ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
July 1, 2008
________________
AGENDA: 2 VARIANCES: SNHS ELDERLY HOUSING VI, INC.,
Lake St. & Ballou Rd., #216-101, .2, .3, .4
SPECIAL EXCEPTION: BLUEBERRY SHORES AT
NEWFOUND LLC, Wulamut Rd., #203-240
ATTENDING: Dan Bouchard (Chairman), Mike Willingham (Vice Chairman), Lloyd Belbin, Donna Hardy, Sandra Heaney.
Alternates: Lorraine Onorato-Sullivan
ABSENT: None
OTHER: Michelle Bonsteel (Land Use Officer), Janice DellaCroce and Dan Paradis (Planning Bd.), Public
The meeting opened at 7:00.
MINUTES OF MAY 6, 2008:
S. Heaney made a motion, second by D. Hardy, to accept the minutes as read. The motion carried.
USE VARIANCE: SNHS ELDERLY HOUSING VI INC./DAVID WHITE
The application was read, along with those notified, where the application was advertised and that there were no telephone calls or written responses received pertaining to this application, other than from the Fire Chief.
Mr. White showed a rendering of the project. He stated that there are to be 19 units, 3 stories high, with an elevator. The Planning Board has sent them to the ZBA. Mr. White continued by saying that the Ordinance talks about side-by-side masonry walls. Side-by-side indicates normally that this is for town house units. There is no rating for the units above in this ordinance. We are dealing with an apartment building as opposed to town house units, he added.
Mr. White then addressed the criteria for a Variance:
1. Diminution of the surrounding properties – It shall diminish as the construction of the building will be in compliance with the NH State Building Code.
2. Not contrary to public interest – the fire separation provided by the walls and floors constructed with wood studs and 5/8” Type X Drywall is in compliance with the NH State Building Code and will provide equal or greater fire protection between dwelling units.
-2-
ZBA Minutes
7/1/08
USE VARIANCE: ELDERLY continued
3. Unnecessary hardship – the construction methods required to meet this article would result in excessive project costs therefore, setting the apartment rents above current market rates for subsidized housing. The non profit developer is marketing the apartments as subsidized elderly housing as is required by the federal grant.
4. Substantial justice – the project could be constructed in compliance with the NH State Building Code.
5. Not contrary to the Spirit of the Zoning Ordinance – the intent is to provide fire separation between dwelling units and this would be achieved through wood studs and 5/8” Type X Drywall in compliance with the NH State Building Code.
Mr. Bouchard then read the letter from Fire Chief, Norman Skantze, in which Mr. Skantze explained that what is to be done for this project is sufficient to cover the current fire codes without using masonry walls.
Mr. Bouchard then asked for public comment as the Board had no further questions at this time. Richard Walenda, representing his son who is an abutter, stated that the most dangerous for fires are the young and the old people. He feels that fire safety should be for the entire building and that fire walls are needed.
Paul Mirski, interested party, agreed with the architects and the Fire Chief. He feels that we need to amend the Ordinance or remove that section entirely. He added that this is not really a use variance. Mr. Bouchard stated that, as this is in the Ordinance, there is need to get a variance.
Richard Danahy, abutter, stated that he appreciates the sprinkler system that they plan on putting in but he asked if they have considered some green space. Mr. White stated that they are limited to the 19 units. Mr. Bouchard stated that Phase II (for more units) is not an issue tonight.
Mr. White stated that what they intend will create a safer building than what is in the Ordinance and he agrees that it should be stricken from the Ordinance.
With no other comments to be heard, Mr. Bouchard closed the hearing to the public.
Ms. Heaney felt that they did not prove hardship as the ZBA cannot address finances. She does feel that they have higher fire standards. Ms. Hardy questioned if it will diminish the neighboring properties. She asked what constitutes a unit and won’t they have shared walls. Mr. Bouchard stated that only some of them will share walls. Ms. Hardy asked if the Ordinance would mean that they would have to go through all 3 floors. Mr. Bouchard felt that the Ordinance requires a higher cost for a lower standard. Ms. Heaney said that the Fire Chief has to allow to the higher standard. Mr. Bouchard felt that the applicant would have to comply to both (the State law and the Bristol Ordinance). He agrees that it should no longer be in the Ordinance. Mr. Willingham added that, if the Ordinance was up to the NH Fire Code, the applicant would not have to be here. Ms. Heaney felt that the project is not at risk; it depends on which standards are needed. She
-3-
ZBA Minutes
7/1/08
USE VARIANCE: ELDERLY continued:
asked if this is what the Board must decide. Mr. Willingham felt that the Board is debating the issues but we shall vote according to our own choice. Mr. Belbin stated that this is not a cost thing. Mr. Bouchard stated that the Board could not address cost. We can consider hardship of adding cost. Mr. Belbin stated that two of the drawings that we received are out of scale. One shows a section to be 4’ x 8’ and the other 8’ x 12’. Mr. Bouchard felt that this is not relevant at this time.
