.jpg)
For the year 2004/2005/2006
| Town of Henniker |
|
|
| Zoning Board -
Minutes For the year 2004/2005/2006 |
Meetings are normally held monthly, 3rd Wednesday, 7:00pm, at the Town Hall
The most recent meetings for which minutes are available:
(All are approved unless noted otherwise)
TOWN OF HENNIKER
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 15, 2006
Members Present: Leon Parker, Chairman; Doreen Connor; Kris Blomback; Joan Oliveira; Ron Taylor; Alternate members Rick Patenaude and Leo Aucoin were also present.
Members Excused (Alternates): Heidi Hamel; Bob Stamps; Jeff Connor
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Jennifer McCourt; Sean Curran, Esq.; Joseph Morette; Ken & Jolene Erikson; Tim Lamphere; Chuck LeClaire; Ronald Bourcier; Chris Stewart; Dennis Rialland; Dan Paul; Peter Flynn; Jeffrey Egner; Rebecca Egner; Dale and Marianne Jennings.
Chairman Parker called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. He explained the hearing process, noting that alternate board members may participate in the discussion but will not participate in the vote.
New Business
Case #2006-108: Joseph and Jinhua Xian Morette have submitted an application for Special Exception. The property is located on 19 Newton Road on Map 2 Lots 369C and 369D in the Commercial Village (CV) District. The Special Exception is requested from Article VIII, Section 133-32A for the purpose of placing 10 – two bedroom multi-family residential units on each of five lots which will be subdivided from the consolidated Lots 369C and 369D.
It is noted that all paperwork and notices to abutters are in order.
Jennifer McCourt with McCourt Engineering Associates presented the request on behalf of the applicants. She showed a conceptual plan of five lots with one principal building on each lot with 10 units in each building (total of 50 units). She reported that the lot-density requirements found in Section 133-41 are met by this plan. Ms. McCourt stated that Newton Road would have to be upgraded to Town paved road standards, and town sewer and water would have to be carried further down the site. She stated that Mr. Morette would be responsible for these costs. Ms. McCourt stated that this type of development would be an improvement for the neighborhood and would be a benefit to the town of Henniker as it would provide starter housing for singles, young families, young professionals and older residents. She stated that no aspects of this plan would be detrimental to the Town. Ms. McCourt reiterated that the proposed use is allowed by special exception.
Chairman Parker asked if any audience members wanted to speak for or against the proposed plan. Ken Erikson, 89 Western Avenue, stated that he is requesting the ZBA to reject the request for Special Exception based on the high density use requested. Mr. Erikson passed out a written statement to the Board outlining his reasons which Chairman Parker read aloud. In response to his concerns about the number of school-age children that would impact the town by this type of housing, Ms. McCourt stated that studies show that only one-half of one percent of the population living in units less than one thousand square feet are of school age.
Tim Lamphere questioned the ability of the town sewer system to handle the increased load of the development. Ron Taylor, board member, stated that the aging system needs repair but would have the capacity to handle the development. He stated that it is questionable if the pump in West Henniker could handle the increased load; he stated that would be determined at the Planning Board stage.
A significant amount of discussion took place about the type of development these multi-unit dwellings could evolve. Ms. McCourt stated that in order to follow the current law, the land would have to be subdivided to allow building the five smaller structures, creating a community as opposed to two, box-type apartment structures. There was concern about the possibility of potentially having five different land owners sharing a common road. Mr. Curran, attorney for Mr. Morette, stated that the property would only remain marketable if there were covenants to the land detailing consistent manner of road and property maintenance. Ms. McCourt stated that there is ample road frontage to allow for five private driveways to each building if that was a preferable arrangement. Various aspects of condominium ownership and associations, homeowner’s associations and the possible future conveyance of property were discussed at length. Mr. Morette stated that he intends to be the sole owner of the property and development into the foreseeable future.
Doreen Connor asked about other features of the properties such as trash disposal and lighting. Ms. McCourt stated that each building is designed to house one standard trash dumpster on an 8’x8’ concrete slab surrounded by stockade fencing. She stated that low-impact and complete cutoff lighting will be used to light the parking areas.
Ms. McCourt stated that the plans request 100 parking spaces, broken up with landscaping throughout. She stated that further plans may include some parking under the buildings, thereby reducing the number of parking spaces. Ron Taylor, board member, expressed concern for safety when backing out of parking spaces onto the access road.
Ron Taylor asked if handicap accessible units would be included. Ms. McCourt stated that if there are no parking garages, handicap accessibility is easy to include in the plans; however, when garages are included, it is more difficult and more expensive to accomplish. Mr. Taylor asked if there was any contamination to the land from Mr. Morette’s saw shop. Mr. Morette stated that no oil or other pollutants have been traced from his shop, but six culverts from the highway cause runoff to the back of the lots.
Mr. Taylor expressed concern about the proposed setbacks on three of the buildings and would like to see the lot lines adjusted to 25-foot easements. Ms. McCourt and the rest of the Board agreed to this change. He stated that he was personally uncomfortable with the potential prospect of the development being owned by five different people and felt that five separate driveways would be better.
Dan Paul, audience member, asked how the plans could change after the official wetlands study is completed. Ms. McCourt stated that the density aspect will not change; however, the number of units may be altered.
Chairman Parker closed the public hearing at 8:21 pm. Board deliberations commenced.
Joan Oliveira stated that she is concerned that this proposal involves the Board in granting five separate special exceptions, one for each proposed lot. Doreen Connor and Ron Taylor also stated their discomfort granting five special exceptions for the property due to the possibility of future changes of plans or ownership. Rick Patenaude, alternate member, stated that he hates to worry about what may not happen and does not want to see a good plan rejected based on that.
The criteria for granting special exception were reviewed and voted upon as follows:
1) The special exception is appropriate for the use.
Vote: Yes – 3 (Kris, Leon, Joan) No – 2 (Doreen, Ron)
2) Plan is allowed by special exception.
Vote Yes – 5 No - 0
3) Plan is compatible with the neighboring land uses.
Vote: Yes – 3 (Ron, Leon, Kris) No – 2 (Doreen, Joan)
4) Plan does not present undue traffic congestion or impair pedestrian safety.
Vote: Yes – 3 (Kris, Leon, Ron) No – 2 (Joan, Doreen)
5) Plan would be in the public interest.
Vote: Yes – 2 (Kris, Leon) No – 3 (Joan, Doreen, Ron)
6) Plan would not create hazards to the public.
