Available Minutes
| January 17, 2007 | ||
| March 21, 2007 | ||
| April 18, 2007 | ||
| May 16, 2007 | ||
| June 20, 2007 | ||
| July 18, 2007 | ||
| August 15, 2007 | ||
| September 19, 2007 | ||
| October 17, 2007 | ||
HENNIKER ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
October 17, 2007
Members Present: Leon Parker, Chairman; Doreen Connor, Vice Chair; Joan Oliveira; Kris Blomback; Bob Stamps;
Alternates: Gigi Laberge is present. Rick Patenaude is excused.
Others Present: Laura Scott, Town Planner; Jennifer Astholz, Minute Taker
One other person was in the audience who did not sign in.
1. Chairman Parker called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
It is noted that Bob Stamps, Board member, will be excused from the November meeting as he will be out of town.
Chairman Parker introduced Laura Scott in her position of Town Planner. Ms. Scott stated that she is usually in the office on Mondays and Wednesdays; appointments can be made with her through Nicole Gage in the office.
2. Request for Rehearing of Case 2007-113: Map 1, Lot 354, the original applicant was Tarbell & Brodich, PA, on behalf of Hamilton and Merrilee Dodge. The request for rehearing was submitted by abutters Dale Jennings and the Egners and others.
It is noted that Alternate Gigi LaBerge has recused herself from this case.
The Board reviewed the letter objecting to the original decision. Chairman Parker described the situations as follows:
“We have received a letter from a variety of people stating that they are formally appealing our decision to approve a variance in case number 2007-113.
There are 12 signatures on the letter, but only three of them clearly have standing as abutters to request a re-hearing. Two more may have, and two definitely do not. Since there are legitimate petitioners with standing we will respond to the letter. However, we will consider it as a motion for a rehearing, since that is the only legitimate procedure under which we can consider it.
As a motion for a rehearing, whether or not to grant it is a Board decision. As such it will be made in this public meeting. However, this is not a public hearing, and there is no formal notice to applicants or abutters required.
We will be acting on the information provided in the letter, with no additional testimony from the public. We will not be accepting comments from applicants, abutters or the public. If we approve a rehearing it will be scheduled for our November meeting, at which time it will be up to Dale Jennings and the Egners, and any others who can demonstrate standing, to present their case for a reversal of the variance we granted in September.
In the letter we are acting on the petitioners have demanded that the Board address specific questions concerning decisions we made that they disagree with. The Board will stand for now on the record of the September meeting, and in our deliberations we will only be concerned with whether or not the letter demonstrates a reason to schedule a rehearing.
The letter also challenges a decision made in October 2006. We are well past the 30 day period for challenges to that decision. That window described in RSA 677:2 is strictly enforced and several Supreme Court decisions reinforce and clarify it. So we will not be considering any re-hearing of that decision.
The guidance in the NH OEP Handbook for local officials says that “A person has a right to apply for a rehearing, and the Board has the authority to grant it. However the board is not required to grant a re-hearing and should use its judgment in deciding whether justice will be served by so doing. In trying to be fair to a person asking for a rehearing, the Board may be unfair to others who will be forced to defend their interests for a second time.”
Additional guidance in the handbook is that no purpose is served by granting a rehearing unless the petitioner claims a technical error has been made to their detriment or can produce new evidence that was not available at the first hearing. It also suggests that the reason for granting a rehearing should be a compelling one and that we have no right to reopen a case based on the same set of facts unless we are convinced that an injustice would otherwise be created and the petitioner is persuasive that the Board has made a mistake.”
Chairman Parker then moved that the letter dated October 5th from Dale Jennings and others be considered a “motion for rehearing” of our variance issued in case #2007-113, and that the request be denied for lack of any persuasive reason for granting it.
Joan Oliveira, Board member, seconded the motion.
Doreen Connor disagreed with the motion and stated that she favors granting a rehearing. She stated that she does not think that hardship is shown on the Dodge’s part. She stated that not being able to sell the land does not create a hardship.
Chairman Parker stated that he has studied the RSA’s, terminology and case studies, and does not have a problem understanding hardship imposed on the Dodge’s by previously made errors. The Dodge’s are now aware of a hardship as their garage was put in the wrong placed due to wrong information. He stated that an “equitable waiver” is not the proper instrument to use as the requirements cannot be met in this case. Chairman Parker stated that some zoning laws do not fit some circumstances.
Bob Stamps stated that he believes there is hardship on the Dodge’s part as they thought they had more land than they actually have. If measurements had been made correctly, this would not have happened. Making this change corrects this problem error.
Chairman Parker called for a vote on the motion:
4-For; 1-Against
Joan: For Doreen: Against
Bob: For Kris: For Leon: For
Laura Scott will write a letter to the applicant stating the Board’s decision.
Ms. Laberge, although recused from the Board for this case, stated that she would like to see the deed on the property as there are other questions regarding the right of way and water supply.
