Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Vice Chairman; and Ron Taylor.

Mr. Parker spoke briefly of the proposed warrant article regarding the hiring of a part-time representative from the Central NH Regional Planning Commission to serve as A circuit rider@ to

HENNIKER Z0NING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Minutes of meeting held on October 16, 2002

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Vice Chairman; Amy Patenaude, Doreen Connor and Ron Taylor.

Alternate members: Phil Marsland and Joan Oliveira

Excused members: Mary Wilcox and Kris Blomback.

Guests present: John Dur and Debbie Dur

Meeting called to order: 7:00 p.m.

Minutes: Draft minutes of the September 18, 2002 meeting were reviewed and accepted as submitted.

Nothing of substance.

An application for a variance, submitted by John Dur, is requested from Article X, Section 1003 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a proposed lot to be less than the required 5 acres. The property is located on Bear Hill and Patterson Hill Roads in the RR district, Map 1, Lot 572, (recently merged with lot 572-A for a total of 19.68 acres).

Mr. Parker outlined the procedure for the public hearing. Since five members of the Board were present, no alternate members will be on the voting panel, but they will be invited to contribute in the discussion of the application. Members reviewed the listing of abutters for proper notification.

Mr. Dur presented the application and his response to the seven criteria required to be met for a variance to be granted.

As there were no guests present to offer comments or questions in favor or against the application, Mr. Parker was first to address the context of the applicants narrative.

Mr. Parker questioned Mr. Dur's statements about how the surrounding property values would be increased by having four buildable lots, instead of three in the same area.

Mr. Dur was confused that the rational he stated in the application, with regards to the benefits to having more buildable lots than fewer, was not obvious. He stated the value of the surrounding property is determined by the tax base that the property commands.

The discussion continued briefly, and since there were no guests to make comments for or against the application, Mr. Parker asked the Board members for their questions.

Mr. Taylor noted the locus map showed Faulkner Road as Flanders Road, and asked if there were wetlands on the site. Mr. Dur answered there are wetlands.

Mr. Partridge asked what the width of the lot is that has the existing mobile home on it. Mr. Taylor answered at least two hundred feet wide.

Mr. Dur commented the regulations make no reference to what the configuration of a lot needs to be to meet a required lot size. Ms. Connor stated that with the review of a variance application, the Board is required to look at the unique characteristics of the property.

It was determined by the Board that they will be voting on each of the seven criteria, and not on the application as a single vote.

The hearing closed for deliberation.

Ms. Connor stated concern for setting a precedent for granting a variance from the required stated lot size. She added the application is absent in showing hardship by the reasons stated in the application.

Mr. Parker stated the presumed hardship is the reduction from the yield of having four buildable lots instead of three lots that more than meet the minimum.

Ms. Connor said previous court cases have ruled that financial hardship is not a reason to grant a variance.

Ms. Patenaude agreed with Ms. Connor, and added she did not see sufficient information showing what is unique about the site that the applicant should have relief from the required lot size.

Mr. Taylor had no comment.

Mr. Partridge highlighted the fact the regulation requires a minimum of five acres, and the applicant has the option of using the land in a different way, other than desired.

Mr. Parker had no comment.

The members voted on each of the seven criteria.

Ms. Connor voted yes. Remaining four members voted for no.

2. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.

All five votes were no; it would be contrary to the public interest.

All five votes were no; the zoning restriction does not interfere.

All five votes were yes.

Ms. Connor voted yes. The remaining four members voted no.

All five votes were no.

All five votes were yes, it would be contrary.

Public session open.

Mr. Dur asked if the forum allowed him to ask questions. His first question was if the Board has ever granted a variance to allow less than the required minimum of 5-acres. Members of the Board could not recall any past applications requesting such a variance. Mr. Dur saved his second question until after the vote on the application.

Mr. Partridge made the motion that the variance request from applicant John Dur, from Article X Section 1003 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit a new lot to be less than 5-acres be denied, the Board having found that it does not meet the seven criteria.

Ms. Connor seconded.

All five voting members were in favor of the motion. The variance was denied.

Mr. Dur asked what the procedure is to bring a Class VI road up to the specifications of a Class V road. The members gave him several options, such as a town warrant article or a citizens petition. Mr. Dur asked who he would see about having the gates removed on Faulkner Road so he would be able to traverse Faulkner Road from Patterson Hill Road to Bear Hill Road. A member suggested he speak to the police chief. Mr. Dur asked who he would see about the road be reclassified if he had the improvements done himself. He was told it would be the Board of Selectman to accept the road if and when it was improved.

Mr. Dur requested a copy of the recorded public hearing for his records, and also a copy of the printed minutes. Both will be provided when available.

The public hearing came to a close.

Mr. Parker briefly summarized a planning board meeting he attended in Meredith. He stated the board has a town planner that reviews all the applications and makes recommendations of studies or additional information required of the applicant prior to the public hearing. His point was in reference to the proposed part-time circuit rider being considered for Henniker.

No suggestions for zoning ordinance amendments were made.

No nominations for an alternate member were made at this time.

November 20, 2002.

Adjourned: 8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Gail Abramowicz, Zoning Board Clerk

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Vice Chairman. Alternate members: Mary Wilcox and Phil Marsland

Excused members: Amy Patenaude and Kris Blomback, Joan Oliveira.

Guests present: None

Meeting called to order: 7:15 p.m.

Minutes: Draft minutes of the June 19, 2002 meeting were reviewed and accepted as amended with minor technical correction.

Correspondence

Members reviewed the draft of a deed submitted by Dean Coburn in reference to the Special Exception he was granted, with conditions, in Case #2002-01. The property, located at 18 Bridge Street, Map 2 Lot 417, did not have ample parking for the applicant to use the building as a multi-unit dwelling and commercial/service/technical site. The condition stated in the decision to grant the Special Exception was that the applicant was to obtain a deeded right to ten accessible parking spaces, each of 200 square feet. Once this deed is recorded, Mr. Coburn will have met the above mentioned condition.

The NH Office of State Planning Tech Bulletin on Outdoor Lighting was briefly discussed. This informative bulletin may be discussed at future meetings.

New Business

There were no suggestions for zoning amendments at this meeting. Members are asked to submit their suggestions to the clerk prior to the next meeting, or to bring them to the October meeting.

Mr. Parker noted the times the ZBA is scheduled for the budget review with the selectmen and budget advisory committee. The members briefly discussed an outline submitted by Central NH Regional Planning Commission proposing the option for assistance for a Circuit Rider Planner. The Board will refer the matter to the Board of Selectmen.

Mr. Parker received a letter of resignation from Alternate Member Suzanne Dobbins. The letter was read and her resignation was accepted. On behalf of the ZBA, a big thank you to Ms. Dobbins for the many years of volunteer service on this board.

With this news, members are asked to submit suggestions for a new alternate member.

NEXT MEETING: October 16, 2002

Adjournment: 8:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gail Abramowicz, Zoning Board Clerk

Minutes of meeting held on June 19, 2002

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Vice Chairman; Doreen Connor and Ron Taylor.

Alternate members: Suzanne Dobbins and Joan Oliveira

Excused members: Amy Patenaude and Kris Blomback.

Guests present: None

Meeting called to order: 7:03 p.m.

Minutes: Draft minutes of the May 15, 2002 meeting were reviewed and accepted as amended.

Correspondence

Nothing of substance.

New Business

The Board discussed the July and August meeting schedule. If no applications are submitted for a public hearing, the Board will not meet.

Mr. Parker stated that since the Board may not be meeting until the Fall, are there any zoning ordinances that require review for proposed amendments.

Ms. Connor suggested a definition of a drive-thru facility. The Board will consider this and possibly others for review.

Adjournment: 8:06 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: Unless otherwise posted, the Board will meet next on September 18.

Respectfully submitted,

Gail Abramowicz,

Zoning Board Clerk

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Minutes of meeting held on May 15, 2002

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Vice Chairman; Doreen Connor, Ron Taylor, and Amy Patenaude.

Alternates: Phil Marsland and Kris Blomback, voting members. Mary Wilcox and Joan Oliveira.

Excused: Suzanne Dobbins

Guests: Randall Bragdon, Ron Lavallee, Leigh Bosse, Scott Osgood, Karen Makocy Philbrick, Cordell Johnston, Barbara C. French, Tad Schrantz, Bryant Robertson, Eleanor Kjellman, Cheryl Borek, Melinda McGrath, R. Lehr, Sam Kjellman, C. Davenport, Cameron Hamel, Jeff Milne,Mike French, Robin Hall, Lawrence S. White, Amanda Parry, Ellen Merkle, Lloyd Henderson, Angela Robinson , Geoffrey Hirsch, Mathew & Michele Mitnitsky, Mark Mitch, John Kjellman, Laura Baldwin, Dorothy Williams, Laura Scott, Neal & Wendy Pearson, Irish Burnett, Hank Szelog, Karen Szelog, Jay Zax, Charlene Story, Kathy Gage, Andrew Livernois, Gail Kennedy and Jack Bopp.

Meeting came to order at 7:07 p.m.

Minutes The Board reviewed the draft minutes of April 17, 2002 and accepted as submitted.

Correspondence A letter received regarding the Appeal for Administrative Decision for FMI Investment Corporation stated the application has been withdrawn.

Mr. Taylor recused himself from this hearing.

Mr. Parker read the hearing notice and outlined the procedure of the public hearing for the guests.

Members to sit on the panel for this hearing; Leon Parker, Doreen Connor, John Partridge, Phil Marsland and Amy Patenaude.

An application for a Variance, submitted by Mathew and Michele Mitnitsky, is requested from Article VIII, Section 133-29-B of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit construction within 30 feet of a public right-of-way. The property is located at 35 Flanders Rd.; The Meeting House Inn, Tax Map 1, Lot 589, in the CR district.

The contractor for the proposed project presented the application, indicating on the plan where the facade will come 8 feet into the required 30 feet setback.

Mr. Partridge asked if the site line will be diminished because of the addition. The contractor stated the telephone pole that is there now will be moved, and there will no longer be parking available in the front, so the site line will be increased.

Mr. Parker asked the guests if anyone in favor of the application had questions or comments.

Ms. Kjellman asked where the restaurant is located, and what the proposed project entails.

The contractor showed renderings of the building. As it is now, the building that was once a sun room now has a roof on it, and it is closed in. What is planned is to make a new facade, restoring the original character of the barn, while making it safer for the restaurant patrons to exit the building.