Vote: Yes – 3 (Kris, Leon, Ron) No – 2 (Doreen, Joan)
7) Plan would not constitute nuisance.
Vote: Yes – 3 (Kris, Leon, Ron) No – 2 (Doreen, Joan)
Doreen Connor moved to reject case #2006-108 because the applicant did not meet all seven criteria which were necessary to grant this special exception. Joan Oliveira seconded the motion. Board discussion included Kris Blomback requesting a specific reason be given to the applicant as to why the case was rejected. Doreen Connor stated that the ZBA does not give specific guidance as it is a judicial board. It was noted that the applicant has the right to appeal the Board’s decision. The motion passed, 3-2. (Yes - Ron, Doreen, Joan; No – Kris, Leon)
Case #2006-109: Application for Special Exception by Joseph and Jinhua Xian Morette.
Based on the rejection of the prior request for Special Exception, Attorney Curran asked for a continuance.
Chairman Parker moved to continue Case #2006-109 to the December 20, 2006 meeting. Ron Taylor seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0. Attorney Curran checked his calendar and found he would not be in town on that date. Chairman Parker amended his motion to reflect the continuance to the January 17, 2007 meeting. Doreen Connor seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Case #2006-106-A: Landmark Planning and Development LLC, on behalf of Ronald and Nancy Talbot, have submitted an Amendment to application 2006-106 for an Area Variance. The property is located on 34 Bacon Road on Map 1, Lot 354C in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District. The Area Variance is requested from Article XXIV, Section 133-119F: to reduce the required road frontage from the previously approved 50’ to approximately 47’.
Ron Taylor, board member, recused himself from this hearing. Alternate Leo Aucoin sat in his place.
Doreen Connor checked all paperwork and abutters’ notices are in order. Chairman Parker reviewed the procedures for hearing this case with the audience. Chairman Parker stated that the issue is whether the applicants may proceed with open space development or not. He invited the applicant to either go through the entire presentation of their plans or just the portion relative to the variance from 50’ to 49.5’.
Chris Stewart, Landmark Planning and Development LLC, gave a brief history of the area of road frontage that is in question. He stated that he had used an existing registered plan to derive his information; however, that plan does not match what is actually in the field. Mr. Stewart introduced surveyor Dennis Rialland from Brown Engineering to explain the complexities of the case. He passed out a handout to the Board showing the area of concern. He gave a detailed explanation of extensive research he had done on the property and retraced the lines created in 2001, 2002 and 1971. He stated that he has spoken with previous surveyors of the property and has reviewed past field notes. He states that the extensive research and field survey clearly indicates the correct boundary lines.
Chairman Parker clarified that the Area Variance is to be taken from Article XXIII, Section 133-120F and should be amended to a variance from 50’ to 49.5’ (requesting a difference of six inches).
Chairman Parker read a letter dated 11/15/06 submitted to the ZBA by Gigi Laberge. He then opened the hearing to public comment. Several audience members questioned the viability of building a road within 50’ of road frontage. Traffic and safety issues were a main concern.
Chairman Parker closed the public session. The Board began deliberations.
Joan Oliveira stated that she was not present at the last meeting to hear the entire presentation of the proposed development. She clarified that tonight’s hearing was solely for the purpose of amending the 50’ that had been approved to 49.5’.
Chris Stewart, applicant, stated that if the entire variance were going to be voted on again, then he would like to make the entire presentation for the benefit of the board members who were not present at the last meeting. Chairman Parker amended the procedure and allowed Mr. Stewart to give a summary of the past presentation.
There was a five-minute break.
Upon resuming the meeting, Mr. Stewart requested that if the Area Variance be amended for the six inches, then he would like to continue. If, however, he needs to make the presentation in its entirety, he indicated that he would rather table it until the next meeting.
Kris Blomback confirmed that a road could be made at the narrowest point of 43.6’. The engineers stated that there was enough room for a road and then it would be widened out again after that most narrow point.
Chairman Parker moved to hold the hearing tonight with the ability for the applicant to answer all questions to the board’s satisfaction. Kris Blomback seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.
Mr. Stewart summarized the presentation and requested that a variance of road frontage from 50’ to 49.5’ be granted.
Public input included traffic safety concerns. Mrs. Jennings stated that the owners are pursuing open space development because the land is very steep and it would be very difficult and expensive to build a conventional development.
Mr. Stewart stated that the lay of the land provides no other feasible road access points and adds to the hardship of the landowner.
Chairman Parker closed the public hearing at 10:45 pm. There were no further comments from the Board.
The criteria for issuing the Area Variance were reviewed and voted upon as follows:
1) The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values.
Vote: Yes – 3 (Kris, Leon, Leo) No – (Doreen, Joan)
2) Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
Vote: Yes – 3 (Kris, Leon, Leo) No – (Doreen, Joan)
3a) Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner.
Vote: Yes – 3 (Kris, Leon, Leo) No – (Doreen, Joan)
3b) The same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonable feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden.
Vote: Yes – 5 No – 0
4) Granting the variance would do substantial justice.
Vote: Yes – 3 (Kris, Leon, Leo) No – 2 (Doreen, Joan)
5) The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
Vote: Yes – 3 (Kris, Leon, Leo) No – 2 (Doreen, Joan)
Chairman Parker moved to approve the Area Variance (Section 133-120F) to allow the Open Space development property on Map 1, Lot 354C with road frontage of 49.5’. Kris Blomback seconded the motion. The motion was approved, 3 – 2. (Yes – Kris, Leon, Leo; No – Doreen, Joan)
It was decided to table the review of the minutes of the October 18, 2006 meeting until the December meeting. Kris Blomback moved to adjourn at 10:54pm. Leo Aucoin seconded; motion passed, 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Approved Minutes
Members Present: Leon Parker, Chairman; Doreen Connor; Kris Blomback; Bob Stamps, alternate. Alternate Rick Patenaude (arrived at 7:17 pm) will sit on the board. Jeff Connor, alternate, will be part of the discussion, but will not have voting status.
Members Excused: Leo Aucoin; Heidi Hamel; Joan Oliveira; Ron Taylor.
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Ronald Bourcier and Chris Stewart for the Applicant; Henniker residents: Stef Costello; Tim Lamphere; Dan and Leslie Paul; Deb Dow; Donna and Rob Turcotte; Gigi and Jeff Laberge; Jon and Lucia Evans; Dale and Marianne Jennings; Doug Paul; Jeff and Rebecca Egner; Scott and Michelle Rogers; Dan Taht.