Ms. Laberge joined the Board in her capacity as an alternate member at the conclusion of this case.
3. Minutes of the September 19, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Doreen Connor moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Chairman Parker seconded the motion. Motion carried, 5-0.
4. The Board reviewed proposed language changes to the Zoning Regulations as prepared by Ms. Scott. Typographical errors were corrected. Ms. Scott explained that the revisions are recommended to make the document clearer and comply with State law.
Kris Blomback moved to have Ms. Scott submit the corrected document to the Planning Board for their review and possible sponsorship for 2008 Town Meeting. Doreen Connor seconded the motion. Motion passed, 6-0. Ms. Scott stated that she will put it on the agenda for the November 2007 work session meeting of the Planning Board.
5. The Board discussed Planner assistance to the ZBA. Ms. Scott suggested that she create a member binder containing all current reference documents that they may need. The Board agreed this would be helpful. File management was discussed, and it was noted that copies of approved minutes are kept in the files. Ms. LaBerge asked if there is assistance when a member of the public wants to file an application with the Boards. Ms. Scott stated that she is available to meet with applicants, but she could create a “frequently asked questions” list for general items such as special exceptions, area variances, etc.
6. The next ZBA meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 19, 2007 (changed from the night before Thanksgiving). If no applications are filed by October 29, the meeting will be cancelled.
Doreen Connor moved to adjourn at 8:00 pm. Bob Stamps seconded, and the motion carried, 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
Originally, there was a 1.86’ bump out by the garage which would be a public easement. The Planning Board did not like this design and asked that they pursue the variance in order to clean the lines. The requested variance is de minimus but necessary. Atty. Tarbell then read the application as submitted.
He also described the small ‘hook’ of property at the end of the road which would not be corrected by this variance.
(Chris Stewart, Landmark Development, arrived at 7:15 pm.)
Atty. Tarbell introduced Chris Stewart and invited his comments regarding surrounding property values. Mr. Stewart stated that there would be no significant decrease to the Dodge’s property as there was supposed to be a 50’ right-of-way from the beginning. The house was built a little closer than it should have been, but it does not affect surrounding areas. Nothing will change if the variance is approved; no one will even know that this has occurred.
At 7:20 pm, Chairman Parker opened the hearing to public comment in favor of the application. There was none. He then asked for public comment against the application. Tim Lamphere, an abutter, asked for clarification about the application. He stated that the application is requested by the Dodge’s; however, if denied, it would have no effect on the Dodge’s land. Therefore, he questioned how a variance can be granted to them, if it doesn’t affect them.
Leslie Paul, resident, stated that there is no hardship on the Dodge’s part, so the application should be denied. Ms. Paul also stated that there have been several variances granted in conjunction with this proposed project. She commented on a report from the Town Engineer which referred to possibly using a piece of the Lamphere’s property to rectify a sight-distance issue. She stated that there is still an outstanding boundary line dispute with the Egner’s. She stated that there have been a lot of exceptions made to make the development fit the site rather than having proper development to fit the site as it exists.
Chairman Parker stated that he needed to kindly explain that each of the variances that have been applied for have been different, although they have been related to the surveying error made years ago. Ms. Paul stated that the property had been owner by her family. She stated that the process was long and involved, there was much interaction with the neighbors, and there were apparently no errors when the former survey was done. She stated that she believes that it is only this developer’s opinion that the other survey was incorrect. Chairman Parker stated that the surveying data has been explained in great detail, and to his mind, they have verified that the alleged 50’ right of way does not exist and an error had occurred.
Mr. Lamphere stated that the original variance did not involve an error, but was a requested change from 100’ to 50’.
Ms. Paul stated that the ZBA has a responsibility to listen to the abutters and the neighbors; the only public that is impacted is in the immediate neighborhood. She again stated that there is no hardship on the Dodge’s part to justify their application for this variance. She stated that the proposed road is not a public road and has not yet been accepted by the Town vote yet. The people have been involved in the process, yet she does not feel that they have been heard and question whether granting all of these exceptions is within the spirit of the intent of the ordinances. She then apologized for possibly appearing combative, but felt strongly about these issues.
Chairman Parker asked if the applicant would like to respond.
Atty. Tarbell stated that they realized the prior surveying error when Dennis Railland’s field work did not match the records. He stated that it is clear that the full 50’ was always intended to be there. The variances have been granted for allowing the subdivision. He stated that this variance is not going to make or break the subdivision but will make the lines cleaner. He stated that W.G. Howard surveyed the property when the lot was subdivided before. The problem started when Mr. Howard set the granite marker in the wrong spot. The law states that what is set in the field is the reigning documentation, so they must hold to the granite marker.
Chairman Parker asked why they are to be convinced that their surveyor is correct. Atty. Tarbell stated that the plan works, but the field reconnaissance does not match. Going back to the original plans, it would be mathematically correct; this line (proposed) and the Talbot plan match. They know this is the correctly intended line and it also matches the line set by surveyor Ray Cowan.