With that clarification, Ms. Kjellman spoke in favor of the application.

Mr. Blomback, General Manager of Pat's Peak, spoke in favor of the application.

As there were no other comments, for or against the application, Mr. Parker closed the hearing for Board deliberation.

The Board agreed to consider all 7 criteria as one vote.

Mr. Partridge stated his only concern was for the site line and that was favorably addressed in the review.

Ms. Patenaude stated the motion: Since the criteria for a variance has been met, we grant the variance from Article VIII, Section 133-29-B of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction within a 30 ft. of a public right-of-way, restricted as shown on the plan.

Ms. Connor seconded. The public hearing was back in session.

The vote was unanimously in favor of the motion. The variance is granted to Case #2002-04.

An application for Special Exception, submitted by Cheshire Oil Co., is requested from Article VIII, Section 133-29-G of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the installation of a drive-thru facility (window). The property is owned by Albert and Alice Norton, and is located at 38 Hall Ave., Tax Map 2, Lot 187-A in the CM district.

Mr. Parker explained to the guests that the applications were heard in a different order as stated on the agenda so research could be done to see if the Cheshire Oil, Inc. application even required a hearing. He stated that the property on Hall Ave. was before the ZBA in 1997. If the ZBA had granted a Special Exception for a drive-thru window at this location in 1997, that decision might void this hearing. Upon research, the Board concluded the prior hearing did not grant a Special Exception for a drive-thru facility.

Mr. Parker requested, for this hearing, guests who wish to speak either for or against the application, sign their name and check mark how they wish to speak to the application. At the appropriate time in the hearing, the Chairman will call that guest to speak.

Mr. Parker said there are two members who recuse themselves for this hearing; John Partridge and Ron Taylor. Mr. Partridge noted that he was recusing himself on his own accord for personal reasons, and not because the landowner requested it to the Chairman prior to the meeting. He stated that not only is the request by the landowner inappropriate, it is illegal. He added that the law is clear on why a member may recuse themselves. He stated the first reason is if the member has a monetary interest in the outcome of the hearing, and the second as if the member has a strong personal interest that may be different from others in the community that may sit in the decision making set of circumstances. Mr. Partridge stated he believes the request was made to intimidate the process of the Board, and resents it. He restated his decision not to sit on the panel was on his own volition, that he feels more comfortable not sitting on the panel, and the request made by the landowner had nothing to do with his decision.

Mr. Parker stated the Board members to sit on the panel for this hearing will be himself, Doreen Connor as acting Vice Chairman and Amy Patenaude. Alternates to sit as voting members are Kris Blomback and Phil Marsland.

Mr. Bragdon, representing Cheshire Oil Co. from Souhegan Valley Engineering Inc., presented the application. He showed the preliminary plan, stating the proposal is for a gas station set up with a convenience store, and the drive up window is an accessory use for possibly a Dunkin Donut's shop. Mr. Bragdon stated that although the plan shown may change depending on the outcome of the hearing, the location of the drive-thru will remain as shown if the special exception is granted.

Mr. Bragdon stated the drive-thru window is at least 101 feet from the nearest property line, all set backs, parking requirements, and right-of-ways have been met, as shown on the plan.

Mr. Bragdon then read the applicants statements to the eleven conditions that are required to be met before a Special Exception can be granted. Those statements are as follows.

1. Site location- this site is appropriate for the intended use in that it is located in a medium commercial zone, just off the access to Route 202/9, making it convenient and necessary for travelers on that route as well as for local travelers.

2. The installation of a drive-thru is allowed within the CM zone by Special Exception.

3. Site Compatibility-the site borders residential properties on one side and commercial properties on the other. Proper screening of the drive-thru area will make the site compatible with the residential areas.

4. Adequate and appropriate facilities are provided for the proposed use.

5. Complies with minimum land space requirements- the existing lot is 0.25 acres less than the 2 acre minimum required within the CM zone. However, the proposed plan shows more that 50% of the land area remaining A open space and pervious. The addition of a drive-thru does not impede on the land space requirements of the Ordinance.

6. Road capacity-the existing frontage roads with site access are sufficient to handle the proposed site development. The drive-thru will primarily service existing pass-by traffic, although there is anticipated some increase in traffic due to the new convenience being offered to the community.

7. Granting of the permit would be in the public interest because the service to be provided are not currently available in Henniker.

8. Property values-the proposed use (drive-thru) will not adversely impact the property values within the district because it is only one part of a commercially-viable site development plan.

9. Provisions of a drive-thru at this site will not adversely impact the health or safety of residents (or others), and will not increase a hazard for general traffic or hazardous material traffic nor will it be detrimental to neighboring site development(s).

10. Placement of a drive-thru at this site, as proposed, would not constitute a nuisance in that provisions for screening and significant setback from abutting properties can, and will, be utilized.

11. Granting of this Special Exception would be in the spirit of the ordinance because the general use of the site is permitted and that the drive-thru portion of the development is incidental but serves a great purpose for the residents and proposed customers of the facility.

Mr. Parker asked Board members to state their questions to the application.

Mr. Marsland asked what the proposed hours of operation would be.

Mr. Schrantz, vice president of Cheshire Oil Co., stated it would not be a 24 hour facility, but operating hours could be 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Mr. Parker stated the Board will hear from those who wish to speak in favor of the application.

The Clerk read a note from Ms.Dumm and a short letter from Mr.& Mr. Fitch, stating they were not opposed to the application.

Ms. Williams, abutter across Hall Ave., voiced her concern for proper water drainage because her property is lower, and since the post office was constructed, she gets a lot of water in her yard. Other than that concern, she was in favor of the application.

Mr. Milne, realtor broker for the Nortons, stated the property was a natural extension of the retail business in the area, and noted the bank across the street has a drive-thru facility.

Mr. J. Kjellman simply stated he was in favor of the proposed project.

Ms. Kjellman stated she was in favor of the drive-thru because it would leave more green space because less parking would be needed.

Mr. S. Kjellman acknowledged that there is almost always a conflict when a designated commercial lot is near a residential area, adding that the property owner had a right to use his lot as zoned. He stated it was a reasonable plan and if the business could prosper greater with the drive-thru facility, they should be allowed to have the drive-thru window.

Mr. Parker asked for comments against the application. He called the guests name in the order as they were written on the list As most of the comments stated were for traffic safety concerns, other issues were addressed too.

Mr. Livernois commented that the proposed site shown was really for two businesses on the same lot, and voiced concern that the plan could include an exit onto Hall Ave.

Mr. Bragdon stated that there is no plan for an exit onto Hall Ave.

Mr. Pearson asked if a traffic study was done and voiced concern, same as the lady before him, of the exhaust from the cars waiting in line.

Mr. Bradgon said a traffic study is required in the site plan application.

Ms. McGrath asked how this board could make an informed decision if they did not have traffic study information before them.

Mr. Parker stated the Board is forced by the structure of the ordinance to review the application for a proposed building. He stated the drive-thru window itself is more appropriate to consider in the site plan process, but the ordinance says the use is permitted by Special Exception, putting the Board in a vacuum.

Mr. Bopp, abutter, asked if Mr. Schrantz would say how many cars per hour could visit the facility.

Mr. Parker reminded the audience that all questions should be directed to the Board, and rephrased the question to Mr. Schrantz.

Mr. Schrantz said his company could sublease the space to Dunkin Donuts, and they would know the specifics about the number of cars per hour, and how the traffic and profits differ between locations with drive-thru service and those without the window. He commented that there would be an increase in traffic in the area with the shop located there, but was not comfortable in saying if the drive-thru would cause a minor or major difference.

Mr. Parker reminded everyone that the applicant would need to be more specific in details of the proposed building in their site plan review application.

Mr. Bopp questioned the impact the drive-thru would have on the residents, the diminished property values, and the lighting and volume of the menu board.

Mr. Parker asked Mr.Milne if he could comment on the concern for the diminished property values. Mr. Milne stated there is usually some degree of impact to property values when there is any change, but that after the initial change, values go back to were they were before. He could not say whether property values diminished when the post office was newly constructed.

Mr. Partridge stated that, by definition, a drive-thru is unusual and creates a different kind of commercial usage. It promotes circular traffic within the property, making it a more intensive usage of the property. Mr. Partridge added he had hoped the Board would see more evidence that the property values will not be diminished.

Other concerns voiced were again with traffic issues of the hours conflicting with children walking to school, being able to cross Route 114, and the close proximity of the Fire/Rescue building to the site.

Ms. Robinson voiced her opposition to any change to Henniker.

Mr. Zax stated any vote to the application is premature because of the lack of information, including any mention of gas deliveries.

Further comments made concerned traffic safety issues on Hall Ave because of the location of the White Birch Community Center, and the issue from a previous application of a three lane road on Route 114. Mr. Parker once again reminded the audience that these issues will be addressed in the site plan review.

Ms. Kennedy asked for clarification on what the town agreed two years ago with the amendment change.

Mr. Parker stated the issue brought forth in the 1997 application was to determine if the drive-thru window was an accessory use to a drug store. The town voted to amend the ordinance to permit a drive-thru facility in any commercial district by Special Exception.

Ms. Evan asked the Chairman if the proposed drive-thru window could be for anything, even a shack, and how the Board can consider the window application before a building is even on the site.

Mr. Parker reread the ordinance, and suggested if the community does not like the zoning ordinance, to draft a petition to change it at the next town meeting.

Mr. Taylor commented that he did not believe the Board has enough information regarding traffic, lighting, or hours of operation to vote on the application.

Ms. Robinson questioned the proposed car wash.

Ms. Story asked the number of lanes for the drive-thru.

Mr. Parker closed the hearing for Board deliberation, adding that the meeting may reopen to ask questions of the applicant.

Mr. Marsland agreed there is information missing from the plan, but does not have an issue with the proposed drive-thru window.

Mr. Bragdon addressed issue of fencing for lighting concerns, and did not know regulations for an internally lit board.

Mr. Blomback clarified that all eleven criteria needed to be met to pass. He stated he had issues with items #6 and #10, but agreed they are issues for the planning board.

Neither Ms. Patenaude, nor Ms.Connor have questions.

Mr. Parker stated his assurance the applicant will address the traffic issues before the planning board. He asked Mr. Schrantz how many other sites like this one did they own.