Chairman Parker called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. He explained that an applicant may hold a hearing with only four members of the Board present, though he does not recommend it. Representative for the applicant stated that he would prefer to wait until the other board members arrived. Chairman Parker reviewed the procedures for hearing the cases this evening. He had members Doreen Connor and Kris Blomback review all paperwork to make sure that it was in order and that all abutters had been properly notified. Chairman Parker passed a sign-up list for audience members who wanted to speak during the hearing.
While waiting for the other board members to arrive, the Board began review of the minutes of September 20, 2006. Chairman Parker read from a letter received by Stephanie Alexander, Planning Consultant, CNHRPC, which addressed an issue in the minutes. It is noted that the quote she indicates in her letter cannot be found in this copy of the minutes; therefore it cannot be corrected. Chairman Parker also related that Ms. Alexander’s letter stated that there were disagreeing statements between what Tom Dunn had reported at the meeting and what her notes say that she told Mr. Dunn. These minutes represent only what Mr. Dunn told the Board on that night, and the Board is not adjudicating the facts of what anyone was told.
(7:20 pm) To facilitate business, as the other board members arrived, the review of the minutes was tabled until after the public hearings.
New Business:
Case # 2006-106: Landmark Planning and Development, LLC, on behalf of Ronald and Nancy Talbot, have submitted an application for an Area Variance. The property is located on 34 Bacon Road on Map 1, Lot 354C in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District. The Area Variance is requested from Article XXIV, Section 133-119F: to reduce the required road frontage from 100’ to approximately 50’.
Chris Stewart, representing the Talbots, presented the case requesting the Area Variance reducing the required road frontage to approximately 50 feet. He stated that the Planning Board had strongly recommended coming before the ZBA to pursue open space development thus requiring the variance pursuant to the ordinance. He then read the questions and answers from the application. Mr. Stewart also distributed additional information to the Board and to the audience.
Mr. Stewart showed conceptual plans of both a conventional subdivision and an open-space development. Wetland areas and topographical factors were shown on the plans. With either plan, they expect to place 18 single-family homes in the area. Mr. Stewart stated that there is a total of 49.9 acres; the open-space development would utilize 21 to 22 acres (3/4 – 1-acre lot sizes); thereby keeping 50% as open space. He reiterated the need for the variance and special exception to accomplish this. There was further discussion about roadway right-of-ways, shoulder widths, setbacks from property lines, etc.
7:37 pm: Chairman Parker called for public opinion in favor of the plan. Hearing none, he called for those opposed to the request to speak.
Gigi Laberge, resident, first spoke against the proposed variance. She stated that it was not a matter of what type of development, but asked the board to consider if it had adequate road frontage to be developed at all. Ms. Laberge asked for proper documentation showing that application is valid as Mrs. Nancy Talbot is deceased. This was found to be satisfactory. Ms. Laberge gave a history of the property being subdivided before and pointed to examples of the family coming before the ZBA to request special exceptions for this parcel. Ms. Laberge described traffic and safety concerns with the area in question as there are 10 driveways already coming out in an area within 600 feet of road frontage on a dangerous curve. She stated her concern for adding 18 more lots in an already congested portion of the road. Ms. Laberge gave a written copy of her remarks to the Board.
Dan Paul, resident, stated that he has serious concern about developing on a significant water source. He stated that there is history of an underground reservoir that provided two homes with water. Mr. Paul stated that the Town has identified maintaining water resources as one of its goals. He stated that introducing 18 lots with 18 septic systems in this area is not in keeping with the master plan.
Dale Jennings, stated that he is very much opposed to this proposal as adding another 18 houses in one-tenth of a mile multiplies the density of the neighborhood ten times. He stated that this destroys the character of the neighborhood. He also stated that steep slopes on the parcel are a major concern and would lead to further erosion, run-off, etc. Mr. Jennings also shared traffic and safety concerns and stated that allowing this is not best for the public interest. When questioned whether he would favor open-space or conventional development, Mr. Jennings stated that he objects to both.
It was noted that a conventional subdivision would require two-acre lot minimums, and a zoning waiver would not be needed to build a road to meet the town specifications.
Rob Turcotte, resident, stated that he would prefer a conventional development. He would like to see a traffic study done on that road as he is very concerned about safety.
Chairman Parker questioned the applicant’s engineer, Mr. Bourcier, about the impact of cars per home. Mr. Bourcier stated that typical research shows 8 – 10 trips per day per household.
Tim Lamphere, resident, stated that his concerns relate to traffic safety and the impact to the wetlands. He asked how development will affect waterflow into the wetlands on his property. He stated that Davison Road has recently been impacted with more traffic, and this development will increase that. Mr. Lamphere also stated that it would be very expensive to build a conventional development on this parcel due to the topography of the land.
Scott Rogers, resident, stated that an average of 162 more trips per day past his driveway is certainly a safety concern and will negatively affect his home as a place to raise young children. He stated that he is opposed to any development there.
Michelle Rogers, resident, also stated that she has seen three bad accidents in the last four years and this should be a public interest. She stated that there is not enough road width or shoulder to walk/run, and the town should work to preserve the environment.
Jeffrey Egner, resident, stated that he is against any development there, also.
Gigi Laberge stated that the notice to abutters stated that the “boundaries are subject to change.” She questioned why the surveys were not complete. She also noted that requesting an open-space development would be more beneficial to the landowner and developer as it will be extremely expensive to develop the upper corner of the property.
Doreen Connor, board member, questioned why exact measurements were not done for the application.
Several audience members stated that they measured 47 feet (not 50 feet) from granite markers.
Mr. Bourcier, engineer, stated that the survey is not complete; they are working from existing data which has been properly recorded.
Jeff Laberge, resident, stated that he has lived on the road for 21 years, and what is happening to the area is a result of poor planning. He asked why the residents should have to bear the brunt of someone else’s poor planning. He stated that the owners had a chance to subdivide in a better manner a long time ago but decided to chop up the property. He then asked if the application is actually complete since it has not been measured.
Discussion ensued about the subdivision that had been done in 2001. Mr. Stewart stated that the deeds and plot plans are recorded as having 50 feet of road frontage. He stated that the request tonight is for variance to 50 feet. If it turns out to be less than that, they would be required to come back to the ZBA for another hearing.
At 8:30 pm the Board began discussion. Chairman Parker reminded everyone that alternates may be part of the discussion but may not vote. Previous zoning issues and the pros and cons of conventional vs. open-space development were discussed.