Mr. Lamphere stated that he does not believe that the lines match. He stated that that is not what they told the Planning Board. Chris Stewart stated that they are bringing the actual lines back to the original survey.
Bob Stamps, Board member, asked for the applicant to explain the hook at the end of the property where it meets another abutter.
Doreen Connor, Vice-Chair, said that she had questions about the application meeting the hardship requirement. She stated that it reminds her of the Green Mountain case where the hardship rested with the purchaser not the applicant landowner. She stated that hardship here appears to rest with the development not the applicant (Dodge and company).
Kris Blomback, Board member, asked the applicant to clarify on the drawings which property belonged to whom.
Chairman Parker stated that he read the cited cases to fully understand the situation. He stated that these case studies satisfied his understanding that economics is involved for the Dodge’s.
Joan Oliveira, Board member, asked if the 50’ right-of-way was described or just shown on the plan. Ms. Oliveira stated that it was not really material, but wondered how it was listed throughout the chain of title work, if it were on the plan or deeded description.
Gigi Laberge, speaking as a member of the public, stated that she has read the deed, and there is a relationship between the two properties. The deed refers back and forth between the properties as there is also a well on the Dodge’s property.
Mr. Blomback stated that his only other question was a housekeeping issue concerning the signature on the application not being notarized. Atty. Tarbell stated that they could make it a condition of approval to correct that.
(Ron Taylor joined the audience at 7:50 pm.)
Rick Patenaude, Alternate Board member, stated that he had no comment at this time.
Jeff Connor, Alternate Board member, stated that is looks like the ZBA’s purpose in this matter is to clean up messes made by others in the past. He stated that you would be surprised how many bounds are not set in the correct spot. He stated that in his work, it has become common to have one marker not in the right spot on a lot. He stated that it appears that the neighbors are upset about this development and are using this as an excuse when it really appears to be sloppy work by whoever set the granite marker in the field. He stated that at the time the last survey was done in 1972, was when the road was moved, and chances are that the bound may have been moved without proper supervision. He stated that the law and others think of the markers as gold, but in his experience, they are really more of a guideline than law. He stated that he believes that if the subdivision was not planned, he does not think that it would be an issue. He sees it as cleaning up the lot lines and rectifying a housekeeping detail.
Chairman Parker stated that in looking at the hardship issue, this might be better suited to a waiver than a variance.
they know where the line is, but the marker is not set. The variance is the proper vehicle to make this legal.
Chairman Parker called for Board deliberation.
Bob Stamps stated that he can understand hardship on the Dodge’s part as they assumed all this time that they had more than a 50’ right of way. Since there is a mistake, they can’t do anything with that land.
Mr. Lamphere stated that they still have 30’ setback right now. If nothing happens, they still have it.
Mr. Stamps stated that they thought they had 33’-34’ of setback, thus this is a hardship to their land.
Chairman Parker closed discussion to the public at 8:00.
Chairman Parker stated that based on case studies, he understands that economics can be cause for hardship. Similar to the “Rod & Gun Club” case, the fact that this is de minimus is persuasive.
Mr. Blomback and Ms. Oliveira stated no comments.
Ms. Connor cited page 418 (“St. Onge & Carter vs. City of Nashua) where economics is not enough to grant the variance. While these are older cases, they have not been overruled. She stated that she can see an equitable waiver being granted, but unfortunately, that cannot be used in this case.
Ms. Oliveira stated that the hardship is in that people thought they had a 50’ right-of-way. They relied on what they thought was correct surveying and engineering data.
A vote on the individual criteria of the variance was called; the results follow:
1) The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values.
5 Yes – 0 No
Bob – Yes Doreen – Yes Leon – Yes
Joan – Yes Kris – Yes
2) Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
5 Yes – 0 No
Bob – Yes Doreen – Yes Leon – Yes
Joan – Yes Kris – Yes
3) Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship.
a) 4 Yes – 1 No
Bob – Yes (He stated that he does not like the development idea and would rather see trees there, but that is not the reason to vote against this.)
Doreen – No
Leon – Yes Kris – Yes
Joan – Yes (People depended on the registered land surveyor, not knowing that it was in error.)
b) The same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden.
5 Yes – 0 No
Bob – Yes Doreen – Yes Leon – Yes
Joan – Yes Kris – Yes
4) Granting the variance would do substantial justice.
3 Yes – 2 No
Bob – Yes Doreen – No Leon – Yes
Joan – No Kris – Yes
5) The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
5 Yes – 0 No
Bob – Yes Doreen – Yes Leon – Yes
Joan – Yes Kris – Yes (These are merely housekeeping details.)
Joan Oliveira moved to approve the area variance for case #2007-113 as requested. Kris Blomback seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0.
