DRAFT
TOWN OF HOLDERNESS
ZONINING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
HOLDERNESS TOWN HALL
HOLDERNESS, NH
October 10, 2006
CALL TO ORDER Mr. Barbera called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Barbera, Mr. Bass, Ms. DiCosola, Mr. Rothchild, Mrs. Webster.
NEW BUSINESS: It was moved by Mr. Barbera, seconded by Mrs. Webster to accept and approve the minutes of the August 8, 2006 meeting as amended. Vote was unanimous.
The following amendments were made to the minutes of the August 8, 2006 meeting:
1. the minutes shall reflect, under the discussion of the Coursey case the following statement, “The Board determined that no proof was shown that the roof was the only means to correct the damage.”
PUBLIC HEARING Atty. Quentin Blaine was present representing the Courseys.
Case #289-07-06 Mr. Barbera advised that the question before the Board at this
Earl and Betty Coursey rehearing is if there is any new material the Courseys or their
Rehearing attorney could present that could affect the previous decision of the Board.
Atty. Blaine presented the following material in support of the Courseys request as follows:
1. That the Courseys already own the land
2. The building existed before the Town Ordinance was adopted
3. There was already a variance secured for the existing deck
4. The previous installation of gutters for the Courseys did not cure the water damage they were installed to prevent.
Attorney Blaine advised the Board that in the last 5 years, the State Supreme Court had taken up the issue of hardship and had recently redefined hardship.
Attorney Blaine cited the following cases as they relate to hardship and its definition:
§ 2001 Simplex Decision
§ The Bocha vs. Manchester Decision.
Attorney Blaine stated that under the Court’s most recent definition of hardship, the construction of the roof would make the property more useable and more enjoyable. He emphasized that a roof over the deck would be considered a reasonable use of the property and that granting the variance would not change the character of the neighborhood.
Attorney Blaine went on to explain that the construction of the roof over the deck would not diminish or impact the value of the surrounding properties. He stated that the immediate abutters have already stated that they have no objection to the construction of the roof. He explained that the construction of the roof would increase the value of the Coursey property.
Attorney Blaine stated that the construction of the roof in the setback would require a variance from the Board. He stated that the granting of the variance would make the present non-conforming property, more conforming.
Mr. Blaine pointed out that the deck is a pre-existing deck, that the building pre-dates the issuance of the ordinance, and that the zoning ordinance came to being after the present building was built.
Mr. Blaine cited the Hilby/Chester Case in which the Court determined that the Board would need to make determinations like the Coursey case on a case by case basis. He noted that the Board would also have to look at the percentage of encroachment in the setback.
The Board expressed the following concerns relative to the granting of a variance for the Courseys:
1. No new material has been presented at this rehearing
2. There are numerous camps/cottages that were erected prior to the issuance of the present ordinance that do not support year round use and are non-conforming properties that do not have roofs over their decks.
3. Anything that makes the property enjoyable is not a standard
4. Whether a deck has a roof or no roof, there is no correlation between the deck and the roof.
Atty. Blaine pointed out that the Court specified the new standard is “the reasonable use of the property.”
The Courseys pointed out that the water problem can’t be resolved because they can’t re-grade the lot, which could solve the problem. It was noted by the Courseys that at present, the rain comes off the roof and pools against the front of the house. It was pointed out that the Courseys have tried to repair the damage by re-siding and replacing rotted portions of the doors and siding. The Courseys feel that if a roof were constructed over their deck that the water coming off the roof could be pushed 10’ from their building and hence, resolve the problem. The Courseys state that the idea of gutters had been tried. They stated that they had gutters installed and subsequently the gutters had to be removed for the installation of a new roof. The Courseys noted that the gutters did not solve the
water problem and were not reinstalled after the new roof was in place.
The Board discussed possible solutions to the water problems the Courseys are experiencing and questioned why gutters and grading of the lot wouldn’t work.
The Board expressed concern that the recent Supreme Court decision did not view the construction of the roof as a new structure, whereas, the Town Ordinance was very specific in that the roof would be considered a new structure.
The Board reasoned that a large portion of the roof could be constructed without the need for a variance. It was stated that the variance would only apply to that portion of the roof that was constructed in the setback, which represents a small percentage of the proposed roof.
The Board expressed its opinion that the Courseys could roof the portion of the deck not in the setback and install gutters and grade the land down the side of the building. It was noted that just such action had worked in other similar situations.
It was moved by Mrs. DiCosola, seconded by Mr. Bass that the Board enter deliberations. Vote was unanimous.
In deliberative session, the Board reviewed the information presented on the case this evening.
It was moved by Mr. Rothchild, seconded by Mrs. Webster that the Board conclude deliberations. Vote was unanimous.
It was moved by Mr. Rothchild, seconded by Mrs. DiCosola, to reaffirm the original position of the Board and deny the variance based on the fact that there was no information presented this evening significant enough to change the Board’s original position. Vote was 4 – 1 (Mr. Bass opposing). Motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS The Board reviewed a letter they recently received regarding the Beale property. The letter dealt with the issue of where the public road and the private driveway exist in relation to the property. The letter also dealt with the issue of what portion of the public road and private driveway is allowed to be plowed with regard to a previous decision of the Board. It was the consensus of the Board to have Mr. Marden and Mr. Barbera walk the property to ascertain the location of the public road as well as the private driveway and to ascertain the amount of private driveway can be plowed.
The Board was advised of the Fall Planning and Zoning Conference scheduled for October 28, 2006
NON-PUBLIC SESSION At 7:55 p.m. it was moved by Mr. Rothchild, seconded by Mrs. DiCosola that the Board enter non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A:3, II to discuss a personnel matter. The Board was polled, vote was unanimous.
PUBLIC SESSION At ____ p.m. it was moved by _________, seconded by ___________ that the Board return to public session. Vote was unanimous.
ADJOURNMENT At ____ p.m. it was moved by _________, seconded by ___________ 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
| 