The public session was closed and Board deliberation began at 8:53 pm.
Doreen Connor stated that the audience made it clear that they do not favor the cluster development, so she does not see the need for open space. She stated that there are mainly concerns with the road supporting the development and noted that she would rather see the infrastructure shown on the conventional plan.
Rick Patenaude, member, stated that he is sympathetic to the fact that the abutters do not want either conventional or open-space development in this area. He states, however, that it is his understanding that open-space development makes less impact on the land, and the reality is that the landowners have the right to go through with the development anyway.
Bob Stamps, member, stated that a lot of the concerns raised during the hearing will be addressed by the Planning Board, and the development may or may not be approved. He stated that the Conservation Commission tends to prefer open-space developments. He stated that the Conservation Commission will attempt to make sure that no more damage to the wetlands will be allowed to occur.
Chairman Parker stated that the Board’s decision will not have an impact on the traffic on Bacon Road. He stated that the decision they are faced with making is the reality of poor decision others made in the past, leaving this type of area to be developed this way.
1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values.
Vote: Yes – 4 No - 1 (Doreen)
(Open-space vs. conventional development will have the same effect.)
2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
Vote: Yes – 4 No – 1 (Doreen)
3a. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner.
Vote: Yes – 4 No – 1 (Doreen)
3b. The same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonable feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden.
Vote: Yes – 4 No – 1 (Doreen)
(Doreen stated there was no proof by the applicant to obtain this frontage by any other method.)
4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice.
Vote: Yes – 4 No – 1 (Doreen)
5. The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
Vote: Yes – 4 No – 1 (Doreen)
Kris Blomback moved to approve Case # 2006-106 as proposed to reduce the required road frontage to 50 feet. Rick Patenaude seconded the motion. It was approved, 4 – 1. (Doreen Connor dissented.)
Audience member asked if the rule would now be changed to allow all developments to have road frontage of 50’. Chairman Parker stated that it would have to be changed through vote at Town Meeting. This should be viewed as a one-time exception.
This hearing ended at 9:19 pm.
Case #2006-107: Landmark Planning and Development, LLC on behalf of Ronald and Nancy Talbot, have submitted an application for a Special Exception. The property is located on 34 Bacon Road on Map 1, Lot 354C in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) District. The Special Exception is requested as required by Article VI, Section 133-25A: to permit an open space development subdivision.
Doreen Connor stated that the hearing notices went out together so the same paperwork is acceptable.
Chris Stewart presented the request to allow special exception to move forward with open space development.
Chairman Parker opened the hearing to public comment. Hearing none, the board moved to discussion. Doreen Connor stated that she had no problem with giving the Planning Board a chance to view this. Public session was closed at 9:30 pm.
Chairman Parker moved to approve the request for Special Exception for Case #2006-107; Bob Stamps seconded the motion. It was approved, 5-0.
Kris Blomback moved to accept the minutes of the 9/20/06 meeting, noting the discussion included in tonight’s minutes. Doreen Connor seconded the motion. It was approved, 5-0.
Chairman Parker moved to put into the 2007 budget a sum of $5,000 to be used to obtain staff support for the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Doreen Connor seconded the motion. It was approved, 5-0.
Bob Stamps stated that he will be out of town during the November meeting.
Kris Blomback moved to adjourn at 9:40 pm. Doreen Connor seconded the motion. It was approved, 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Henniker Zoning Board of Adjustment
July 19, 2006
Members Present: Chairman Leon Parker, Members Ron Taylor, Kris Blomback.
Alternates present: Jeff Connor, Rick Patenaude, Leo Aucoin, and Bob Stamps.
Members Excused: Doreen Connor, Joan Oliveira, Heidi Hamel
Others present: Applicant Ed Ulmer
Chairman Leon Parker called the meeting to order at 7:09 pm. Mr. Parker appointed alternates Jeff Connor and Leo Aucoin to sit as members to hear case #2006-103.
Mr. Parker explained the procedure that was going to be used for the hearing.
Hearing Case # 06-103
Chairman Parker asked Chris Blomback and Jeff Connor to review the documents of the
case to make sure that all the proper notices had been sent. They found the notices
were in order.
Case # 06-103 was presented by Ed Ulmer. He requested an Area Variance from Article X, Section 133-41 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit 45 feet of road frontage where 125 feet is required. Mr. Ulmer proposed using an old logging road for a driveway in order to access a proposed back lot that would be used to build a new house for his family. A discussion followed concerning the line of sight for the driveway. The discussion continued with suggestions concerning at the possibility of a shared driveway with his neighbor to the west, R.M Henry Revocable Trust. Another discussion followed concerning redrawing the new lot in order to have the required 125 feet frontage.
There were no members of the public in attendance so there was no public comment.
Moved to go into private session- Ron Taylor moved, Jeff Connor seconded. All voted yes.
A discussion followed concerning the required 125 feet and possible alternatives.
Moved to go into Public session-Ron Taylor moved, Jeff Connor seconded. All voted yes.
1. The proposed use would diminish surrounding property values.
Vote: Yes-Ron and Leon No-Jeff, Chris, Leo
2. Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
Vote: Yes-O No-5
3a. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner.
Vote: Yes-0 No-5
3b.That no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purpose of the
zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property.
Vote: Yes-0 No-5
3c.The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others.
Vote: Yes-Chris No-Leon, Ron, Leo, Jeff
4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice.
Vote: Yes-0 No-5
5. The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
Vote: Yes-0 No-5
A motion was made to deny the application (case #
2006-103) as presented by Ed Ulmer due to lack of hardship because there are
alternate uses and solutions.
Moved by Leo Aucoin and seconded by Jeff Connor.
Vote: Yes-Jeff, Leo, Leon, Chris, Ron No-0
Old Business:
Acceptance of the minutes of June 21, 2006 meeting is to be voted on at
the next meeting.
New Business:
Revision of all ZBA Procedures to comply with the Board of Selectmen new appointment time frames was presented by Leon Parker. The new Board of Selectmen appointments will start on September 1st of each year. A motion was made to change the ZBA procedures concerning the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman from April of each year to September of each year beginning in 2007.
Leon Parker moved and Jeff Connor seconded.
Vote: Yes-5 NO-0
In the interim, a motion was made to elect Leon Parker as Chairman and Doreen Connor as Vice Chairman until September 2007. Ron Taylor moved and Chris
Blomback seconded. Vote: Yes-5 No-0
The Board reviewed the proposed Variance Application changes for Area and Use Variances.