Other Business
Minutes of the August 15, 2007 meeting were reviewed. Kris Blomback moved to approve the minutes. Joan Oliveira seconded the motion. Motion
passed, 5-0.
Chairman Parker stated that the Roberts have verbally asked for a continuation of their case.
He stated that articles are needed for future issues of the “Outlook.”
Meeting was adjourned at 8:24 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Henniker Zoning Board Of Adjustment
August 15, 2007
Members Present: Leon Parker, Chairman; Doreen Connor, Vice-Chair
Members Bob Stamps; Joan Oliveira; Kris Blomback; Alternate Rick Patenaude
Others Present: Jennifer Astholz, Recording Secretary; Frans and Elizabeth J.H. Kruger, applicants.
Chairman Parker called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Public Hearing
Case #2007-112: Elizabeth J.H. Kruger has submitted an application for an area variance. The property is located at 5 Freeman Colby Road, Map 1, Lot 766 in the Rural Residential (RR) District. The variance application is requested from Article VII, Section 133-26 D and E of the Henniker Zoning Ordinance to construct a deck, carport and driveway within the setback areas.
Joan Oliveira and Kris Blomback verified that all paperwork was in order and abutter’s were properly notified. Chairman Parker reviewed the process for the hearing.
Chairman Parker stated that it is his understanding that what the applicants are requesting from this area variance does not cause anything to extend beyond what currently exists.
Mrs. Kruger presented plans for their proposed design of a deck, a carport to replace an existing structure and a driveway. She stated that they currently have to park their cars on the septic tank. She showed the area off of the house where they would like to put a slightly larger deck and create a walkway. She then showed drawings of the existing layout of the property. Mr. Kruger stated that another significant problem with parking consists of a sight problem when backing onto Freeman Colby Road. Moving the fence back two feet and creating the driveway would give more visibility as one enters Old Hillsboro Road. The applicants also stated that the area around them is basically wet field much of the year. Mrs. Kruger stated that hardship also exists as her husband is an artist and is forced to work in the front yard. Creating the carport would allow a place for him to work and would also provide dry parking in the winter.
Chairman Parker stated that hardship appears to be created by the small size of the lot. He then called for discussion by the Board. Ms. Connor asked about the setback measurements. Chairman Parker stated that while the carport is wider than the existing structure, there is already an existing encroachment. Mr. Blomback noted that there are no other houses within close proximity. Chairman Parker clarified that the distance from the edge of the deck to the stone wall is eight feet, encroaching two feet on the setback.
Chairman Parker called for the Board vote.
1) The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values.
5 Yes – 0 No
2) Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
4 Yes – 1 No
Kris – Yes Joan – Yes Leon – Yes
Bob – Yes Doreen – No
3) Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner.
a) 4 Yes – 1 No
Kris – Yes Joan – Yes Leon – Yes
Bob – Yes Doreen – No
b) 5 Yes – 0 No
4) Granting the variance would do substantial justice.
3 Yes – 2 No
Kris – Yes Joan – No Leon – Yes
Bob – Yes Doreen – No
5) The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
4 Yes – 1 No
Kris – Yes Joan – Yes Leon – Yes
Bob – Yes Doreen – No
Joan Oliveira moved to grant an Area Variance for Case 2007-112 for Elizabeth J.H. Kruger from Article VII, Section 133-26 D and E to construct one deck, one carport and one driveway. Bob Stamps seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0.
Review of Minutes of 7/18/07
The Board reviewed minutes from the meeting of July 18, 2007. Kris Blomback moved to approve the minutes as written. Doreen Connor seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0.
New Business
Kris Blomback moved to install Leon Parker as Chairman of the ZBA for the coming year. Joan Oliveira seconded the motion. The motion passed, 4-0, with Mr. Parker abstaining.
Chairman Parker stated that two candidates being considered for the Planning Assistant position are scheduled to be interviewed again Thursday.
Correspondence
Chairman Parker passed around another flyer announcing the Fall Planning & Zoning Conference on October, 13, 2007.
The Board received copies of the “Order of Notice” as filed on behalf of Joseph and Jinhua Xian Morette v. Town of Henniker. Chairman Parker stated that Thomas Watman was also served in his position as Chairman of the Board of Selectmen. Chairman Parker moved to ask Town Counsel to defend the ZBA decision in this case. Bob Stamps seconded the motion. The motion passed,
5-0.
Mr. Blomback moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:37 pm. Ms. Oliveira seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
Town Of Henniker
Members Present: Leon Parker, Chairman; Doreen Connor, Vice-Chair; Members Bob Stamps; Joan Oliveira; Kris Blomback; and Alternate Jeff Connor.