S. Heaney made a MOTION, second by L. Belbin, to IF GRANTED, THE USE VARIANCE INCLUDE THE CONDITION THAT THE FIRE CHIEF AGREES THAT IT MEETS THE CURRENT FIRE CODES. The motion CARRIED, 3 for and 1 opposed.
L. Belbin made a MOTION, second by M. Willingham, to GRANT THE USE VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITION. The motion CARRIED, 4 for. The approval was signed.
AREA VARIANCE: STEVE LAFRANCE, HORIZONS ENGINEERING
The secretary read the application, explained that the same abutters were notified and where the advertising was done. She stated that there were no telephone calls or written responses.
Mr. Lafrance stated that he attended the last Conservation Commission meeting and asked for their recommendation. The original plan was felt not to be out of the wetlands area. The consensus of the Commission was that this is no longer in the Shoreland Protection Act jurisdiction. Mr. Lafrance then displayed a plan in which there was a green color to depict the State restricted area and in yellow to show Bristol’s. He explained that they have taken advantage of the area on the hill so as to use as much of the allowed space as possible. This caused one section to be only 103’ from a wetland on the North Main Street side.
Mr. Lafrance then addressed the variance criteria:
1. Contrary to the public interest – The setback to any nearby wetlands meets or exceeds the NHDES requirement of 75 feet. The wetlands in question are upslope of and across a State road from the disposal system, approximately 15 feet higher in elevation, and hydraulically upgradient. The system is over 275’ away from any downslope wetlands.
2. Unnecessary hardship – Town sewer is not available at the site, therefore the development is dependent upon construction of a subsurface disposal system. The system was originally set up under the parking lot but was a problem due to being too close to the Newfound River. There are several setbacks involved that affect the proposed leach field location. Denial would prohibit the development of the property.
-4-
ZBA Minutes
7/1/08
AREA VARIANCE: ELDERLY continued:
3. Spirit of the Ordinance – the design will protect wetlands and surface water quality. Its location meets all NHDES subsurface regulations. The applicant is not sure what Bristol’s reasoning is. They have placed it as far as they can and still be located on the site.
4. Substantial justice – the Variance is necessary to allow development of the lot and enable the landowner to construct the project.
5. Value to Surrounding properties – The subsurface system has been designed to accommodate the design flow from the proposed development and will not impact abutting landowners, wetlands, or surface waters. The system has been designed to meet all State standards and no waivers are proposed to meet current State regulations. It is designed for 21 units, which is the maximum based on lot loading.
Mr. Willingham asked if there is any concern about the flow coming down below.
Mr. Lafrance stated that ground-water is below the system and the affluent is pumped up.
Mr. Bouchard asked when Phase II would be developed. Bill Hart answered that, if and when town sewer comes up the street and if they develop a list of people in need. Ms. DellaCroce asked if the whole thing is 103’ from the N. Main St. wetland and Mr. Lafrance answered that it is 103’ from a corner of the wetlands to a corner of the leach field.
Public comments were then asked for. Paul Mirski, interested party, stated that, if the septic is controlling the area, why can’t they move the building to the right. Mr. Walenda asked how far the septic system is from the boundary line of his son’s property and was told 35’ is what the State requires and it is actually 40’ away. Richard Walenda, representing his son, was concerned of an overflow entering his basement. Richard Danahy, abutter, questioned a building or a septic being too near a wetlands. Mr. Bouchard stated that it is 50’ from a wetlands for a structure. Mr. Danahy thought that this plan is the least evil for the site. Mr. Mirski felt that when dealing with hardship, you should look first at the septic and then the building. He did not feel that this project constitutes hardship. Greg Bradley, abutter, stated that, in the Spring, there is a lot of rain and it will pollute. He does not want the building further to the right as it would be closer to his home then. Mr. Walenda stated that a couple of weeks ago, when we had all the rain, the water washed out a ditch; a lot of water was coming down the hill. Mr. Lafrance explained that there are ditches in which the run-off will flow. He has tried to put the leach field in the allowed white area as much as possible. There is a 20’ DES regulation and he feels that they have achieved that. Mr. Belbin asked about the water coming from across North Main St. and is there a ditch along the road. Mr. Lafrance stated that there are two culverts, one on one corner of the property and the other up beyond the other upper corner. Mr. Bouchard asked if there is a swale. Mr. Lafrance stated that the water
-5-
ZBA Minutes
7/1/08
AREA VARIANCE: ELDERLY continued:
only comes from ˝ of the road (N. Main St.). Mr. Bouchard asked if they have looked at this in the Spring and was told that they did not. They have looked at soil types and slopes as well as a 50 year rainfall event.