Suggestions were made and Leon Parker will make the changes and present them at the next meeting. The board requests that a copy of the tax map with the surrounding
properties is to also be included in the member’s information packets along with the
abutter’s mailings.
Ron Taylor brought up the subject of bowling alley lots and the possibility of proposing some kind of a front to side ratio for proposed subdivisions. Bob Stamps gave a
brief history of a sub-committee surrounding the past efforts to increase lot frontage
for presentation to the voters of the town.
Leon Parker reviewed a spreadsheet comparing taxes in Henniker and similar towns in N.H. as presented by Cordell Johnston at a Board of Selectmen’s Meeting. A discussion followed Mr. Parker’s remarks.
A motion was to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 pm. Leo Aucoin moved and Chris
Blomback seconded. Vote: Yes-5 No-0
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Taylor
7/20/06
Henniker Zoning Board of Adjustment
Approved Minutes
Members Present: Chairman Leon Parker; Doreen Connor; Ron Taylor; Joan Oliveira and Kris Blomback were present at the meeting. Alternates Jeff Connor, Rick Patenaude and Heidi Hamel were also present.
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary; Scott Osgood, representing the Henniker Congregational Church; William and Darby McGraw, applicants; and 20 residents in the audience.
Chairman Leon Parker called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm.
Chairman Parker explained that he and Ron Taylor could not participate on the board at the last meeting due to their awaiting reappointment by the Board of Selectmen; however, their under an interpretation of the Selectmen’s new policy on Boards and Committees expiring appointments on the zoning board of adjustment have been extended through September 2006. He also explained that the alternate members present may participate in discussions, but voting is done only by the panel.
New Business
Continuation of Case#2006-001: An Area Variance application has been submitted by the Henniker Congregational Church at 5 Maple Street on Map 2, Lot 204 in the Residential Village (RV) District. The variance is requested from Article XI, Section 133-47 to permit a maximum sign size of 36 square feet.
Chairman Parker asked Doreen Connor and Ron Taylor to review the documents of the case to make sure that all proper notices have been sent.
Chairman Parker reviewed the format for the hearings conduct.. He stated that the applicant will present the request; then he will ask for response from the public who are in favor and against the request. There will be time for the board members to ask questions. The meeting will then be closed to the public and the board will discuss approval or disapproval of the application. Chairman Parker also reviewed the five points of consideration that must be made, including two tests to determine hardship status. He stated that the board will closely follow the Supreme Court guidelines for both of the hearings presented at this meeting.
Doreen Connor noted that two letters from the public have been submitted, and the application is complete.
Scott Osgood, representing the Henniker Congregational Church, requested variance to zoning regarding the size of the sign on the front lawn of the church. A local sign company has designed a sign with total measurements six feet wide by six feet tall, totaling 36 square feet. The unit is to have changeable script to post information regarding church activities that are important to the community. He stated that the next lot over (Que Pasa Restaurant) has a sign that size.
The size allowed in the business area is 40 square feet. Mr. Osgood stated that the sign would not detract from the overall character of the town. He feels that this sign and size of the font would be big enough to read without causing problems on the road.
The five points to consider in granting this request were reviewed from the application.
Mr. Colby, of the church board of trustees, stated that having information pertinent to weddings and funerals would be helpful to the public looking for the church.
David Weber, audience member, stated that the current sign is currently buried under snow during the winter. He described the new sign has having granite posts which raise the text of the sign higher to be seen well. He stated that it is to be placed closer to the street so that it is easier to read while in traffic.
Rebecca Warner, pastor, stated that having changeable lettering helps the public to know what kind of programs the church offers.
Bonnie Conway, audience member, stated that the proposed sign would fit in with the character of the town.
Chairman Parker asked if there were any members of the public who do not like the idea.
Kathleen Hatt, audience member, presented a summary of a letter she had written to the zoning board outlining her disapproval of the proposed sign. She stated that the size of the Que Pasa sign is not quite four feet by four feet. She stated that detailed information on a sign is not an efficient way to disseminate information and that a sign is not safe concerning the traffic. She suggested other means to disseminate information such as the sign on the Parish House, a church bulletin or the use of a website. She stated that the proposed sign is not in keeping of the character of the town. She stated that the sign would diminish property values and would cause increased light pollution. She specifically asked for the board to deny the request.
Kris Blomback read the letter written by Ms. Hatt, dated June 20, 2006, in its entirety.
Chairman Parker then read a letter that was addressed to him as the chairman of the board by Cynthia Marsland. This letter expressed her displeasure with the proposed sign as it does not reflect the rural character of the town. She stated in the letter that if the church is allowed this sign, then other business will want larger signs.
Benjamin Winther, audience member, expressed his disapproval of the variance. He stated that he is not in favor of a large plastic sign. He stated that he is not in favor of any more lights on the church property and feels that property values will be diminished.
Ron Taylor stated that according to the sign ordinance, the lights on the sign could be on from 7 am to 11 pm.
Jennifer Kirshneur, audience member, stated that she lives one street over and is not bothered at all by light pollution.
Scott Osgood responded to each of these items. He stated that the actual signage is only six feet wide by two feet tall, or total of 12 square feet. The requested measurements were from the top to bottom of the posts. He described the sign as being mainly constructed of granite and wood, comparable to the “Welcome to Henniker” sign.
Discussion took place as to the kinds of information that would be posted.
Rebecca Warner, pastor, stated that the changeable script would mainly be used to inform of special services such as Christmas and Easter, the World Hunger Banquet, vacation Bible school and other special events which involves the whole community.
Heidi Hamel asked why the location of the sign has been changed.
Scott Osgood stated that the position was changed for better visibility from the road, and it gives those that are looking for the church more time, thus increasing traffic and public safety.
There was continued discussion about the actual square footage of the proposed sign. Chairman Parker confirmed that the applicant is actually requesting 24 square feet of sign surface area.
Barbara French, audience member, stated that there are two purposes for the sign; church members are one consideration, but the sign is more for travelers going through town. New people are not looking at a website or bulletin. She stated that anything that the church can do to reach the community outside of their existing members is important to the entire community.
Many audience members and board members alike expressed their concern over the changeable lettering. They stated their main concerns of it not being adequately maintained and the opportunity for vandalism, obscene sayings, etc.
Scott Osgood stated that he appreciated hearing from the abutters about what they want to see in their town. He stated that he shares their concerns and wants to have the church’s sign be as unobtrusive as possible while caring for the needs of the church.