Mr. Schrantz said the company has four facilities with a Dunkin Donut's; three have drive-thru service. Mr. Parker asked how the drive-thru facilities compared in regards to traffic and business.

Mr. Schrantz stated every location is different. He could not comment on the dollar difference, as that was Dunkin Donut's business, but did say the traffic at the site in Antrim has increased between 15-20%, and that it most of it was traffic in the area already.

Ms. Patenaude stated many of the public's concerns will be addressed in the site plan review, but agreed the drive-thru compares to what is at the bank and the post office.

Ms. Connor stated the Board has never asked for traffic studies from previous applicants, and said the Board needed to treat each applicant the same.

Mr. Parker stated it was the practice of the Board to hear remarks from Alternate Board members not sitting on the panel for the hearing.

Ms. Wilcox suggested the panel not look at drive-thru as in a vacuum, and does not believe the applicant has meet items 6, 8, 9 and 10.

Ms. Oliveira stated her agreement with Ms. Patenaude and Ms. Connor in that the Board is required to look at the application of a drive-thru facility.

The Board voted on each item as follows:

Passed unanimously: Items #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10.

Items #7 and 11, Ms. Connor abstained.

Ms. Patenaude made a motion to grant the Special Exception from Article VIII, Section 133-29-G to permit a drive-thru facility. Mr. Blomback seconded.

Voting members Mr. Partridge, Mr. Blombeck, Ms. Patenuade, Ms. Connor and Mr. Parker unanimously voted in favor of the motion.

Ms. French asked what this vote permits the applicant to do now.

Mr. Parker stated the applicant can now apply to the planning board for Site Plan Review with their proposed plan including the drive-thru facility.

Ms. Oliveira asked what the planning board can do. Mr. Parker commented the planning board can put reasonable restrictions on criteria in the regulations.

The Board discussed the possibility of amending a recent conditional approval decision by setting a time limit on how long that conditional approval could be in effect. It was decided that no letter amending that decision will be sent, but the issue of setting a time limit on future applications may be revisited.

The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gail Abramowicz, Zoning Board Clerk

Members present: John Partridge, Vice Chairman; Doreen Connor and Ron Taylor.

Alternate member: Mary Wilcox

Excused: Leon Parker and Amy Patenaude.

Guests present: None

Meeting called to order: 7:05 p.m.

Minutes: Draft minutes of the March 20, 2002 meeting were reviewed and accepted as amended.

The Board briefly discussed the Special Exception hearing of March 20, 2002, Case #2002-01.

Mr. Partridge asked if a conditional approval of an application has a time limit that the conditions need to be met by.

Ms. Connor suggested an amended decision letter be sent with an agreed upon time limit.

Mr. Partridge asked for this issue be on the agenda for discussion at the May 15 meeting.

Structure of Officers

Ms. Connor made a motion to nominate the same slate of officers as the prior year. Mr. Taylor seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

Mr. Partridge said he spoke with Mr. Parker regarding the nomination of officers, and reported that Mr. Parker stated he would accept the nomination of Chairman if nominated. Mr. Partridge accepted the nomination of Vice Chairman. Mr. Parker and Mr. Partridge will remain in their current position as Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively.

NEXT MEETING: May 15, 2002

Adjournment: 8:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gail Abramowicz,

Zoning Board Clerk

Minutes of meeting held on March 20, 2002

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Vice Chairman; and Ron Taylor.

Alternate members: Mary Wilcox, voting member

Guests present: Dean Coburn

Meeting called to order: 7:10 p.m.

Chairman Parker asked Mr. Coburn if he would accept a board of four members, instead of the customary five panel. Mr. Coburn stated he would. Ms. Wilcox will be a voting member for this meeting.

7:17 Public Hearing

Mr. Parker read the procedure for a public hearing and restated that Mr. Coburn has agreed to the decision of a four-panel board.

Mr. Coburn presented the application. He described the building, from a tax assessment card prior to the State of NH taking it for the bridge repair work, as having 2, one-bedroom apartments on the first floor, a 1,350 sq. ft. office on the first floor, and an apartment on the second floor that may have intended to be a bed and breakfast offering.

Mr. Taylor stated he was on the Planning Board for the original Site Plan Review for this building, and asked Mr. Coburn if he would prefer if Mr. Taylor excused himself from the hearing. Mr. Coburn said this would not be necessary, and he would like to proceed with the hearing.

Mr. Coburn stated he proposes to offer the second floor space as a four bedroom apartment, and keep the layout of the first floor as is. He submitted a letter from Dr. Belson which states he will allow Mr. Coburn= s tenants parking at 10 Bridge Street, Lot 1-416.

Ms. Wilcox asked if there is adequate parking with this arrangement. Mr. Coburn state there was more than needed, so there will be no need for tenants to park on the street.

Mr. Taylor figured the ratio for the building required at least 9-10 parking spaces. He suggested a revised letter from Dr. Belson outlining the agreement in more detail, such as a date when and where the parking is allowed, and perhaps a termination date for the permission to use the parking spaces. Mr. Coburn said he would be willing to obtain an amended letter and submit it to the application file.

The members discussed whether this building had ever been the subject for a special exception before, and none could remember anyone coming before the board with an application for one. It was explained to Mr. Coburn that the review of his application was not just to give him permission to have more apartments in this building than allowed, but that it would permit the building itself to be classified as a multi-unit dwelling.

The Board discussed some options Mr. Coburn could explore for the parking issue. Mr. Partridge said to rule favorably on this application with no definite parking required, would not be in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance.

Mr. Parker closed the hearing for deliberations. The Board chose to vote on the application itself, instead of voting separately on the seven criteria.

Mr. Parker made a motion to grant a Special Exception conditional upon the applicant obtaining a deeded right to ten (10) accessible parking spaces, each of 200 square feet. Mr. Partridge seconded.

The public hearing was re-opened. There was no further discussion or comments made.

The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. When Mr. Coburn meets the condition, the information will be added to the file (Case #2002B 1).

An Application for an Appeal of an Executive decision has been sent to FMI Investment Corporation in regards to a building permit denied by the Board of Selectmen.

The attorney representing the Town in the IWO civil suit has informed the Town Administrator that an intent to file a Motion to Stay had been sent to her office. If IWO does not file the Motion to Stay, she will file a motion to dismiss the case as moot because of the new ordinance.

Minutes: Draft minutes of the February 20, 2002 meeting were reviewed and accepted as submitted.

Adjournment: 8:45 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: April 17, 2002

Respectfully submitted,

Gail Abramowicz,

Zoning Board Clerk

Minutes of meeting held on February 20, 2002

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Vice Chairman; and Ron Taylor.

Alternate members: Suzanne Dobbins, Mary Wilcox, Joan Oliveira and Phil Marsland.

Excused: Amy Patenaude

Guests present: None

Meeting called to order: 7:04 p.m.

Minutes: Draft minutes of the January 16, 2002 meeting were reviewed and accepted as submitted.

The Board reviewed the civil action suit filed by Independent Wireless One Corp. and IWO Leased Realty Corp. against the Town of Henniker.

Mr. Parker summarized his conversation with attorney Diane Gorrow, stating he had answered questions she had concerning the variance applications IWO had filed last year(Case#2001-02 & Case # 2001-05). Both applications were denied, and the plaintiff is charging the Town violated the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 in the second case.

Mr. Parker said he would keep the Board updated on any new information that may come in by next months meeting.

Mr. Parker submitted a copy of a letter he sent the Board of Selectmen with regards to appointments to the ZBA. Member Amy Patenaude has accepted re-appointment for another three-year term. Alternate members Phil Marsland and Suzanne Dobbins will also serve another three years.

NEXT MEETING: March 20, 2002

Adjournment: 7:28 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,  Gail Abramowicz, Zoning Board Clerk

Minutes of meeting held on January 16, 2002

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Vice Chairman; and Ron Taylor.

Alternate members: Suzanne Dobbins and Phil Marsland.

Excused: Mary Wilcox and Joan Oliveira.

Guests present: None

Meeting called to order: 7:05 p.m.

Minutes: Draft minutes of the December 19, 2001 meeting were reviewed and accepted as corrected.

Members reviewed the 2002 board structure. Members whose term expires in March 2002 are: Amy Patenaude, member; Suzanne Dobbins and Phil Marsland, alternate members.

Mr. Parker nominated Ms. Dobbins and Mr. Marsland to another three-year term. Both members accepted reappointment. Mr. Parker will speak with Ms. Patenaude to invite her to sit on the Board for another term.

The Board discussed the proposed amendment to the Wireless Communication Towers ordinance. Several members plan to attend the public hearing at the January 21 Planning Board meeting.

Members reviewed the draft of the 2002 meeting schedule and approved as submitted by the clerk. The schedule will be posted at Town Hall, in the annual town report, and on the website; www.henniker.org.

NEXT MEETING: February 20, 2002

Adjournment: 7:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,  Gail Abramowicz, Zoning Board Clerk

Minutes of meeting held on December 19, 2001

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Vice Chairman; Doreen Connor and Ron Taylor

Alternates: Suzanne Dobbins, voting member; and Joan Oliveira.

Excused: Amy Patenaude and Mary Wilcox.

Guests: Alec L. McEachern, Thomas Weston, Jr., Eric W. Hauptman, Ronald J. Talbot, Michael Kriester, Edith Butler and Lawrence Parrish.

Meeting came to order at 7:07 p.m.

Minutes The Board reviewed the draft minutes of October 17, 2001, and accepted with minor corrections.

The Board reviewed a motion for rehearing submitted by Shaines & McEachern on behalf of Independent Wireless One Leased Realty Corporation, in regards to ZBA Case # 2001-05; variance to construct a cell tower on Faulkner Rd., Map 1, Lot 571.

Mr. Parker asked for comments from the guests. Mr. McEachern, Esq. for IWO/Sprint, stated the motion before the Board covered all the reasons why the applicant is requesting a rehearing.

Mr. Parker asked the Board for their comments on the information presented in the motion.

Ms. Connor stated she read nothing new in the motion that was not presented at the hearing that would change her vote.

Ms. Dobbins stated the same reason.

Mr. Taylor stated a rehearing should take place. He cited the Board may be in violation of the Telecommunication Act of 1996.

Mr. Partridge stated although he was not at the October meeting for the hearing, the summary of points made in the draft minutes covers the issues raised in the motion, and he doesn= t believe new evidence or arguments would warrant a rehearing.