Others Present: Atty. Rob Howard; Neva Williamson; Jennifer Astholz, recording secretary
Chairman Parker called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Chairman Parker reviewed an article published by the Local Government Center concerning the role of alternate members on land use boards during meetings and hearings. Chairman Parker stated that the ZBA’s procedure has been to encourage alternates to participate in the discussion of a case, although they do not have voting privileges. The article recommends that alternates conduct themselves as members of the public unless they are designated to sit as a full board member for the hearing. Chairman Parker asked for the board’s response to these recommendations.
Bob Stamps, board member, stated that he feels that it is helpful to hear input from the alternate members. Doreen Connor stated that it is helpful for alternates to have some exposure to and experience participating in the process before sitting on the board as a full member. Joan Oliveira stated that their procedure does not allow alternate members to vote, which is what this board also does, so their participation is really no different than any other audience member’s participation. It was decided to not change their procedure.
Public Hearing
Case #2007-110: Attorney’s Respite LLC (Robert Howard) has submitted an application for a special exception. The property is located at 168 Maple Street, Map 2, Lot 194B1 in the RV district. The special exception is requested as required by Article V, Section 133-22 for existing building up to ten professional/commercial offices.
Chairman Parker recused himself from this case. Jeff Connor, alternate, filled this position on the Board.
Doreen Connor, Vice-Chair, called the hearing to order at 7:09 pm. Kris Blomback and Joan Oliveira checked the paperwork for accuracy, and it was found to be in order. (It was noted that they will inform the new secretary that both sections of the abutter’s cards need to be completed.)
Atty. Rob Howard, applicant, presented his request for special exception. He reported former history of the ZBA granting a prior special exception for a law office. At that time, he did not make a distinction in the type of offices that could be allowed. He stated that he had a restrictive lease for McAllister Construction to conduct business in that building where they leased space for their management and administrative offices. He did not go before the Planning Board at that time as he thought this was an allowable office use. He stated that the building is assessed as a fully developed, two-story building. Since the construction office is no longer operational, and he has begun the process of soliciting new tenants to the building, he became aware that he may need to go before the Planning Board. He reported that the Town Planning Consultant recommended that he apply to the Planning Board for a change of use to house the counseling service, filling the void left by McAllister’s business. He stated that the Planning Board rejected his request because it was deemed to be a law office. He is requesting that the building be used for professional offices; he has applied for 10 offices as there are 10 rooms that could conceivably be leased as separate office spaces. He stated that currently another attorney utilizes five offices, he uses two for his law practice; there is a recreation area for employee use and a shared storage area which could be turned into another office.
Ms. Connor noted that no one was there to express public opinion for or against the proposal.
The Board discussed the request. The Board understood that the building was always intended to be a professional office building but became restricted to “law office” as that was the original use. The layout of the office space was described. There are two half-baths upstairs and two half-baths downstairs. There are currently seven vacant offices. Parking was discussed; it was determined that there is sufficient parking already to support the request.
Ms. Connor expressed concern for the number of offices requested. She stated that she understands the concept, but 10 different tenants could create various issues.
Leon Parker, speaking as an audience member, stated that the building was to be used as a professional office. He stated that office suite configurations are becoming quite common. He stated that his interpretation of the regulation is different than the Planning Board’s interpretation, as he does not feel that an applicant should have to apply for change of use if it is still being used as a professional office.
Ms. Oliveira asked the applicant to clarify his understanding of the Planning Board’s role. He stated that if an office space changes the type of profession, the Planning Board would require site plan review.
Mr. Stamps stated that he does not think the type of professional office should be restricted.
Ms. Connor stated that her concern is with the potential number of tenants, potentially leading to a strip mall.
Jeff Connor stated that the office is naturally divided into three zones and would probably only generate leases for the three office suites.
Atty. Howard stated that the building has turned out to be an asset to the town, and he intends to keep that reputation.
Ms. Connor closed that public hearing at 7:35 pm. The Board then went into deliberations.
Mr. Blomback stated that he has no problem with the application.
Ms. Oliveira stated that she is only concerned about the request for 10 offices.
Mr. Connor stated that he would only be concerned about adequate parking if all 10 offices were active at the same time. Mr. Blomback asked if there was a difference between one office growing to 10 employees or having 10 separate tenants.
Mr. Stamps stated that the definition of “professional” is somewhat vague, but he does not think it will create a problem as long as the professional use is what is intended by the samples given in the list.
Ms. Connor stated that she would be more comfortable allowing fewer offices so that it does not have the potential of becoming a strip mall. Mr. Stamps stated that it only has two separate entrances which would avoid the mall effect. Mr. Howard stated that he is also governed by the existing sign ordinances.
Ms. Connor called for the vote by the Board for the individual criteria used in granting a special exception.
1. The specific site is an appropriate location for the use or structure.
5 Yes – 0 No
2. The use requested is allowed by special exception.
5 Yes – 0 No
3. The use will be compatible with neighboring land uses.
4 Yes – 1 No
Kris-Yes Joan-Yes Jeff-Yes Bob-Yes Doreen-No
4. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety.