John Weber, audience member, stated that he is hearing a lot of opinions, but not a lot of facts about the sign issue. He stated that the sign would be lit with an overhanging light so as not to cause a great deal of pollution. He stated that the street lights cause the pollution, not the lights from the church. He stated the need for a brief, tasteful sign inviting the community to church.
The public session was closed at 8:05 pm.
Chairman Parker stated that the alternates may give their opinions, but the voting would be done by the board. A review of criteria was made. Chairman Parker confirmed that a sign of 24 square feet supported by granite pillars with lighting from the top down was the actual request.
1) Would the proposed sign not diminish property values?
Rick Patenaude stated that he did not think it would make a bit of difference.
Jeff Connor, Joan Oliveira, Kris Blomback, Ron Taylor and Doreen Connor agreed with him.
Vote: 5-0 that the proposed sign would not diminish property values.
2) Would it be contrary to public interest?
Jeff Connor stated that it would not.
Doreen Connor stated that she thinks that it would. She stated that the sign is similar to that which is zoned in other districts, and the town decided to have different regulations for that area. She stated that one option would be for the town to change the zoning of the church. She stated that she is also concerned about the changeable script.
Chairman Parker stated that he thought the sign could be changed a little bit to fit within the zoning regulation.
Heidi Hamel stated that granting a variance to the church opens the door for others on the street to request variances.
Rick Patenaude stated that he did not have a problem with the other church’s request either. He commented that this discussion illustrates how good we have it in this town. He questioned the possibility of using temporary signage to hang under the main sign for special events. He stated that in light of public interest, it is better to appear friendly and inviting. He also stated that he does not find it offensive to have changeable lettering.
Joan Oliveira stated that she agreed with Doreen, and it is necessary to meet zoning criteria. She stated that following the law does not make Henniker an unfriendly town.
Kris Blomback stated that zoning is property specific. While he does not personally have an issue with it, he believes it is contrary to zoning.
Vote: 4 against; 1 in favor
Chairman Parker asked for the decision on the other church’s request for signage. It was stated that a sign of 15 square feet with no changeable lettering was granted in the rural location.
3a) Hardship test; is there special condition of property making variance necessary?
Jeff Connor stated he had no opinion.
Ron Taylor stated that he is inclined to approve a variance to 15 square feet based on the decision for the other church.
Doreen Connor, Heidi Hamel, Joan Oliveira, Kris Blomback and Rick Patenaude stated that there is no hardship.
Vote: 5-0, no hardship
3b) This hardship test does not apply in the case of signage.
4) Substantial Justice
Vote: 5-0 For
5) Contrary to spirit of the ordinance
Vote: 5-0 felt that it was contrary
Chairman Parker stated that the board is willing to consider an alternative to the request; however, they do not have the opportunity to approve the request as proposed.
Ron Taylor moved to not approve the application as submitted. Joan Oliveira seconded. The motion carried, 5-0.
Ron Taylor moved to grant a variance for the construction of a sign for the maximum of 15 square feet without lighting and without removable letters at the proposed location.
Kris Blomback amended the motion to include lighting of the sign from the top downwards.
Joan Oliveira seconded the amendment.
The amendment of lighting the sign from the top downwards was passed, 5-0.
Ron Taylor moved to accept the variance to allow a sign of 15 square feet, with top-down lighting, and without removable letters at the proposed location. The motion passed, 4-1. (Ron Taylor, Kris Blomback, Joan Oliveira and Leon Parker for; Doreen Connor, against.)
Chairman Parker stated to the applicant that both sides of the case had been heard, and the variance is a stretch from what could actually be allowed. Any people opposed to this decision can file an appeal on the decision, and he recommended that the applicant wait 30 days before spending any money on a new sign to see if an appeal is filed.
Discussion of this case ended at 8:40 pm.
Case #2006-102: An area variance application submitted by William and Darby McGraw at 11 Maple Street on Map 2, Lot 201 in the Village Proper (RV) District, requested from Article V Section 133-23D to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot less than 20,000 square feet
Mr. McGraw presented the request to the board noting that they understood that granting a variance is a discretionary decision of the board. He stated that he has a 90-year old cousin currently residing in California that they would like to move out here close to them. They intend to construct a Williamsburg reproduction home for her on this property. He stated that additional information was sent to the abutters this week, and he submitted copies to the board. Mr. McGraw noted a correction on the map of the west boundary from 202 feet to 242 feet. He stated that the approximate scale of the map is 40 feet to one inch. Mr. McGraw provided information as to all of the other lot sizes on the street and a summary of the five points that are to be considered.
Mr. McGraw stated that the proposed lot, if allowed, would still be larger than eight of the 14 lots on Maple Street as the lot they are looking to create would be approximately .40 acre.
Chairman Parker stated that Mr. McGraw has presented information that speaks directly to the five criteria necessary.
Doreen Connor asked for clarification of request as the application states that the lot is 18,300 square feet (700 square feet short) and the supplemental data shows 118 feet short. She asked when a survey would be done as the numbers could change.
Mr. McGraw stated that the second map is more accurate than the first, but a decision was made to vote on the submitted application as it gives more leeway.
Chairman Parker stated that a survey will need to be done when presenting to the planning board.
Review of the five criteria were as follows:
1) Proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values:
Chairman Parker moved that the construction of the proposed home be of the proposed character and would not diminish surrounding values. Ron Taylor seconded the motion.
Vote: 5-0, agree.
2) Proposed variance would not be contrary to public interest:
Vote: 5-0, agree
3a) Unnecessary hardship:
Doreen Connor stated that because the proposed lot is bigger than many does not give something unique or special to the lot. She stated that she would be more comfortable if she know the exact size or the proposed lot.
Vote: 4-1 that the hardship test was met (Doreen Connor, dissenting)
3b) Hardship as benefit cannot be achieved by some other means:
Vote: 5-0, agree
4) Substantial Justice:
Vote: 5-0, agree
5) Use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance:
Vote: 5-0, agree
The board discussed the square footage of the proposed lot.
Chairman Leon Parker moved to approve the area variance of the construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot slightly less than the 20,000 lot size required under Section 133-23D. The proposed lot would contain more or less 18,300 square feet and meet the other requirements of the zoning ordinance. Ron Taylor seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0.
Old Business
Doreen Connor moved to accept the minutes of May 17, 2006. Joan Oliveira seconded the motion with the correction of the spelling of her name. The motion passed, 5-0.