Mr. Parker stated the Board may have erred in denying the variance in that this application was significantly different from the previous application for the Bradford Rd. site. He reiterated he disagreed with the original motion, and stated the motion for rehearing uses the Simplex decision that could warrant a different decision from the Board if a rehearing was held.

Ms. Connor made a motion to deny the submitted motion for rehearing. Ms. Dobbins seconded.

Mr. Parker asked for further discussion. The motion was put to a vote. Members in favor of the motion: Ms. Connor, Ms. Dobbins, Mr. Partridge. Members against the motion: Mr. Taylor and Mr. Parker. The motion for a rehearing was denied by a vote of 3-2.

An application for a variance, submitted by Lawrence Parrish and Edith Butler, to construct a garage on their property at 2 Fairview Ave., Map 2, Lot 153-A in the RV district. The variance is requested from Article V, Section 133-23-G of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a building closer that 15 feet of the property line.

Mr. Parker outlined the procedure for a public hearing. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Partridge checked the notification slips.

Mr. Parrish read the application, listing the seven reasons why his request for a variance should be granted.

Mr. Parker asked if the Silver Maple tree, which the applicant would like not to remove for the proposed garage, could be indicated on the plat.

Mr. Parker asked the public for comments in favor of the motion. Mr. Kriester, abutter, spoke in favor of the application.

There were no comments against the application.

Board members had a few questions for Mr. Parrish's.

Mr. Parker stated he understood the reasons why the applicant proposed the construction of the garage where he has, but voiced concerns with safety issues if the building is that close to the property line. The distance of the garage to the property line ranged between 2 to 3 feet.

Mr. Parrish indicated on the plat where his house was and the location of Mr. Kriester's house. They are a considerable distance away.

Mr. Partridge agrees with the intent of the 15 feet regulation, and has concerns how future homeowners may view the Board's decision. The plat showed other possibilities where a garage can be located without impinging on the regulation.

Mr. Parrish asked what the purpose was for a building to be 15 feet from the property line. Mr. Partridge stated the main reason is the safety factor in giving the total of 30 feet between buildings.

Mr. Kriester again spoke in favor of the application, suggesting future plans for his land could include a bird sanctuary, and that the present building would be removed to accommodate this change.

Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Partridge in that if no other alternatives for placement of the garage were possible, then the boundary line issue would be more relevant to a variance.

Mr. Parrish voiced his understanding of the ordinance but thought it could be flexible when the proposal was not a concern with the abutters that could be affected by the decision.

Mr. Partridge stated he understood Mr. Parrish's position on the issue, but added a decision in his favor does impact others because they may have wanted to do projects on their land, but didn't because of their adherence to the zoning ordinance.

Ms. Connor stated the point of the ordinance is so everyone has a guideline to follow.

Ms. Dobbins asked why the new garage could not be constructed where the present garage is.

Mr. Parrish stated it really isn't constructed as a garage could be, but that it would be more convenient to have the proposed garage closer to the house. He added that it is a possibility to replace the present structure with a new garage.

Mr. Parker closed the public hearing for deliberation. He asked for further questions and comments from the members.

Mr. Taylor stated his concern with granting the variance would set a negative precedent for future applicants.

Mr. Parker stated the hardship criteria was not met because the applicant had other options available to construct the proposed garage within the zoning regulations.

The public hearing was reopened.

Mr. Taylor made a motion to deny the application for a variance because of the availability of other locations on the lot for the garage, and that the proposal fails to satisfy #3 and #4 of the criteria list. Ms. Connor seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

Mr. Parrish asked if could make a statement. He stated he wished he had spoken to the Board members prior to applying for the variance since it seemed apparent a decision was made before the meeting. He had voiced his annoyance with the process of having to wait longer than the required 30 days to be on the agenda for a hearing. Had he known he could not do what he wanted on his property, he would not have waited to build the garage someplace else.

Mr. Parker spoke to the statement. He reminded the public that, unlike the Planning Board, this Board does not hold informal discussions and a decision could not be given outside of the judicial process. As for the delay in holding the hearing, the November meeting was the Wednesday before Thanksgiving Thursday, and the Board voted at the October meeting not to meet on that night. On behalf of the Board, he apologized to Mr. Parrish for the inconvenience.

An application for a variance, submitted by Thomas and Dawn Weston, to subdivide Tax Map 1,

Lot 354-C, without having the required 125 feet frontage for the proposed lot. The property is owned by Ronald and Nance Talbot, located on Bacon Rd., in the RN district. The variance is requested from Article XV, Section 133-60 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The notification list was reviewed.

Mr. Parker asked for the proposed plan to show future proposed subdivision. Mr. Weston indicated where the existing house and driveway is, and where the intended second house will be located on the proposed subdivided lot. The driveway will be shared coming off of Bacon Rd.

Mr. Weston presented the application.

Mr. Parker asked for public comment in favor of the application.

Mr. Talbot, property owner, and Mr. Hauptman, abutter, spoke in favor of the application.

Mr. Parker asked for comments from members.

Ms. Oliveira, alternate, non-voting member, spoke in favor of the application.

Mr. Parker asked if the maintenance of the shared driveway will be stated in any recorded document. Mr. Weston said he would have that stated in the deed.

Mr. Partridge voiced concern about the shared driveway. Mr. Taylor asked if there was a possibility another future proposed subdivision would want to share the driveway again.

Mr. Parker commented the proposed house would be in front of the existing house, so the driveway that the two homeowners would share already exists.

Mr. Taylor noted the lot was surveyed in 1971, at which time there was no concern what the frontage should be in relation to the road. He agreed that the lay of the land was unique.

Ms. Connor agreed that the land was unique as it narrowed considerably to Bacon Rd.

Mr. Parker closed the hearing for deliberation. The members briefly discussed the application before reopening the hearing.

Ms. Connor made a motion to grant the variance from the 125 feet frontage as stated in the ordinance, based on the plot plan given to the Board, which depicts the new home in front of the existing home, and depicts that the new parcel will contain approximately 4 acres.

Mr. Partridge seconded the motion.

Mr. Taylor suggested an amendment to the motion to state that the Board was reviewing a plot plan that was surveyed in 1971. Ms. Connor stated it could not be added to the motion because the Board reviewed a drawing of the proposed house and subdivision, drawn for this application.

The Board unanimously voted in favor of the motion. The variance was granted.

The Board reviewed a copy of a citizen petition that was submitted to the Board of Selectman. The petition proposed an amendment to the zoning ordinance with regards to building permits. The clerk informed the members that the Planning Board will hold a public hearing in January on this issue and two other items.

The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,  Gail Abramowicz, Zoning Board Clerk

Minutes of meeting held on October 17, 2001

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; Doreen Connor, Ron Taylor

Alternates: Suzanne Dobbins, Phil Marsland, Mary Wilcox, Joan Oliveira,

Excused: John Partridge, Amy Patenaude Recused: Kris Blomback

Guests: Jonathan Springer, Blaine Hopkins, Robert T. French, Thea Braiterman, Marty Davis, Christine Spaulding, Cordell Johnston, Ted Parkins, Robert Garrison, Kris Blomback, Donna L. Macmillan, Ansel Macmillan, David Hudson.

Meeting came to order at 7:00 p.m.

Minutes The Board reviewed the draft minutes of September 19, 2001, and accepted them as amended.

Mr. Taylor suggested the board edit the ZBA Rules of Procedure manual regarding the public hearing outline. Number four will be deleted and the rules will be renumbered. Members will have an edited copy for the next meeting.

7:15 p.m. Public Hearing

Voting members: L. Parker, R. Taylor, D. Connor, P. Marsland, and J. Oliveira.

Members included in discussion: S. Dobbins and M.. Wilcox.

#1. Application for a variance to permit one corner of existing house, belonging to Lee A. Wilson on Foster Hill Rd. Lot 279-G, to be 12.9 feet to the property line of Lot 279-J, owned by Joseph P. and Lura Dooley, instead of the required 15 feet. The variance is requested from Article VI, Section 133-25I of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is in the RN district.

Mr. French presented the application and explained the purpose of the variance. The existing building is at an angle, and with a boundary line adjustment proposed contingent on this application, the building will encroach on the standard 15 feet to an abutters' property line.

Mr. Parker asked for comments in favor of the application.

Mr. Dooley, abutter, spoke in favor of the variance.

There were no comments against the proposal.

Mr. Parker closed the hearing for deliberations. Asked members for questions and comments.

Mr. Taylor stated he went to the site and approves of the variance.

Mr. Parker asked for a vote on all seven criteria.

Public hearing reopened.

MOTION by Ms. Connor to accept the request for a variance of 12.9 feet instead of 15 feet. Mr. Marsland seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor of the motion. The variance was granted.

#2. Application for a variance to construct a 90' Stealth-type wireless communication tower on property owned by Phillip J. & June C. Currier, Map 1-571, 6 Faulkner Rd. in the RR district. The variance is requested from Article XXVI, Section 133-125 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Hopkins, from ATC Realty Inc, on behalf of Independent Wireless One(IWO)/Sprint PCS Network, and Mr. Springer, from Shaines & McEachern, presented the application.

Mr. Hopkins gave a brief history of IWO to establish a seamless communication network across the state since 1995. He described the design of the tower to be a 90' brown stick tower with no external antennae, 36"-38" at the base and 12"-14" at the top. The property is a 84-acre parcel with access to the site via an existing tote road that would be upgraded if they were to lease the 10,000 sq. ft. property.

Mr. Hopkins stated the area is heavily wooded with 45'-100' trees, minimal clearing would be done to construct the road to the compound, which will be surrounded by a 8' fence, and a concrete pad would be laid to place the steel cabinet-type units on it.

Mr. Hopkins said other carriers would be allowed to co-locate on the tower, but none have shown an interest at this time. A balloon test was conducted and Mr. Hopkins stated his staff was not able to view the balloon from non-private sites.

Mr. Hopkins outlined why the allowed tower sites (Carter Hill, Clough Hill, Craney Hill, Bear Hill and Pat's Peak) could not be used. He stated, in 1997 when the zoning for the tower sites was adopted, the technology in place was for the use of car phones versus today's use of cellular phones. With the advancement in technology, the current ordinance makes it cumbersome and outdated to work with. Mr. Hopkins explained the technical differences between car phones vs. cell phones.

