APPROVED:

____________

AGENDA: REHEARING REQUEST: KENNETH & SUSAN LATRONICO,

33 Arrowhead Point Rd., #102-029

USE VARIANCE: SHEILA McDONOUGH, 61 Brown’s Beach Rd.,

#104-138

REQUEST CONTINUANCE OF REHEARING FOR DAVID P.

KENNEY, 83 King Arthur Lane, #104-045

ATTENDING: Dan Bouchard (Chairman), Lloyd Belbin, Donna Hardy, Lorraine Onorato-Sullivan

ABSENT: Sandra Heaney (away)

OTHER: Michelle Bonsteel (Land Use Officer), public

The meeting opened at 7:00.

MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 2008: D. Hardy made a motion, second by L. Belbin, to approve the minutes as read. The motion carried.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING: KENNETH & SUSAN LATRONICO

Mr. Belbin stated that he does not see a change. Mr. Bouchard agreed but stated that the Board is to determine if we made any mistake. Mr. Bouchard went over everything and did not see anything that the Board had missed, he added. The Zoning Ordinance is trying to avoid over-crowding at the Lake. Everyone felt that they had read the request and is ready to vote. The vote was taken and resulted in 0 for, 3 against holding the rehearing. Mr. Bouchard explained that they could resubmit if they came up with something different.

USE VARIANCE: SHEILA McDONOUGH/BRUCE & MATT BARNARD

Mr. Bouchard asked Mr. McDonough if they had received a letter from Ms. Bonsteel explaining what they have missing from their application. Mr. McDonough stated that they had and that Mr. Barnard is to represent them.

Mr. Barnard gave a power point presentation, stating that the non-conforming cottage was built in 1930. He said that they need an area variance for the roofline which is non-conforming and in danger of caving in due to heavy snow. The impervious area is in compliance as it is only slightly above 18% counting the new addition (25% is allowed).

-2-

ZBA Minutes

12/2/08

McDONOUGH VARIANCE continued:

The new addition is over 15’ away from the boundary line and more than 30’ from any other structure. As to the Spirit of the Ordinance, the proposed change is more in line with the current neighborhood. The new septic and roof will greatly improve the property and, with their present value at 30% lower than the neighbors, it will improve the value of the surrounding properties. There will only be a diamond-shaped area of roof that is added and the roof pitch is to blend with the 5/12.

Mr. Bouchard asked if they were denied and needed a variance because this is a non-conforming building. Mr. Barnard stated that the addition is conforming and the height is under 15’.

Mike Bannan, an abutter, asked about the septic tank on the drawing. One area says 602’ and another 609’. Mr. Barnard stated that this is a mistake and should be 600.9’. He showed Mr. Bouchard his worksheet and Mr. Bouchard verified this. Mr. Bannan stated that the septic will only be 7’ – 8’ off the property line. Mr. Bouchard explained that this is not a structure so it is not required to comply with the setback. Mr. Barnard stated that the NHDES requires 10’. Mr. Bannan questioned the ability of the NHDES to approve a septic anywhere on the property. Mr. Bouchard stated that they, in this case, they shall need approval from the State, Bristol ZBA, plus DES for the Shoreland Protection Act. Mr. Bannan asked for DES questions to be asked and Mr. Bouchard stated that the Board cannot ask DES. Mr. Bannan then asked to have the Zoning Ordinance definition of “Structure” read which Mr. Bouchard did. Mr. Bannan stated that he is not against this project but has a concern of the 609.9’ that is on the plan and the septic not being 15’ from the property line. Mr. Bouchard explained that the Board does not consider the septic as a structure.

Mr. Bouchard asked if the Board had any questions. Ms. Hardy asked if any permits are needed, such as water. She was told that there are not. They will need DES approval. Mr. Barnard explained that they have not applied yet as the State likes to have the Town approval before they hear it. He also mentioned that this is not to be a 2-bedroom addition but is a 2-bedroom in all.

Mr. Belbin asked if they plan on having a basement. Jim Shokal, contractor for the job, stated that, with a new septic, there is to be no full basement within 25’.

Mr. Bouchard asked the square footage of the existing deck and was told 124 sq. ft. Mr. Bouchard felt that it was the same size and with the new room.

At this time, Mr. Bouchard closed the public hearing as there were no other remarks brought forward.