Chairman Parker closed the meeting at 9:33 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Henniker Zoning Board of Adjustment
Approved Minutes
May 17, 2006
Members Present: Doreen Connor and Joan Oliveira
Member’s Excused: Kris Blomback; Rick Patenaude; Leo Aucoin; Heidi Hamel
Others present: Leon Parker and Ron Taylor were present in the public session, as their terms on the board have not yet been extended by the Board of Selectmen. Jeff Connor’s term has also not yet been extended. Jennifer Astholz, Recording Secretary; and Scott Osgood were also present.
Doreen Connor called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
New Business: Case #2006-001. An Area Variance application has been submitted by the Henniker Congregational Church at 5 Maple Street on Map 2, Lot 204 in the Residential Village (RV) District. The variance is requested from:
Article XI, Section 133-47: to permit a maximum sign size of 36 square feet.
The file was reviewed, and it appears that three abutters to the property had not been notified about the public hearing. Ms. Connor made a motion to continue the hearing, and Joan Oliveira seconded it.
Scott Osgood, representing the variance request, stated that he is not sure if this is correct information, but he will act on it accordingly.
Ron Taylor stated that he is certain that one of the parties noted is definitely an abutter, but he is not certain about the other two in question.
No further comments were heard, and the case will be continued at the next meeting
June 21, 2006.
No other business could be addressed, as there were not enough board members present.
Doreen Connor adjourned the meeting at 7:13 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Approved Minutes
Zoning Board Meeting
Wednesday January 18th, 2006
Henniker Town Hall
Present: Leon Parker Chairman, Board Members: Ron Taylor, Joan Oliveira, Kris Blomback, Doreen Connor. Alternative members: Richard Patenaude, Heidi Hamel, and Jeff Connor
Also present: Ben Mozralli, Blade Sutton, Beth Sutton, and Jim Walsh. There were others present that did not sign in.
Leon Parker called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm.
Mr. Parker called CASE # 2005-108 on the Suttons to begin. He explained the procedure for the hearing.
Mr. Sutton started off explaining about his two year old grandson who was ill with a rare form of cancer that requires a year of chemotherapy. He said that his grandson had no immune system because of the chemotherapy. He said that he and his wife have to sell their house because they are going to go to Rhode Island to help their daughter with their grandson. He then stated that they wanted to increase the value of their property as to make enough money to get started in Providence, RI. They asked to be able to split the five acres. He stated briefly about a heavily wooded area between the properties, and if the five acres were split, a development made on the new lot would not be visible by more than one home.
Leon Parker asked Mr. Sutton if he had gone to the Planning Board. Mr. Sutton said yes, and they told him that he would have to be granted a variance first from the zoning board. They said if that happens, there’s no reason to get an approval from the Planning Board. Mr. Parker asked for the public opinion.
Ben Mozralli said that he was against the idea. He stated that he abuts the Suttons on the entire south side. He said that there are wetlands there, and he presented a map to the Board. He said that any disruption on their land would therefore disrupt his as well, because of those wetlands. Leon Parker said that the appropriate place to deal with this issue would be in front of the Planning Board. He said that it is their jurisdiction.
Jim Walsh said that he was also an abutter. He said that he usually didn’t bother neighbors, about their business, but he had some concerns. He said to the Suttons that their trying to divide the land, and possibly subdivide on one of those parts, would infringe on many of the surrounding property owners. He said some of the abutters were not present at this hearing. He also stated a question that some of the property owners were all concerned about, being that beyond all of their control, who’s going to buy the land, and are they going to help maintain the road, and keep the peaceful environment that has been there.
There was a discussion on this matter that was inconclusive.
Richard Patenaude said that he wasn’t sure of the exact details on the law. He said that he did understand the concept of the proposal though. He thought that it was a good idea, and it seemed logical, so he was for the proposal at this point. Joan Oliveira said that she didn’t think the proposal met the criteria for a variance. Mr. Parker agreed with Joan.
There was a discussion.
Leon Parker discussed and old case with somewhat of the same issue. In that situation the Panning Board had allowed the applicant to put in a driveway/ private road, in the maintenance agreement. He said that if the Suttons did that, they would not need a variance. He stated that they’d have to have about 500 feet of road frontage. He said what they don’t have, is a road maintenance agreement.
Mrs. Sutton said that she was confused on that topic. Leon Parker told her that basically the point was, that in the previous case, the Board had refused a variance because of lack of frontage. The point being that they would not need a variance. Doreen Connor said that it seemed the only way to do it.
Jim Walsh asked about the Planning Board’s willingness to make Class 5 specifications, and other minor changes, if all the abutters were satisfied. Leon Parker said that they could be willing to accommodate everyone, to make the process a little less of a hassle.
Mrs. Sutton asked if they were saying that it needed to be a Planning Board issue, instead of a Zoning Board issue. Mr. Parker replied affirmatively.
Jeff Connor said that as far as he was concerned his theory was, if the abutters were concerned with the Suttons or any other neighbor for that matter selling their property, then they should buy it themselves. He also stated that he didn’t think the making of a Class 5 road would be very productive.
There was a brief discussion about road maintenance agreement rules.
Doreen Connor made a MOTION to deny the request for a variance for reasons of total lack of frontage for the second lot. Joan Oliveira seconded the motion. All the Board members agreed on the motion.
The Suttons thanked the Board for their time and help.
The Board reviewed the minutes of November 16th, 2005 by Lisa Demers.
Ron Taylor made a MOTION to approve the minutes of November 16th, 2005. Joan Oliveira seconded the motion. The Board members all agreed on this approval.
Leon Parker said that this year’s OEP conference would be held at the Radisson hotel in Manchester, NH on April first. Mr. Parker also told the Board about the Land Development conference to be held in Manchester on March 30th.
Kris Blomback was excused from the meeting at 8:20 pm.
Mr. Parker discussed a little about candidates for the Planning Board and the Selectmen. He also went over a few topics from the Budget Committee meetings.
Ron Taylor made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 pm. Leon Parker seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Kymlee M. Murphy
Henniker Zoning Board of Adjustment
Approved meeting minutes held on November 16, 2005
Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman, Board Members; Ron Taylor, Joan Oliveira, Alternative Board Members; Jeff Connor, Heidi Hamel, Leo Aucoin,
Member’s excused: Kris Blomback, Doreen Connor, and Richard Patenaude
Guests present: Peter Flynn, Mike Martin, Mrs. Ward, Bill Preble
Meeting called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Leon Parker.