3 Yes – 2 No
Kris-Yes Joan-No Jeff-Yes Bob-Yes Doreen-No
5. Granting the permit would be in the public interest.
5 Yes – 0 No
6. The proposed use would not create hazards to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, nor be detrimental to the use of or out of character with the adjacent neighborhood.
3 Yes – 2 No
Kris-Yes Joan-No Jeff-Yes Bob-Yes Doreen-No
7. The proposed use generates no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat, glare or unsightliness.
5 Yes – 0 No
Bob Stamps moved to approve the special exception as requested. Kris Blomback seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
(This case ended at 7:45 pm. Jeff Connor returned to the audience as an alternate member, and Chairman Leon Parker resumed his position on the panel.)
Review of Minutes
The minutes of the June 20, 2007 meeting were reviewed and corrected. Bob Stamps moved to approve the minutes. Doreen Connor seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
New Business
Case #2007-111: James Roberts has submitted an Appeal from an Administrative Decision concerning the June 20, 2007 ZBA Notice of Decision for Application #2007-109. The property is located at 270 Browns Way in the Rural Residential (RR) District on Map 1, Lot 347X.
Chairman Parker explained that a clerical error had been made in the Town office, and the appeal was actually filed on an incorrect form. He stated that an appeal can be requested in writing without having to pay another fee; the applicant had paid $90.
Chairman Parker moved that since the applicant used the wrong form based on information from Town employees, the ZBA requests the Town to refund the $90 fee to the applicant. Kris Blomback seconded the motion. The motion passed,
5 – 0.
Chairman Parker stated that the Roberts are seeking legal guidance but were not prepared to present their case at tonight’s meeting. He stated that he advised Mr. Roberts to request an extension for their appeal.
Doreen Connor moved to accept the applicant’s request for continuance to the September 19, 2007 meeting. Bob Stamps seconded the motion. The motion passed, 5-0.
Planning Consultant position: Chairman Parker gave an update on the status of this newly created position. Applications have been received and the interview process is underway.
Correspondence: The Fall Planning Conference is scheduled for October 13, 2007. The Town will pay for the registration fee for those who attend.
Chairman Parker stated that the Town website has recently been updated.
Doreen Connor moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 pm. Kris Blomback seconded, and it was approved, 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
Recording Secretary
TOWN OF HENNIKER
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 20, 2007
Members Present: Leon Parker, Chairman; Doreen Connor, Vice-Chairman;
Joan Oliveira; Bob Stamps; Kris Blomback
Members Excused: Rick Patenaude called in sick.
Others Present: Mr. and Mrs. James Roberts; Attorney Eugene (Chip) F. Sullivan; Joe Morette; Jenn McCourt (McCourt Engineering); a reporter from the Concord Monitor; Michael Pon arrived at 7:30 pm.
Chairman Parker called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.
Chairman Parker informed the audience that the Board of Selectmen appointed Bob Stamps to the position of full member of the ZBA. Mr. Stamps was sworn into office earlier today. The Board of Selectmen considered two candidates for the vacancy created when Ron Taylor left the ZBA.
Joan Oliveira, Board member, stated that Heidi Hamel (Alternate) moved to Contoocook and has to write her official letter resigning from her position.
Public Hearing:
Case #2007-109: James Roberts has submitted an application for an area variance. The property is located at 270 Browns Way, Map 1, Lot 347X in the Rural Residential (RR) district. The variance is requested as required by
Article X, Section 133-39(B) for a 2 lot subdivision.
Chairman Parker introduced the members of the Board and called the public hearing to order. He read the description of the request for an Area Variance to subdivide property on a Class VI road. Chairman Parker reviewed the procedures for the hearing. Doreen Connor and Kris Blomback reviewed the paperwork to confirm that abutters were properly notified.
James Roberts, applicant, reviewed the application and addressed each criteria.
1) He explained that the property consists of both commercial and residential uses. H.G. Caldwell operates an automobile business on the property. He stated that the purpose is simply to separate the two types of property.
2) Mr. Roberts stated that the change will not adversely affect property values as the structures are already on the property. He has not had the property surveyed, but believes that of the 10.87 acres, approximately two and a half
(2-1/2) acres would be in the commercial zone and approximately eight (8) acres would be in the residential zone.
3a) Mr. Roberts stated that the purpose is only to separate the commercial from the residential uses. The property is fully developed and no additional buildings would be erected. He stated that this variance would be a benefit to the public as it would keep most of the property in residential use.
3b) The applicant stated that this is the best option to bring the property to a more conforming lot.
4) Mr. Roberts stated that this would create a residential lot with no variance allowing commercial use attached to it.
5) The applicant stated that the structures were built between 1964 and 1985 which was prior to current zoning.
Chairman Parker called for public comment.
Jennifer McCourt, audience member, asked if granting the variance (subdividing off of a Class VI road) is allowed under State law. The Board reviewed State statutes.