Mr. Hopkins displayed a topographical map with several acetate overlays showing the coverage area a tower would have if placed on the allowed sites. He further explained why each site could not be used.

For Bear Hill, Mr. Hopkins said they approached land owner Peter Beckett to lease a section of his land, but he was not interested. Mr. Hopkins submitted a copy of the letter IWO received from him. He added if the company was able to pursue this site, it would be an ideal location with a favorable coverage area. He later added the access road to get to this site would require a design he questions the Board would pass in their criteria.

For Carter Hill, the overlay showed the coverage area would be in a largely unpopulated area with no coverage in town.

For Clough Hill, again the coverage area was minimal and Mr. Hopkins stated the objective was to serve people who work, travel and live in the area.

Mr. Marsland asked what the target area was for the company. Mr. Hopkins said the senior population and college students across the country are the growing user group.

Mr. Hopkins continued with an overlay showing the coverage area from the tower on Pat's Peak, and the gap in town.

Ms. Spaulding, abutter, asked if the map for Bear Hill is the same coverage area as that proposed before the Hillsboro Planning Board. Mr. Hopkins showed where the two coverage areas would provide the seamless coverage if this proposal was for the Bear Hill site.

Mr. Hopkins added the proposed tower on Faulkner Rd, in conjunction with the proposed tower in Hillsboro on Bear Hill, could provide service on Rt. 202 and Western Ave. He based this data on drive test results.

The public looked at the coverage area maps closer.

Mr. Hopkins stated Sprint's objective is to provide seamless coverage in the area, and with the signal from Pat's Peak and the proposed Henniker and Hillsboro sites, this would be possible. He added the topography and wetlands hinder the selection for a suitable site.

The last overlay Mr. Hopkins presented was what the coverage area would be if IWO was allowed to locate off of Rt 114 North, the application they submitted in July. The map showed that the gap in that area would be filled with a 150' tower. He added there was no service on Rt. 114 South because they have not been able to build a tower for site coverage that would not require them to construct a 250' tower.

Mr. Springer, from Shaines & McEachern, presented the seven criteria for a variance, and highlighted concerns from the previous hearing. He added the allowed sites for towers are very rural with little or no utilities or access to a site. He said the allowed sites pose a real problem under the 1996 Telecommunication Act, and he added that if the variance was denied, he would file suit under that act.

Mr. Springer stated the proposal meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance in that it does not diminish surrounding properties. The company is proposing a 90' tower instead of a 150' tower because of the tree line, which the tower would only be 10-12' above. Mr. Springer said a market analysis done in Hopkinton showed, even with lattice towers, property values did not diminish.

Mr. Hopkins sited the public benefit to have this tower is the future 911 GPS system the FCC is implementing. This system would allow emergency services to pinpoint a person= s location with 15 yards.

Mr. Springer explained the old law to prove reasonable use of property was changed with the Simplex element. He said the new law states reasonable use of the property must be shown. He said the proposed tower would bring coverage to West Henniker along Rt. 202.

Mr. Springer outlined reasons the allowed sites would not meet the concerns mentioned at the ZBA previous hearing. He added with this site, the use would be low impact with monthly visits for maintenance. He referred to the Telecommunication Act and demonstrated why the zoned sites do not work for the concerns presented at the last hearing.

Mr. Hopkins described the proposed location site. He said there is a large utility easement cleared that is more visible than the proposed tower would be.

Ms. Dobbins asked to see the coverage area for Carter Hill again. Mr. Hopkins said a 150' tower on this site would be visible from town.

Mr. Parker asked for comments in favor from the public.

Mr. Blomback, a cell phone user, spoke in favor of the variance in hopes the dead zone in coverage will be gone in town if another tower is in Henniker.

Mr. Garrison asked if this tower is constructed, will another be proposed for coverage on Rt 114 south. Mr. Hopkins said that coverage will more than likely come from a tower in an abutting town.

Mr. Garrison reminded the Board the public concern was not to have towers everywhere. He suggested new zones should be put to the voters of Henniker.

Mr. Parker stated the different procedures for getting a zoning ordinance changed. Either a petition or a recommendation from one of the three boards could propose a warrant article for the town to vote on.

Mr. Johnston, citizen, stated he was neither for nor against the proposal, but commented on how the allowed sites were chosen. He said he attended the public hearings during that process, and the hills were chosen because they were the four corners of Henniker. He stated that the appropriate process to change the locations is to amend the ordinance.

M. Johnston added his concern about using the Simplex case as the criteria for passing a variance if you can show some reasonable use of the property.

Mr. Parker stated the whole interpretation of the Simplex decision is still not understood as it can be applied differently in different cases.

Mr. Macmillan, abutter, asked what becomes of tower if it is not longer needed. Mr. Hopkins stated the company would be responsible for that.

Ms. Braiterman, citizen, agreed with the concern and process for changing the zoning ordinance.

Marty Davis, citizen, spoke on behalf of her father, an abutter, against the proposal.

Mr. Parkins, resident on Huntington Rd., spoke against the proposal stating he would have a clear view of the proposed tower from his backyard. He said he is a mile away from the hilltop but did not realize a balloon test was scheduled to be conducted, so he did not see the balloon.

Ms. Spaulding, abutter, agreed with Mr. Garrison and shared his concern of the zoned sites. She asked if other carriers were to co-locate, would there be antenna wires showing. Mr. Hopkins said the tower is designed where all wires are internal.

Mr. Parkins asked if there are lights on the tower design. Mr. Hopkins said there would be none.

Ms. Wilcox said she had the same concern as with the last hearing in that the application was not showing reason enough to locate outside the zoned areas. She thanked the applicants for having maps drawn to scale this time.

Ms. Dobbins voiced concern that if this variance is granted, it may set a precedent for other towers outside the zoned area, and is in favor of changing the zoning ordinance.

Ms. Oliveira stated she was bothered by the statement by Mr. Springer to file suit. She spoke in favor of the ordinance change, and suggested the board work with the engineers to select potential, compatible sites.

Mr. Marsland asked for clarification on the technology with regards to if people can't see tower, how can a phone get the signal. Mr. Hopkins drew a diagram with people not seeing through trees but know something is on the other side.

Mr. Parker asked if other people on Bear Hill were approached and if it was because of a lease agreement that they had no interest. Mr. Hopkins said they had other plans for their land and it usually is not an issue of money that the company is turned away.

Mr. Parker asked if there are other companies interested in locating in Henniker and how many towers would be needed to give near full coverage to Henniker. Mr. Hopkins listed several cell communication companies, and said a total of three towers would be what is needed to cover Henniker. That included the Pat's Peak, this proposed tower, and a future tower. Mr. Hopkins added that the cost of a tower is between $250,000- 300,000, and most companies would prefer to co-locate on an existing tower.

There was a continued discussion on companies co-locating and what color the tower could be and more discussion on the procedure for amending the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Parker closed the public hearing for deliberation. The Board went through the seven criteria and voted on each one.

Item #1: For: P. Marsland, L. Parker, R. Taylor. Against: D. Connor, J. Oliveira.

Item #2: J. Oliveira, R. Taylor, L. Parker. D. Connor. Abstained: P. Marsland

Item #3. R. Taylor, L. Parker D. Connor, J. Oliveira, P. Marsland

Item #4: R. Taylor, L. Parker D. Connor, J. Oliveira, P. Marsland

Item #5. R. Taylor, J. Oliveira, L. Parker, P. Marsland. D. Connor

Item #6. J. Oliveira, R. Taylor, L. Parker, P. Marsland D. Connor

Item #7. R. Taylor, L. Parker D. Connor, J. Oliveira, P. Marsland

Public hearing reopened.

MOTION by Ms. Connor to deny the request for a variance because the application did not pass on Item #3, 4 and 7. Seconded by Mr. Marsland. Four members voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Taylor abstained. The variance is denied.

The applicants submitted the topographical maps for the file.

The Board discussed the meeting scheduled in November. Since the Wednesday meeting is before the Thanksgiving holiday, there will not be a meeting held in November. The next meeting will be December 19.

The Board continued to review the Rules of Procedure manual and made another clarification change. Members will have an amended draft for the next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted,  Gail Abramowicz, Zoning Board Clerk

Minutes of meeting held on September 19, 2001

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Vice Chairman, Doreen Connor, Ron Taylor and Amy Patenaude

Alternates: Suzanne Dobbins, Phil Marsland

Excused: Mary Wilcox.

Guests: Jim Connor, Marshall Connor, Grace Cohen.

Meeting came to order at 7:00 p.m.

Minutes The Board reviewed the draft minutes of August 15, and approved them as amended.

Rules of Procedure amendment.

The Board reviewed the added paragraph to the ZBA Rules of Procedure manual. Ms. Connor made a motion to add paragraph 5, which states; in the instance of an incomplete Board, due to absences and/or disqualification of a board member, alternate board members will be drawn from a rotating alphabetized list kept by the clerk, until a full Board is assembled.

Mr. Partridge seconded. The vote was in favor of the motion.

Zoning Ordinance Petition

Mr. Parker will speak with Geoffrey Hirsch, Planning Board Chairman, to schedule a public hearing on the revision of the zoning ordinance, Section 133-60, for the March 2002 Town Warrant.

Doreen Connor recused for the public hearing. Ms. Dobbins is a voting member for the hearing.

7:15 p.m. Public Hearing

The application for a variance, submitted by Marshall Connor, Executor to the Estate of Lester E. Connor, is requested from Article X, Section 133-41 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a one-acre lot in the RV district. The property is located on Old Concord Rd. Map 2, Lot 237-B.

Ms. Connor, on behalf of the applicant, presented the seven criteria required to be met in a variance application. Having the 50-acre lot highlighted on the town map, and photographs of the home, which is the house past the cemetery on Old Concord Rd., Ms. Connor stated the applicants reasons why the request to have the house on a one-acre lot, versus the required two-acre lot size meets the criteria of a variance.

Ms. Cohen, abutter, spoke in favor of the proposal stating that the potential to have more land farmed than less is appealing.

Ms. Dobbins asked Ms. Connor to define what flowage easement means. Ms. Connor stated that it is the term which gives the federal government the access to flood the plain at their discretion.

Mr. Taylor asked if the house was hooked up to town water and sewer. Ms. Connor said the residence does receive town water but it has a septic system.

Mr. Partridge inquired if any of the property was in current use. Mr. Connor said none of the fifty acres was in current use because of the flood plain.