New Business
Hearing :
Case #2005-107 - An Area Variance application has been submitted by Peter Flynn on behalf of the Town of Henniker for St. Theresa’s Church at 9 Crescent
Street on Map 2, Lot 240 in the Residential Village (RV) District. The variance is requested from:
Article X, Section 133-41: to permit less than 100’ frontage.
Article X, Section 133-41: to permit less than 2 acre lot size.
Article V, Section 133-23H (2): to permit a driveway less than 10’ from the side lot boundary.
Mr. Parker stated the application fee has been waived for the Town of Henniker.
Mr. Taylor recused himself from the hearing, leaving a panel composed of Parker, Oliveira, Aucoin, Connor, and Hamel.
Peter Flynn addressed the board on behalf of the Town of Henniker. The town is interested in sub dividing the land and the parking lot. Selling the building as a residential property (with the benefit of putting the property back on the tax roll) and keeping the parking lot. The building has no connection to town water/sewer. The buyer would be required to install them. The building would be sold “as is.”
Mr. Flynn continued to state that the water hook-up would not be a problem; since the line is right outside the door, however, the sewer connection would have to be brought down to Rush Road and could be very costly. This, obviously, would be disclosed to any potential buyer. Mr. Flynn also stated that there is an unofficial right of way through the property to New England College.
Mr. Flynn stated for the record that the town did not have to come before the board to obtain their approval however, he felt it would be a “good faith” effort on the part of the town. Mr. Flynn wanted to go through the same process any town resident would have to; to obtain the approval of the zoning board.
Mr. Parker opened the board to a question and answer session with Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Parker requested Mr. Flynn obtain a better site plan for the property before he goes to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval, since it didn’t show any setbacks. Mr. Parker also asked if the potential buyers would have an option of rebuilding or putting up a new house.
Mr. Flynn stated that would be a planning board issue for the new owners to deal with.
Mr. Flynn added that the town selectman have discussed that two parking spaces would be granted to the buyer in the municipal parking area if they did not want to add additional parking behind the property.
Mr. Taylor wanted clarification on where the parking would be. At the rear of the building or at the side.
Mr. Flynn stated it would be either or; and stated, again, that this would be a planning board decision since a driveway permit would be needed.
Mike Martin addressed the board in open session stating “I’m okay with the subdivision and would like to see it renovated. Mr. Martin would like to see the board do two things. 1. Send a sewerage pipe up the Rush Road and make it apart of the already existing sewer line. It would be silly to have another private connection running down to Rush Road. 2. Make a right of way so the parking could be at the rear of the building.
Bill Preble addressed the board. I agree with the part about preserving the building, but it certainly has character. My concern is claustrophobia. Will there be another multi- family dwelling put there? What restriction will be placed on the building. Are they stuck with what they have as a foot- print?
Jeff Connor replied by stating they won’t have enough land to expand.
Mr. Preble asked if the new owners could knock it down and put in a duplex.
Mr. Connor replied “they would have to get all the approvals to do that.”
Joan Oliveira asked if it’s subdivided and we make it a legal lot, how could they add on?
Mr. Parker replied they could add on if they meet the requirements.
Mr. Flynn interjected to state they can expand 30’ back.
Mrs. Ward spoke on the subject and stated she didn’t feel there is enough room for another road next to her property, unless you put up some pine trees or a big fence.
Mr. Flynn stated nothing can go on the side of the property, just the back. We’ve had four inquires on the property already and it isn’t even listed yet. Three potential buyers would like to keep it as a residential home, but the other wants it for a commercial property; which the town isn’t willing to do.
Mr. Connor asked if the town looked into the cost of putting a sewer line in.
Mr. Flynn said “no”, but we will factor that into the price.
Mr. Preble asked if there is a way of somehow offering that property to an abutter at fair market value to reduce the number of properties. I would feel it would be an asset to us (Mrs. Ward and I)
Mr. Parker stated that Mr. Preble is an ideal candidate to buy the property. Mr. Parker suggested Mr. Preble meet with Mr. Flynn privately to discuss this further. This would also avoid having to list it with a realtor.
Mr. Flynn stated the warrant article states they have to list it with a realtor.
Mr. Parker stated if he were to list the property he would value it very low since there is no water/sewer hook-ups. He felt if the town puts in the sewer the town could essentially raise the price of the house. He also said we have not put conditions on many variances, my preference would be to make conditions upon the deed of the property for whoever buys it including an easement to the parking lot. This will encourage people not to pave over the backside of the building.
Much discussion ensued regarding the parking for this building. Since there is adequate room in the rear of the building for two parking spaces, without having to provide space in the town’s lot, this would alleviate the town from having to maintain any additional parking in their own lot.
Mr. Parker recommended the town obtain a proper appraisal, not from someone local. It should be appraised “as is” without sewer. We need to make the sale a minimal cost to the town, so we can make a gain.
Motion: Joan drafted a motion to grant the application for variance by the Town of Henniker for the property located on 9 Crescent Street, Map 2, Lot 240 in the Residential Village (RV) District to subdivide the land; as stated by case #2005-107. Seconded by Jeff Connor. Unanimously voted yes.
Minutes of Last Meeting:
8:00 p.m. Review minutes of October 19, 2005 – Mr. Taylor made a motion to approve the October 19, 2005 minutes. Seconded by Mr. Aucoin.
Old Business 8:05 p.m. – Mr. Parker stated town council has forwarded a letter regarding Supreme Court Case #2005-0471. Mr. Parker briefly went over the contents with the board.
Mr. Parker stated he had the report of the Zoning Sub Committee if anyone was interested in reading it.
Motion Ms. Oliveira motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Parker and approved unanimously.
Submitted by Lisa Demers
Recording Secretary for:
Henniker Zoning Board of Adjustment
HENNIKER ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Approved
October 19, 2005
Members present: Leon Parker, Chairman; Doreen Connor (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Vice Chairman; Ron Taylor, Board Member; Kris Blomback, Board Member and Leo Aucoin, Alternate Board Member.
Members’ Excused: Richard Patenaude, Alternate Board Member; Joan Oliveira, Board Member
Members’ Absent: Jeff Connor, and Heidi Hamel.
Others Present: Susan Thompson, Recording Secretary.
Guests Present: None present.
Meeting called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Leon Parker.
Minutes
7:08 p.m. Meeting Minutes from September 21, 2005 were reviewed and edited.
MOTION made by Ron Taylor to approve the September 21, 2005 meeting minutes as edited. Seconded by Kris Blomback and approved unanimously.
Old Business