Mr. Roberts stated that he consulted with a land attorney from Concord who did not mention anything about this law.
Chairman Parker called for comments from the Board. He stated that he has concerns about creating lots less than 10-acres in this district off of a Class VI road.
Bob Stamps, Board member, clarified that Mr. Roberts owns the lot in question. The applicant stated that Mr. Caldwell rents the 8,500-square foot building with septic and water. They live in the house on the property. The previous owner expanded the building and erected the large industrial building. Mr. Caldwell rents from the applicant. He stated that they have discussed the sale/purchase of that piece of property and building.
Kris Blomback stated that he understands that the applicant wants to separate the residential from the commercial uses and may want to sell the commercial component.
Mrs. Roberts stated that having a property with multiple uses creates many difficulties; she stated that even re-mortgaging the property is difficult to pursue. If the parcels were separated, it would be easier to get loans, etc.
Ms. Oliveira stated that she does not believe that property can be subdivided on Class VI roads without the minimum acreage.
Chairman Parker stated that this would require two variances; one to subdivide on a Class VI road and one to create two nonconforming lots.
Ms. McCourt referred to page 435 in the zoning ordinances (674:40 & 674:41), and the Board discussed the aspect of existing structures versus erecting new structures as well as improving roads allowing subdivisions to take place.
Chairman Parker called for any additional comments from the Board. He stated that it is difficult to prove hardship. The intention of a grandfathered use is that over time, the commercial use will eventually disappear and it will become a residential use proper for the district.
The applicant stated that having a mixed-use property does create hardship, and separation would create less commercial space in a Rural Residential district.
Chairman Parker closed the public hearing at 7:37 pm for Board discussion.
Mr. Stamps stated that he is not swayed by the hardship as there are other alternatives to create increased financial gain.
Ms. Connor stated that based on the way that the Statute is drafted, and the requirement for hardship, she believes that the term “shall not be subdivided” is clear.
Ms. Oliveira also stated that the term “shall not” in the definition means that the property cannot be subdivided.
Mr. Blomback stated that “shall not” means that the property cannot be subdivided without a 10-acre minimum.
Chairman Parker stated that he is also concerned about creating two smaller lots.
The Board voted on individual criteria as follows:
1) The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values.
5 Agree; 0 Disagree
Leon: agree Doreen: agree Kris: agree
Joan: agree Bob: agree
2) Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
5 No; 0 Yes
Leon: No Doreen: No Kris: No
Joan: No Bob: No
3) Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because: a) special conditions of the property make an area variance necessary in order to allow the development described.
5 No; 0 Yes
Leon: No (He stated that there are other viable options.)
Doreen: No Kris: No Joan: No Bob: No
(Other criteria were not voted on as two already failed.)
Chairman Parker moved that application #2007-109 by James Roberts to subdivide property located at 270 Browns Way be denied for failure to meet the hardship requirement and not being in the public interest. Joan Oliveira seconded the motion. The motion carried, 5 – 0.
Hearing ended at 7:45 pm. The applicant thanked the Board for their consideration.
The meeting agenda called for the review of the May 16, 2007 minutes. Chairman Parker asked to delay that until after hearing the new business. The Board agreed with this.
Chairman Parker introduced Attorney Sullivan’s Motion for Rehearing/Reconsideration. He stated that the Board is to decide whether or not to let the Morette’s come back for special exception which was rejected at the last meeting; they are not to review the case tonight. Atty. Sullivan agreed with this summary of the expectation. Atty. Sullivan stated that even if a rehearing was granted, by law, they will still have to file a motion under the law.
Chairman Parker stated all members of the audience are to listen to the Board’s consideration, but this is not a public hearing. He asked the applicant’s representatives if there was any additional information they would like to present that has not already been submitted. Everyone on the panel has read the documentation submitted by Atty. Sullivan.
Ms. Connor cited RSA 677.2 which requires a reason for rehearing and reviewed the history of the case to make sure all parties were in agreement. She stated that the applicant first came before the Board in August 2006; the case was denied. They came back in October 2006 and were denied again. A request or rehearing was granted. The first rehearing was in February 2007 and was denied. The applicant asked for the case to remain open while a traffic study was done. In May 2007, a second rehearing was done and it was denied. She believes this is the third request for a rehearing.
Jennifer McCourt stated that she would like to correct the record regarding the first time they came before the ZBA. She stated that their application was withdrawn (not formally denied). Ms. Connor stated that she stands corrected.
Joan Oliveira stated that she stands by the Board’s last decision and does not see a reason for rehearing.
Chairman Parker raised the issue involving the record being created. He stated that the tape that the applicant used to record the last meeting broke. Mr. Parker requested that all parties speak clearly for the benefit of the recording secretary and instructed her to ask questions when necessary.
