive, a subdivision. Mr. Gadbois advised the Board that it was their intention to sell canvas items for the home as well as candles etc. from their garage. He advised the Board that his property had a circular drive where customers could drive onto the property. He stated that this would not impact the traffic flow on the roadway. Mr. Gadbois stated that there would be ample parking on his property for the retail business and that there would be minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Gadbois advised that there would be no exterior lighting, since the business would only be run during daylight hours. Mr. Gadbois, stated that there would be no impact on the local transfer station, since any trash from the property would be distributed to dumpsters he already had placed on other properties he owns.
Mr. Gadbois expressed his opinion that the property would appreciate in value and that the sign on the property for his business had already been authorized by the town.
Mr. Bass raised the concern that Meadow View Lane subdivision was in a rural residential zone, not a commercial business zone.
Mr. Bass raised the concern that Meadow View Lane was a private subdivision. He inquired of those present if there were any covenants attached to their individual deeds. He advised those present that if there were covenants with the individual deeds, that the covenants were enforceable in and of themselves if not waived
Mr. Bass stated that there is no requirement in the town ordinance or the covenants that required regularly scheduled meetings of the neighborhood. He went on to say that under the rural residential zone, “no extensive business or industries will be carried on in a rural residential zone.”
Mr. Rothchild asked if the proposed business were to become a full fledged business in two years, would the full fledged business exceed the present word “extensive.”
The Board was advised by Mr. Gadbois that the State had already approved a retail license for the property.
Mr. Barbera called for public and abutters input.
Mr. Jeff McIver, an abutter across the street from the Gadbois property, expressed his concern that the business would impact traffic in the neighborhood, that the road was a dirt road and there would be an inordinate amount of dust from the traffic into the property.
Mr. McIver also advised the Board that last Tuesday (July 5, 2005) Mr. Gadbois had advised him that he was withdrawing the application for the business.
Mr. McIver advised the Board that 10 property owners would be affected by this application and that no one in the neighborhood supported the petition. He noted that there is a history of accidents at the entrance to the subdivision as it enters Rte 175.
Mr. McIver expressed concern that the granting of the exception would make exception to the covenants. He expressed concern that if the exception was granted, what would keep other property owners from bringing small businesses into the neighborhood.
Mr. McIver was advised by the Board that the granting of the special exception did not affect the covenants of the subdivision. It was stated that if the Board were to grant the special exception that the abutters could still go to court and enforce the covenants.
Atty. Brian Ray advised the Board that as a property owner he did not get notice of the application and indicated it was his understanding that the application had been withdrawn due to neighborhood concerns.
Mr. Bass advised the Board that under the special exception for both rural residential and general zones, that small business of less than 2,500 square feet were acceptable provided that there was no environmental impact to the abutters. He stated that the intent of the ordinance was to allow “cottage” industry.
Atty. Brian Ray raised the concern that changing the property from rural residential to retail sales would impact the character of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Renee Fischler read a letter written by her husband Michael into the record raising concerns with regard to the following:
· Small businesses in a strictly residential neighborhood
· Properties going from residential to commercial use
· Granting of this Special Exception, opening the door to future commercial uses in residential neighborhoods.
· Impact on property values and the atmosphere in the neighborhood
· Traffic and traffic speed
Mr. Fischler in his letter asked the Board to deny the special exception.
Mrs. Renee Fischler read a letter of her own into the record raising the following concerns:
§ The granting of the Special Exception would destroy the serenity of the neighborhood
§ This new business would bring strangers into the neighborhood
§ The Gadbois were not taking into consideration the feelings of their neighbors
§ The Gadbois’ were encouraged to proceed with this application over the objections of the neighbors
§ If this Special Exception is granted that will mean anybody in the neighborhood can do whatever they want with their property.
§ She wanted all neighbors notified, not just abutters
Mrs. Fischler asked the Board to deny the petition.
Mr. Robert Slagle, an abutting property owner raised the following concerns:
§ He was under the impression that the application had been withdrawn
§ Traffic patterns this business would bring to the neighborhood
§ Altered signage to attract business
§ Customer parking (customers will not park where Gadbois think they will)
Mr. Gadbois advised the Board that he had discussed with town officials, that if a dog kennel or an auto body shop were not acceptable businesses in the neighborhood, he felt that maybe his business was not acceptable either, so he was considering withdrawing it.
Mr. Ed Lessard (48 Meadow View Lane) property owner, raised the concern that the introduction of a business to the neighborhood would change the designation of the neighborhood.
Mr. Barbera assured Mr. Lessard that it would not affect the neighborhood designation.
Public concern was raised that the additional traffic entering and exiting at the entrance to the subdivision would create a safety hazard and be more dangerous to vehicular traffic.
The Board closed the meeting to further public input.
It was moved by Mr. Rothchild, seconded by Mr. Barbera that the Board enter deliberations. Vote was unanimous.
The Board discussed the special exception in deliberations including the following specific points:
· The subdivision is designated for slow traffic
· The entrance to the subdivision could accommodate 3-4 cars per day, but it would be expensive to widen the entrance to allow for the additional traffic.
· This retail business is not like a home office
· The Board can restrict traffic, can restrict hours, but cannot restrict the number of customers
· Lack of control over the potential growth of the business in a residential area
Mr. Bass pointed out to the Board that in the past all special exceptions granted by the Board, were for businesses that had entrances directly onto main roads. He stated that this was not the case in this special exception.
It was moved by Mr. Rothchild, seconded by Mr. Lyon to deny the special exception as the Board could not control the traffic into the property. Additionally, the granting of the Special Exception would change the character of the neighborhood as it currently exists. Further, there is a significant possibility that the Special Exception if granted would negatively impact the abutters to the property. Vote was unanimous.
The applicant was advised that he had 20 days to appeal this decision and request a rehearing of the Board.
CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Barbera advised the Board that he had received a second letter concerning the Pemi Fish and Game Club relative to it being in violation of the zoning ordinance. He advised that this letter was forwarded to the Selectmen and Planning Board.
DISCUSSION ITEMS The Board discussed the definition of small business and home office as it pertained to commercial space.
ADJOURNMENT At 8:15 p.m. it was moved by Mr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Lyon that there being no further business to come before the Board that the meeting be adjourned. Vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Paula Hancock
Recording Secretary
For Board Works
| 