Mr. Parker closed the hearing for board deliberation.

Mr. Parker asked if a vote is needed on the seven criteria individually or if a vote on all seven in one vote is a consideration.

Ms. Patenaude moved that the application meets the seven requirements as stated in the ordinance, and a single vote on the application be taken. Mr. Taylor seconded. The vote was in favor of the motion to vote on the application as submitted.

Ms. Patenaude moved to accept the variance from Article X, Section 133-41, permitting a one-acre lot in the RV district. Mr. Partridge seconded.

The Public Hearing was reopened for additional comments. As there were no further comments, members voted on the motion. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion; the variance was granted.

The Board received a request for a copy of the recording from the July 18 meeting. Mr. Taylor will make a recording on his home system, if operational .

Next Meeting

The next meeting is scheduled for October 17.  The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Gail Abramowicz, Zoning Board Clerk

Minutes of Meeting on August 15, 2001

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Vice Chairman and Doreen Connor.
Alternates: Mary Wilcox and Joan Oliveira, voting members.
Excused: Ron Taylor and Suzanne Dobbins

Meeting came to order at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Parker briefly discussed the issue of giving informal decisions to zoning questions outside of a regular meeting. He restated the policy of the Board is not to give informal decisions.

With the addition of a fifth alternate member, the Board discussed establishing a system to rotate which alternate sits in as a voting member. Mr. Partridge made a motion to establish a system of alternate member rotation, in the event of an absence of a regular member. Ms. Connor seconded. The vote was in favor of the motion.

The amendment will be drafted and reviewed at the September meeting before being added to the Rules of Procedure manual.

Minutes
The Board reviewed and amended the minutes of July 18, 2001. The Board voted to approve the minutes as amended.

Correspondence
The Board reviewed the proposed changes by Town Counsel to the Board's draft amendment in regards to Section 133-60, Granting a variance, of the zoning ordinance. The Board voted to keep their original draft of Paragraph A, and voted to make the minor change suggested by Town Counsel on Paragraph B.

The Board reviewed a motion for a rehearing pursuant to RSA 677:2, regarding Case #2001-02; a variance application submitted on behalf of Independent Wireless One to construct a tower on property owned by Windsor Ward Peak Forest, Inc., located on Route 114, Map 1 Lot 11. The variance was denied at the July 18 public hearing. The Board discussed the merit of the motion and reviewed the rebuttal to items 3, 4, 5 & 6. The Board also reviewed the Simplex vs. Newington case for reference.

Ms. Connor moved to deny the motion for a rehearing. Ms. Wilcox seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor to deny the motion for a rehearing.

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Gail Abramowicz,
Zoning Board Clerk

Minutes of Meeting on June 20, 2001

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Vice Chairman; Ron Taylor, Doreen Connor
Alternate members: PhilMarsland, voting member; Mary Wilcox, and Suzanne Dobbins.
Excused from meeting: Amy Patenaude

Guests: William and Susan Flynt, Durwood and Barbara French, Mike French, Louis and Audrey Hoistma

Meeting open: 7:00

Minutes
Minutes from the May 16, 2001 meeting were approved with corrections.

Correspondence
The Board reviewed a letter received from Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, in regards to using town counsel vs. NHMA when the Board needs answers to zoning questions. Mr. Parker spoke with Mr. Flynn about the information received from town counsel and will meet with him to review the revision to the Zoning Regulation for Article 133-60; the granting of a variance.

Public Hearing
Mr. Partridge and Mr. Taylor checked the abutter's list and town map for proper notification of the hearing.

7:15 The hearing was called to order. Mr. Parker asked the applicants to state what they were asking for a variance on. Mrs. Flint stated they are proposing to construct an addition to the small cottage, which is a non-conforming structure, located at 30 French Pond Rd, Map 1, Lot 313 in the RR district.

Mrs. Flint read the application and responded to each of the five criteria.

Mr. Parker asked for clarification what the dotted line indicated on the drawn plat. Mr. Flint stated that it shows the proposed additions.

The Board verified the applicants had paid the application and notice fees, and the letter of authorization from Louis and Audrey Hoitsma, owners of the property, was in the file.

Mr. Parker asked for comments from the guests who are in favor of the proposal.

Mr. Durwood French, abutter, spoke in favor of the application.

Mr. Hoitsma stated he has lived at the cottage for 43 summers, and it has been a difficult decision for his family to come to the point of wanting to sell the property. He spoke in favor of the Flints proposal to make the cottage their year- round home.

Mr. Mike French, abutter, stated his support for the application. As a neighbor, he agrees the design of the additions will bring the structure to a more practical use. As a former ZBA board member, he stated he does not see an impact on the pond from this proposal.

Mr. Parker stated this hearing will be the first to follow the criteria for a variance as a result from the recent decisions made by the NH Supreme Court since the Simplex ruling.

Mr. Parker asked for comments from anyone not in favor of the application. No one voiced any comments against the proposal.

Ms. Dobbins asked if one of the proposed additions would be closer to the pond. Mrs. Flint stated it would not be closer to the pond, but the apple orchard.

Ms. Connor asked the applicants if they were familiar with the State Shoreline Protection Act. Mr. Flint stated they were required to be at least 50 feet from the shoreline, but the town had the authority to enforce their regulation of 75 feet.

Mr. Taylor asked if state septic approval had been granted yet. Mr. Flint stated they have submitted the application, but it was contingent upon the variance as to being granted.

Mr. Parker read the State RSA regarding the Shoreline Protection Act.

Public Hearing closed for Board deliberation.

Mr. Partridge stated that with the recent NH Supreme Court decision regarding proof of hardship, the Board will be following the draft revision to the variance application.
Mrs. Flint stated she was aware of the draft and did respond accordingly for item three.

The Board went through each item of the criteria.

Item 1- no issues. The full voting board was in agreement.

Item 2- Mr. Partridge stated the proposal was in line to maintain the setback. Full agreement.

Item 3-The Board briefly discussed the issue of the footprint and noted it was not going towards the wetland area. Full agreement.

Item 4-Ms. Connor noted this was the first time using the new criteria, and that the proposal was not for a new building but for one already there. All five voting members were in agreement.

Item 5-Mr. Partridge stated the abutters most apt to be injured by the variance were in favor of the proposal. Full agreement.

Items 6 and 7- Full agreement.

Public Hearing reopened

Mr. Marsland made a motion to approve the variance. Ms. Connor seconded. The Board voted unanimously to approve the motion. The variance was granted.

Correspondence

The Board continued to go through the mail.
The Board reviewed the two applications submitted for membership. There is only one position open at this time, and applicant Joan Oliveira will be notified by mail.

Old Business

The Board reviewed the revised draft of the ZBA application for a Variance.
Mr. Partridge moved to accept the new variance application with corrections. Ms. Connor seconded. The vote was in favor of the motion. The new application will be in effect as of this date, June 20, 2001.

New Business

Ms. Connor presented a draft revision to Article 133-60 of the Henniker Zoning Regulations.
The Board discussed the revisions and made comments and suggestions. Ms. Connor will have a revised draft for the next meeting.

Next Meeting
The July and August meeting are tentative.

The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM

Respectfully submitted,

Gail Abramowicz,
Zoning Board Clerk

Minutes of Meeting on April 18, 2001

Members present: Leon Parker, Doreen Connor, John Partridge, Ron Taylor, Amy Patenaude.
Alternate members: Suzanne Dobbins, Phil Marsland. Mary Wilcox was excused.

Guests present: None

Correspondence

The Board reviewed information in regards to the Annual Spring Planning Conference to be held in Concord. Ms. Dobbins gave a summary of the minutes from latest meeting of the Board of Selectman.

Election of Officers

Nominated for the position of chairman: Leon Parker.
Nominated for the position of vice-chairman: John Partridge.
Both members accepted their nomination. The Board voted in favor of the members to serve another term as chairman and vice-chairman.

Old Business

The Board continued their discussion of revising the ZBA Application for a Variance form to include the ruling changes made by the NH Supreme Court in March 2001. Ms. Dobbins presented the proposed changes she made to a model form the Central NH Regional Planning Commission(CNHRPC) sent, which include the new standard for unnecessary hardship criteria.

Mr. Partridge stated that Article XV of the Henniker Zoning Regulations would need to be rewritten by next year and inquired about the procedure as to when the change is made in the recodification book. The Board will confer with the NH Municipal Association on this issue. The present variance application will still be used, but will follow the new criteria as outlined in the March 14, 2001 memorandum from CNHRPC. The Board will review a draft of the revised application at their May meeting.

New Business

Ms. Connor highlighted several recent court cases in regards to rulings of land use.

The Board drafted several questions for the Municipal Association and will review their answers at the next meeting.

Minutes

Minutes from the March 21, 2001 meeting were approved as submitted.

NEXT MEETING: MAY 16, 2001

Adjournment: 8:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gail ABRAMOWICZ,
Zoning Board Clerk

Minutes of Meeting on February 21, 2001

Members present: Leon Parker, Ron Taylor, Doreen Connor. John Partridge was excused.
Alternate members: Mary Wilcox in for Mr. Partridge, and Suzanne Dobbins.

Guests present: None

Meeting Called to Order: 7:10 p.m.

Correspondence: The Board reviewed information passed on by Peter Flynn, Town Administrator, that he received from Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward & Loughman, Attorney's at Law, in regards to a NH Supreme Court decision on January 29, 2001 changing the zoning variance standard for unnecessary hardship.

Similar information was sent to Mr. Parker from Cleveland, Waters and Bass, P.A., Attorneys at Law. The Board discussed the material received to date about the NH Supreme Court ruling.

The Board reviewed the ZBA's Application for a Variance and noted some suggestions to bring it up to date with the new recodification book of ordinances. Members will review the changes at the next meeting.

Mr. Taylor noted that Article XV of the Zoning Ordinance may need to be rewritten.

Minutes: Minutes from the December 20, 2000 meeting were reviewed and approved.
Minutes from January 17, 2001 were tabled for the next meeting.

Next Meeting: March 21, 2001
Adjournment: 8:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gail Abramowicz,
Zoning Clerk

Minutes of Meeting on January 17, 2001

Members present: John Partridge.
Alternate members: Mary Wilcox and Suzanne Dobbins

Guests present: None

Meeting Called to Order: 7:15 p.m.