The hearing was then closed to the public. Ms. Hardy stated that if they put the septic in the white part, the building would still be inside a setback. She asked if they could make the building smaller. Mr. Bouchard stated that the ZBA cannot ask an applicant to make a project smaller. Ms. Heaney stated that the Spirit of the Ordinance is to protect our watershed and is designed with stricter standards. As to Hardship, this was not proven as they could get use of the property by down-sizing. She feels that they have other options. Mr. Willingham stated that if we were just to look at DES and the State, we would not be here now. There are conflicting standards. The science is sound and he feels that it is okay. He added that science is evolving. Ms. Heaney stated that Bristol only voted this standard in 2007. Again she stated that there are other options for the property; it is buildable but not for this project. Mr. Willingham stated that they looked at the State regulations. Ms. Heaney answered that they should have also looked at Bristol’s. Mr. Belbin agreed with Ms. Heaney. He also feels that the path of flow would affect the Newfound River eventually.
With no other deliberations, the Board voted: 1 for and 3 against. The denial was signed. Mr. Bouchard mentioned that there is a 30-day time period in which to apply for a rehearing and suggested that, should anyone wish to do so, that it be done in a timely manner.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION: BLUEBERRY SHORES AT NEWFOUND LLC/LES MILLS
The secretary read the application, list of abutters notified, where the hearing was advertised and stated that there were no telephone calls or written responses that were received.
Mr. Mills stated that the tennis court is proposed for lot #240. It is owned on 3 sides by the applicant on by Mr. Weigel on the 4th side. The plan that he has proposed is sketched out on a modified Site Plan for this purpose. There is 2.15 acres which are located on the south side of Wulamut Road, in the Lake District. The closest use in the Ordinance is for Recreational Facilities which require a Special Exception. In looking at the last year, the owners felt that they should take out some of the unused overflow parking and replace it with a tennis court. In order to go to the Planning Board for Site Plan, they first need the Special Exception. There is a wooded buffer to the abutter’s side, who has undeveloped land there. His house is across the road.
Ms. Heaney asked what the surface material would be. Mr. Mills stated that it would be an asphalt court (presently it is stone-dust).
-6-
ZBA Minutes
7/1/08
SPEC. EXCEPTION: BLUEBERRY continued:
Mr. Mills then addressed his criteria:
1. The proposed use is permitted by Special Exception.
2. Located across the street from the campground (short walk or drive) with parking on site. The site has 2.15 acres.
3. The proposed use is residential recreation. The site includes an existing maintenance storage building, campground recreational vehicle storage compound, overflow parking, and a drainage detention basin. The total impervious area will be 56%. The neighborhood is single family residential with a recreational campground across the street. Most homes and camps are seasonal. The nearest dwelling is 500’ and is not visible from the proposed site. Tennis courts are not uncommon for residential neighborhoods.
4. The site is adequate on site parking and is directly across the street from the main entrance to the campground. The applicant is willing to put up signage and a painted cross walk if required during Site Plan review. There is on site drainage detention and there will be no runoff to the street.
5. The use will not require any town services or facilities.
6. There will be no lighting for night time use. It has adequate treed buffer shielding its view from any abutting residential homes. The use is low noise impact. It will be exclusive to the residents of Bristol Shores Campground. There are tennis courts in other areas bordering Newfound Lake and will not be out of place.
Mr. Mills added that the site is cleared and graded. Ms. Hardy asked if there will be a fence and was told that there will be a chain link fence, 12’ high. There may be an increase of impervious area by 2%. A full court is 60’ x 120’; this one shall be 50’ x 100’. Mr. Bouchard stated that the playing area is regulation size and Mr. Mills said that this is correct. Mr. Mills noted the previous application and stated that, with the recent rain, the retention pond has a foot of water in it. They will be taking out 12 parking spaces; some will be replaced by grass. There is also an existing culvert for drainage from the gated parking area.
There were no public comments so Mr. Bouchard closed the public part of the hearing.
Mr. Bouchard reminded the Board that this is not a non-conforming site and does not have the same criteria as a variance. Ms. Heaney said that it is only modifying the previous special exception.
A vote was taken with 4 for, 0 against. The approval was signed.
OTHER:
Mr. Bouchard asked the Planning Board if they had any further comments. There were none from them or Ms. Bonsteel.
-7-
ZBA Minutes
7/1/08
COMMUNICATIONS:
There was an ad for the 2008 edition of Knowing the Territory (which Planning
has already purchased). Also, the May and June editions of Town & City which will be held in the office.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
None. The secretary will update the bylaws as discussed previously.
NEW BUSINESS:
None.
NEXT MEETING:
The next meeting will be August 1, 2008. Nothing is on the schedule yet. Mr. Bouchard explained that Peff may be coming in for an Appeal from Administrative Decision. The secretary has seen nothing as yet.
There was a brief discussion on hardship and what we should be looking at in Variance Hearings.
L. Belbin made a motion to adjourn at 8:48 p.m. with a second from M. Willingham.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Laferriere, secretary