-3-

ZBA Minutes

12/2/08

McDONOUGH VARIANCE continued:

Mr. Bouchard agreed that the cottage is dwarfed by everyone else in the neighborhood. Mr. Belbin stated that, with the change in the height of the roof and the addition, the increase of the building would be 2/3rds. He questioned what the Board has done in the past. Mr. Bouchard stated that the previous case was different being a huge building to begin with. He added that the Board can’t use hardship as they would like. Mr. Belbin stated that the cottage was purchased for its current use. Mr. Bouchard stated that, last year (before the present ordinance came to be) they would have only needed a variance for the small triangle of roof. Ms. Bonsteel added that, in any other district, they would not need a variance. A discussion followed as to what the job of the ZBA actually is.

Mr. Bouchard explained that our job is to provide relief when there is an injustice. Mr. Belbin felt that there is no injustice; they purchased as a cottage on the Lake and it is still a cottage on the Lake without the variance. Discussion continued. Again, Mr. Belbin stated that he did not feel that it met hardship. He added that it would improve the neighborhood and a new septic is a good thing but he can’t get past the addition. Ms. Hardy stated that their lot is odd and this proposal would be in tune with the neighborhood.

Mr. Bouchard then read the criteria for hardship. Mr. Belbin again stated that they purchased it as a camp and the same use is allowed now. Ms. Onorato-Sullivan stated that, if they were not adding a story, they would still need a Use Variance. Her concern is the increase in size. Ms. Hardy said that it goes with the neighborhood; as it is, it could bring down surrounding property owners values. Mr. Belbin said that this is the same type of thing that we have turned down in the past. If we pass this, we would be going against our own Ordinance. The pitch of the roof and the septic he can understand but the increase is the problem. He wouldn’t want to increase the footprint of a non-conforming building on a non-conforming lot. Mr. Bouchard asked Mr. Belbin what criteria he uses and Mr. Belbin answered that it depends on the individual circumstances.

A vote was taken in which the result was 2 for and 1 against. Mr. Bouchard explained that, in NH in order to approve a variance, there must be 3 in favor. Mr. Bouchard usually votes only to break a tie. He explained that he is struggling with this case but feels that he should vote and he determined to vote no based on hardship. He has to agree with Mr. Belbin’s argument as it does not meet the hardship criteria. Mr. Bouchard then explained that the applicant can apply with a new plan or they can appeal within 30 days.

-4-

ZBA Minutes

12/2/08

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF REHEARING: DAVID P. KENNEY

Mr. Bouchard read a request from David P. Kenney asking that the rehearing be moved to June as he will be away for the winter. The Board determined to okay this request.

COMMUNICATIONS:

The communications were looked at and the Town & City magazine will be held in the office for anyone who wishes to read it.

Mr. Bouchard explained that he got permission to call the town attorney, Bernie Waugh, pertaining to the Peff lawsuit. He did so and went over this case and the fence case that we suspect will also be coming. Mr. Waugh did not see a problem for us with either case. As to Mr. McGrath saying that it was not legal for Ms. Bonsteel, Land Use Officer, to make the decision: she is the Board’s “go-between” and we backed her decision when we heard the appeal.

2009 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS:

The Board determined to continue to meet on Tuesdays except for Nov. 3, 2009 (Election Day). That month, we shall meet on Nov. 4^th instead. It was also determined to meet at 6:00 pm instead of 7:00 pm. The secretary will see that these dates and times are reserved.

MANCHESTER LGC CONFERENCE AND CASE:

Mr. Bouchard explained that he and Ms. Bonsteel attended the Conference and received legislative updates, which are in the office for all to look at. Mr. Bouchard felt that it would be a help to the Board if he holds a little workshop at the end of each meeting unless the hour is too late.

CASE #1: 9ALLC vs. Chesterfield

The applicant wished to change a 6 acre institutional building lot to single homes. It was determined that, just because the applicant was making it less non-conforming isn’t necessarily a reason to agree.

SEPTIC SYSTEMS IN THE SETBACK:

A discussion was held as to having septic systems within the setback. Ms. Bonsteel explained a wine cellar case which determined that anything entirely underground is okay. A system must be 10’ from a house or property line. Soils clean septage within 10’, it has been determined. If it fails or bubbles to the surface, then there is a problem. The exception to this distance is if there are wells.

With no other business, D. Hardy made a motion, second by L. Onorato-Sullivan to adjourn at 8:30 pm.

Respectfully submitted, Jan Laferriere, secretary