Correspondence: Mr. Partridge read a copy of the letter Leon Parker sent to the Board of Selectmen requesting the reappointment of John Partridge and Doreen Connor as members of the Zoning Board.

Minutes: Since Mr. Partridge and Ms. Wilcox were the only two members present this meeting as well as last month's meeting, the minutes of December 20,2000 will be reviewed at the February 21 meeting.

The Board reviewed a draft for the Town Report and the upcoming meeting schedule.

Next Meeting: February 21, 2001

Adjournment: 7:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gail Abramowicz,
Zoning Board Clerk

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Ron Taylor
Alternate member: Mary Wilcox

Correspondence: Chairman Parker stated receipt of a letter from the office of the Board of Selectmen requesting a submission for the annual town report.

Minutes from the November 15, 2000 meeting were approved.

The Board reviewed the proposed amendments accepted by the Planning Board at their December 13, 2000 meeting. It was noted the PB will hold a public hearing January 10 at the Henniker Community School Cafetorium to present those proposed amendments publicly.

ZBA structure for year 2001
Chairman Parker reviewed the membership list and stated the term for members John Partridge, Doreen Connor and Yvonne Hall will expire in 2001.

Mr. Partridge accepted the invitation to be reappointed for another term.
Chairman Parker will ask Ms. Connor if she would accept reappointment.
Alternate member Yvonne Hall had previously informed the Chairman she declined another term.

Chairman Parker will send appropriate nominations to the Board of Selectmen.

NOTE: As of January 2, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board office will be back at Town Hall in the Board of Selectmen's office. All necessary forms, applications and maps are available at this office. You may leave messages for the clerk at 428-3221.

The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM

Respectfully submitted,

Gail Abramowicz,
Zoning Board Clerk

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Amy Patenaude, Ron Taylor, Yvonne Hall sitting in for Doreen Connor. Alternate members: Kris Blomback, Mary Wilcox, Suzanne Dobbins, Phil Marsland Excused member: Doreen Connor

Guests present: Dave Currier, Tom Riley, Leigh Bosse, Cynthia Marsland, Kevin Morse, David Lee.

Chairman Parker opened the meeting stating the procedures of the public hearing. The application submitted is for a Special Exception submitted by David P. Currier on behalf of Foster H. Herrick, Heirs, and Beverly Vozzolo and is requested from Article 133-25, Section A of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the building of a place of public worship for St. Theresa's's Parish. The property is located on the east side of Old West Hopkinton Rd, Lot 551-X in the RN district.

Chairman Parker noted for the Board the property owners have given Mr. Currier permission to act as their agent in this hearing, but the document is not notarized.

After a brief discussion, Mr. Partridge made the motion to accept the written authorization without the legal notarized seal. Ms. Hall seconded.

Mr. Taylor amended the motion to accept the document contingent upon receipt of notarized authorization if the application was approved.

Mr. Currier said he would be able to provide the document in a few weeks.

The vote was in favor of the amended motion. Mr. Currier has until December 15 to provide the notarized document if the application is approved.

Mr. Currier read each of the eleven conditions and explained why he believes the proposed use satisfies each.

Chairman Parker asked if anyone present wanted to comment favorably or against the application.

Mr.Morse, guest, asked the capacity of the facility and what the traffic impact would be on the roadway.

Mr. Lee, abutter, asked if there could be an entrance to the church directly from Route 202.

Mr. Currier said this was the first step needed in knowing if they could construct a church on that parcel. The second step would be to apply for a Site Plan Review application with the Planning Board. He would have a more detailed plan for that step.

Mrs. Marsland, Zoning Compliance Administrator, suggested Mr. Currier speak with the Town Road Agent about the driveway and road issues.

Ms. Hall noted the comments from the guests were traffic concerns, so there are no objections from the public in attendance.

Public hearing closed for Board deliberation.

Ms. Patenaude stated all the eleven conditions have been met and the only question is if the area is the right place for a church. She added the planning board will address the traffic concerns.

Mr. Taylor agreed with Ms. Patenaude as did Mr. Partridge.

Ms. Patenaude made a motion to approve the application as submitted for a Special Exception requested from Article 133-25, Section A of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the building of a place of public worship, having satisfied all the eleven criteria.

Mr. Partridge seconded.

Public Hearing back in session.

A vote was taken with Mr. Partridge, Mr. Parker, Ms. Hall, Ms. Patenaude and Mr. Taylor in favor of the motion.

Mr. Currier is approved for the Special Exception. He has until December 15 to submit a notarized document from the property owners stating he is acting as their agent in this application.

Minutes from the October 18 meeting were reviewed and approved as amended.

Correspondence - Brief discussion on letters received concerning: the interpretation of the "footprint" of a structure; what classifies the principal building with regards to accessory buildings, and a copy of a letter sent to Kevin Steinbach from the Board of Selectmen.

The Board discussed a revised draft for a proposal of Bed & Breakfast regulation. Mrs. Marsland said she will be meeting with a subcommittee of the Planning Board to draft a final proposal.

Chairman Parker reviewed the 2001 budget with the Board.

The Board discussed the presentation from the previous evening with Jed Callen. Mr. Callen specializes in Land Use Law and Grandfathering. He spoke to an audience of Planning and Zoning Board members and gave insight on regulations and interpretations.

Next Meeting - scheduled for December 20, 2000.

Meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM

Respectfully Submitted,

Gail Abramowicz, Clerk
Planning & Zoning

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Ron Taylor. Alternate members: Suzanne Dobbins, Phil Marsland, Kris Blomback. Excused members: Amy Patenaude, Doreen Connor, Mary Wilcox.

Guests present: Cynthia Marsland, Vincent Massaro, Patricia Sherman, and Frank H. Lemay.

7:00 p.m. Chairman Parker opened the meeting with an addition to the agenda for an informal discussion with representatives from New England College.

Mr. Parker seized the opportunity to ask what the college plans to do about the deterioration of the covered bridge. Mr. Massaro, Vice President of Finance, said he hadn't ever been across the bridge, but he would be sure to do that soon. He commented that the college is in a stage of revitalization and that a symbolic structure such as the bridge should be maintained.

Mr. Massaro gave the Board an overview of a proposed plan to add a technology center next to the college library. He introduced members of the architecture firm Sherman Greiner Halle' Ltd. and discussed with the Board an issue with the legal location of Grove Street and asked questions about the procedural process for combining lots in reference to lot coverage and parking.

The Board reviewed the proposal and looked at information Mrs. Marsland found in regards to Grove Street. The Board suggested the guests go before the Planning Board with the new information and revised plat and apply for Site Plan Review and possibly submit a Boundary Line Adjustment application.

Correspondence file was reviewed. A memo from the Town Administrator announced the title change from Code Enforcement Officer to Zoning Compliance Officer, and Cynthia Marsland will continue to hold the position.

Minutes from September 20, 2000 meeting were approved as amended.

Discussion of proposed Bed & Breakfast regulations began with a draft of what the definition entails. Mrs. Marsland presented the Board with an outline of information gathered from several sources. The Board asked her to present the amended draft to the Planning Board.

Chairman Parker informed the members that Jed Callen of New Boston will be the guest speaker for a presentation on land use and grandfathering. The meeting is tentatively set for November 14 at the Grange. The Planning Board will be invited as well as the public.

Ms. Dobbins asked the Board what the definition of a "footprint" is in regards to the building structure on a parcel of land, as the current definition isn't very clear. The Board discussed the issue and will work to clarify the definition in the regulations.

Next Meeting may be held November 14 with the guest speaker on land use law.

The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gail Abramowicz, Clerk
Planning & Zoning

Minutes of Meeting on September 20, 2000

Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; John Partridge, Doreen Connor. Alternate members: Mary Wilcox, Suzanne Dobbins, Phil Marsland. Excused members: Ron Taylor, Yvonne Hall, Amy Patenaude.

Guests present: Cynthia Marsland

7:00 p.m. Chairman Parker opened the meeting.

Correspondence file was reviewed.

Minutes from July 19, 2000 meeting were approved as amended.

Members present received a copy of the Zoning Regulations from the Recodification Book. Absent members may pick up a copy at the Selectman's Office.

Chairman Parker put a question to the Board in reference to a proposed business condo at the Autodesk site on Liberty Hill Rd. He explained the proposed plan brought to the Planning Board was to sell the buildings separately and each would be a different office. The members concluded the plan would require a subdivision application.

Chairman Parker introduced Cindy Marsland to the Board as the Acting Code Enforcement Officer. Mrs. Marsland gave the Board an overview of how she has proceeded with issues since her appointment in July and asked if she may call on members to clarify interpretations of the regulations on occasion.

Mr. Parker clarified a statement he made in the past with regards to informal decisions. As a Board, it is the policy not to make informal decisions. Individuals may give an interpretation of a zoning regulation, but those are not board decisions.

Mrs. Connor suggested that on occasion, Mrs. Marsland go through town counsel with questions. Mrs. Marsland said she has and will continue when time is not a factor in getting an answer quickly.

The Board discussed the issue of how the town enforces the regulations when a business is not conforming to the zoning regulations. Chairman Parker stated if a non-conforming business can be brought into compliance, then it should be.

The Board also informally discussed the following: an issue concerning the definition of land use and when it becomes a subdivision issue for the planning board; an idea brought up at the Board of Selectmen' meeting about zoning for multi-use buildings.

Gail Abramowicz, Planning & Zoning Board Clerk, gave the Board an update on the Master Plan Survey and a draft copy of the questionnaire drawn up by the Planning Board and the Central NH Regional Planning Commission. The survey will be sent out October 3, and will be due back October 27. The survey may be answered by mail or completed on the Internet by linking to the Town's website at www.henniker.org.

Mrs. Connor distributed an information packet to the Board on legal cases of non-conforming use, and another titled, Protection and Continuance of Non-conforming Uses and Structures. She suggested the members read the packets and come with questions at the next meeting.

The Board discussed inviting a speaker with knowledge of land-use laws and grandfathering to a joint meeting with the Planning Board. It was also suggested the Henniker Business Association be involved in the session and the meeting advertised on the Internet and in the newspaper.

The next meeting is scheduled for October 18, 2000. The clerk will be on vacation Oct. 2-Oct. 9. The Grange office will be closed Tuesday, Oct. 3.

The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gail Abramowicz, Clerk
Planning & Zoning

Members present: Leon Parker, Doreen Connor; voting alternates: Suzanne Dobbins in for Leon Parker for the hearing, Mary Wilcox in for John Partridge, Yvonne Hall in for Amy Patenaude, Phil Marsland in for Ron Taylor. Kris Blomback, non-voting alternate.

Guests present: Arthur F. Siciliano, Al D'Agata, Mel Barbagallo, Donald R. Goss Jr., William Goss, Diena Parker, Rachel Paul, Dawn Blanchard, George Boucher, Elizabeth Boucher, Lisa White, Arthur K. Hall, Liz Sweeney, Bob Losik, Kim Adams, Paul Adams, Jennifer McCourt, Shirley Hall.

Chair, Leon Parker opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Parker read the letter of resignation from Kelly Dearborn-Luce. He introduced Gail Abramowicz as the new Zoning Board Clerk. He showed members the new recodification book of the town codes. A binder is available for members to sign out.

Mr. Parker introduced the members and alternates who will sit on the board for the hearing. He recused himself from the hearing. Suzanne Dobbins will step in as acting chair.

Hearing:

An application for a Special Exception from Alfio D'Agata c/o ADA Realty, and Arthur Siciliano representing. The applicant would like to construct a multi-family dwelling of five units on Liberty Hill Road, Tax Lot #134-F, in the RN District. Article VI, section 133-25 (recodification book) allows multi-family by Special Exception.

Ms. Dobbins read the hearing notice and explained the procedures. Ms. Connor and Ms. Hall reviewed the application, checked the abutters list and if the public notice was properly sent.

Mr. Siciliano presented the proposed plan to construct two buildings of 5 condominium units on the Liberty Hill property. He stated that Mr. D'Agata has had the property since the early 1980's and was approved for many more units but discontinued the project for economic reasons. Since then the zoning regulations have been created and now they are applying for the special exception to place the multi-family units on the parcel.

Ms. Hall asked for clarity of the special exception. Was the board to consider the plan of two buildings on one lot or the use of the parcel as a multi-family dwelling. Mr. Siciliano asked that the plan be looked at as one building for a multi-family dwelling.

Ms. Dobbins asked Mr.Siciliano to read the 11 conditions required for special exception and comment on how the applicant meets each requirement. Ms. Dobbins asked guests for their questions and comments.

Several guests had comments on the increased traffic.

Jennifer McCourt, abutter, cited 2 sections of the zoning ordinance. #1. Section 403- lot size. #2. Section 10- 1002.3. Minimum lot size on Class V road is 10 acres.

Ms. Dobbins clarified that the lot is not being subdivided and that the applicant is asking to put a building for multi-family use.

Mr. Siciliano explained that the plan shows a 10:1 ratio and that they will provide open space. Discussion on number of families for one parcel continued.

Paul Adams, abutter, asked Mr. Barbagallo and Mr. D'Agata if they had plans for this proposal before they sold him his lot, 134-G. Mr. Barbagallo did not have an immediate answer but did tell Mr. Adams later in the meeting that they did not.

Mrs. McCourt cited several more regulations in which the applicant does not qualify for a special exception. Her comments are similar to Mr. Parker's summary list which are included with these minutes.

Kim Adams, abutter, stated her purchase of property in the area was because of the rural setting. She also had concerns of decreased water from her well if a multiple dwelling was constructed in the area.

Dawn Blanchard, abutter, stated concerns of increased traffic, speed too fast now for road design, and future impact if five families were to move in, compared to one.

Abutters Bob Losik and Lisa White also expressed concerns with road condition and traffic.

Leon Parker, abutter, handed out a 5 page summary of the applicants response to the 11 conditions the Board is to consider for a special exception and his response to each.*See attached sheets of that summary.

Mr. Siciliano responded to questions of road condition and traffic impact by stating that if they were granted the special exception, these issues would be brought before the Planning Board.

William Goss, abutter, had questions of drainage and water run off.

Mr. Barbagallo answered Mr. Adam's question of when this project was thought of. He stated it was after the sale of his lot and the suggestion was made by a realtor who said there was a big demand for seasonal housing. He described the units as well built, high end 2-3 bedroom condos.

Issues of building design, recreation area, garage location, additional parking and development of property compared to lot size were discussed. Mr. Siciliano answered these concerns by reviewing the conceptual site plan.

Donald Goss, Jr., abutter, had concerns of the proposal not being in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance. The proposal is asking to put five families where the regulations state you would need 50 acres. Ms. Dobbins clarified the zoning regulation in stating the parcel size could be 2 acres for a dwelling and this lot is over 5 acres. Ten acre lots would be needed for a subdivision.

An abutter stated that if this was granted the exception for the multi-family dwelling on this lot, what would keep other property owners from doing the same in the area.

Mr. Blomback said he understands the public concerns, but stated in fairness to the applicant, Mr. D'Agata is in his right to apply for this special exception.

Mrs. McCourt asked the applicant if these multi-family units were going to be sold as condos.

Mr. Siciliano stated that they were. Mrs. McCourt said that under state statute, this is a subdivision.

Mr. Parker confirmed that and referred to the new recodification book, Chapter 202- 2. The definition of a condominium is the form of ownership of real property, and any interests therein, lawfully submitted to the provisions of RSA 356-B, in which individual owners own or lease separate units but together, or through an owners' association, own the common areas appurtenant to the units.

Board closed public hearing portion to enter deliberations.

The Board started with condition #1. Five members said the site is inappropriate for the structure. Ms. Connor stated the size and magnitude of the project not suitable for the area. Ms. Hall said she didn't feel it fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Hall moved the special exception be denied. Ms. Wilcox seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to deny the special exception.

The Board closed deliberations. Public Hearing closed.

Mr. Parker resumed his position as chair.

Correspondence/Business - Minutes of April 19 and May 17, 2000 were reviewed and approved. Informal discussion on the Boards policy not to give out informal decisions. August meeting is canceled unless something gets scheduled. Item on agenda not yet addressed: grandfathering.

Motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Gail Abramowicz, Clerk

Members Present: John Partridge, Doreen Connor, Leon Parker, Ron Taylor and Kris Blomback. Amy Patenaude, Suzanne Dobbins and Mary Wilcox excused. Yvonne Hall and Phil Marsland absent.

No guest present. No hearings scheduled.

Members explained rules and procedures and welcomed new alternate member Kris Blomback to the Board.

Minutes from December 15, 1999 were reviewed. Motion made by Ron Taylor to approve the minutes with minor corrections, seconded by John Partridge. Leon Parker, Ron Taylor and John Partridge voted in favor 3-0. Doreen Connor and Kris Blomback abstained from voting as they were not at original hearing.

Minutes from January 19, 2000 were reviewed. Motion made by Doreen Connor to approve the minutes with minor corrections, seconded by John partridge. Leon Parker, Doreen Connor and John Partridge voted in favor 3-0. Ron Taylor and Kris Blomback abstained from voting as they were not at the meeting.

The final decision for the Auction Business on Browns Way has been revised regarding the condition of the maintenance of the road. Members reviewed the final wording. Motion was made by John Partridge that the third condition be amended to read: " The owner of the property shall be responsible for all maintenance related to and required by the auction traffic on Browns Way on a year round basis". This change was requested by the property owner. Motion was seconded by Ron Taylor. Leon Parker, John Partridge and Ron Taylor voted in favor, 3-0. Doreen Connor and Kris Blomback abstained.

Ron Taylor discussed the Budget Committee review. Board held a discussion regarding the Conservation Commission requests for funds to list all natural resources.

The March meeting will be held on the 29th, if we have an appeal, due to Town Meeting. If there are no applications filed, the next meeting will be April 19, 2000.

Kelly Dearborn-Luce asked the Board for their opinion regarding two zoning issues.

1. In accordance to Article X, the lot size requirements are enforced by the use of water and sewer. If the lot only has one service do they still need to have 2 acres or 20,0000 square feet. The Board decided the lot size would be 2 acres.

2. Mr. Losik on Liberty Hill Road has a home business in the garage located on the property. Mr. Losik would like to see if he can subdivide the property and separate the business from the home. The Board agreed that the home business would be null and void if the business is not part of the same house lot.

No further business. Doreen Connor made a motion to adjourn, seconded by John Partridge, at 8:00 PM, all voted in favor.

Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Dearborn-Luce, Clerk

Members present: Leon Parker, Suzanne Dobbins, John Partridge and Doreen Connor. Phil Marsland (late). Amy Patenaude and Yvonne Hall excused. Ron Taylor absent.

Guest present: Mary Wilcox

Chair Leon Parker opened the meeting at 7:00 PM. No hearings scheduled for this meeting.

Members reviewed the final draft of the recodification.

Minutes of December tabled due to lack of quorum. Members will vote on minutes at next meeting.

Chair noted that Kelly Dearborn-Luce has submitted the article for the Town Report.

Budget Committee meeting is Thursday, January 20th. Kelly Dearborn-Luce will attend.

Members discussed the wording of the decision regarding the auctions held on Browns Way. The property owner was concerned of the third condition listed in the decision regulating the maintenance of the road. The owner thought it could be misinterpreted that the property owner would be solely responsible for all the maintenance. The board agreed to reword the condition to: "The owner of the property shall be responsible for all maintenance related to and required by the auction traffic on Browns Way on a year round basis." Kelly Dearborn-Luce will write a new decision and mail to members with the agenda and the board will vote on this change at the next meeting.

Leon Parker and Ron Taylor have new appointments for another three year term. They will need to see the Town Clerk.

Kelly Dearborn-Luce suggested to have our regular meetings held at the Grange, starting in the spring. The board agreed. Kelly will check with the Selectmen and schedules.

Kelly Dearborn-Luce asked for the boards opinion regarding the use in the CR district for Commercial/Services/Technical. Rick Patenaude would like to inspect vehicles at his place of business. The use is not allowed in the CR district without a variance.

The vehicle inspections may be of his own business vehicles, but not public vehicles. The board agreed that a variance would be required if Rick were to inspect other (private) vehicles.

Mary Wilcox was introduced and she would like to be an alternate member of the ZBA. Kelly will send ZBA and appointment information to Mary.

Doreen Connor asked the board for some information regarding the variance that was denied for Danny and Heidi Aucoin. Few years ago they wanted to subdivide their lot and did not have enough acres to meet the requirement for that district.

Motion to adjourn made by Doreen Connor, seconded by John Partridge, all approved, at 7:45 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Kelly Dearborn-Luce, Clerk

Return to Henniker homepage