Chairman Parker read Item #2 of the motion for rehearing. He stated that he feels that this is an argument over semantics on that point. He stated that if the Board rehears the denied application, the second application will have to be dealt with. If that happens, abutter’s notices will have to be made. He stated that he would not expect them to have to pay the application fee; a refiling would not be required, just renotification to the abutters.
Chairman Parker addressed the topic of constitutionality of zoning in Henniker. He stated that many know that the ZBA has fought against some of the more restrictive regulations proposed by the Planning Board. More recently, there have been attempts of reducing people’s rights to subdivide or develop their land. He stated that as a private citizen, he would be interested in seeing what would happen if a court were asked to see if our regulations are unconstitutional. The Board is not going to respond or take action on this point.
Item #8 was read. Chairman Parker stated that by Board vote, and a lot of discussion, the Board is on record of disagreeing with this. He stated that the ruling has been characterized as being illegal and unconstitutional; it would not make sense for the Board to just change their mind but would rather let a court of competent jurisdiction rule on this.
Regarding Ms. Connor’s participation on the Board, Chairman Parker stated that the matter of her recusal was addressed previously. It was decided that she did not need to recuse herself as she was not involved any more than anyone else traveling on Western Avenue. There is no precedent, regulation or procedural guide to define how far someone needs to live from a project. He stated that it is the participation of local residents that makes best decisions for the Town.
Chairman Parker stated that just because Ms. Connor lives near a road that might be affected by proposed changes, there is no basis for overturning their decision.
Chairman Parker addressed the charge that because another Board member is named “Connor” and may be a distant relative of Doreen Connor, that he is acting subservient to her. Chairman Parker stated that a sarcastic comment made about not voting her way may have been inappropriate but should not have been given any serious consideration.
In regards to Item #18, asserting that the minutes create an inadequate record, Chairman Parker stated that there are other town Zoning Boards that do not vote on each individual item. This Board has decided to do that in order to fully discuss issues before taking a vote on a project. He stated that the minutes of previous Board meetings create the basis for the rationale of the votes. He also stated that he does not recall asking people to state their reasons for each vote. The rest of the summarization of the case includes the questioning of Jeff Connor’s vote because he said something; Jeff has a right to vote as he sees fit and that is what he did.
The members of the Board, including Doreen Connor and Leon Parker, repeatedly expressed concerns about size and scope of the project, not because they were condominiums. The issue is not about the surrounding area. The problem is with the size and scope of the project.
Chairman Parker moved that the Motion for Rehearing/Reconsideration be denied. Doreen Connor seconded the motion.
Doreen Connor stated that she would like to discuss the motion.
Ms. Connor referred to the implication that the Board’s vote was improper because of the need for workforce housing in Henniker. The Town’s master plan states that Henniker has more than its fair share of housing in the community compared to other communities (page 124). She stated that she also has concerns about the use of the term “workforce housing” regarding this plan. According to the master plan, there were two-bedroom units available costing $108,000. The proposed units, as represented to the Board, will be marketed at up to $200,000. She stated that she is not sure that this price meets the definition of “workforce housing.”
Ms. Connor also read the following comments which are printed here:
“Tonight’s Motion for rehearing appears to rely in part upon the applicant’s claim that I am an abutter to this project. The term abutter is defined in the Henniker ordinance (133-3). The applicant knows I am not an abutter, as I am not included on the application notice list. An abutter is by definition one whose land abuts the proposed development. Not only am I not an abutter but the two landowners (Mr. Corsetti and the Misty Lea Corporation) who stand to potentially lose part of their land depending upon the final outcome of the Newton Rd intersection are not abutters and I live beyond these individuals.
The applicant then suggests that because I live in the neighborhood of this project I should have recused myself from these proceedings.
The test with respect to recusal (RSA 673:14) asks whether I would be disqualified for any cause under the juror statute or whether I have a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome, which differs from the interests of other citizens. Jurors are disqualified in part if they are related to any of the parties; if they employ any of the parties; their counsel, representatives or witnesses.
The applicant’s recusal motion is troublesome as it relies upon recusal that has been selectively applied. There are members of this Board who have employed the applicant’s engineer in unrelated proceedings, which under the juror statue could be considered grounds for recusal. I believe that any board member who has sat on these proceedings despite past or current employment relationships with Ms McCourt decided their financial relationship would not influence their decision on this application. It troubles me however that this recusal request and the press reports on recusal have been selectively applied to those board members who voted against this project as opposed to reviewing the recusal statute in its entirety as it applies to all board member including those who have voted in favor of the project.
The recusal statue does not define what having a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the zoning outcome means. The applicant argues that because I might be impacted by the traffic flow from this project I have a direct interest that requires recusal. According to the applicant’s traffic study the traffic flow from this project turns left—away from my home. Beyond the specifics of the traffic study however—any impact upon my home because of the traffic does not differ from the impact, which every other citizen who lives on Western Ave and or any abutting road will encounter and thus I do not believe I have a direct personal intest that differs from the interest of every town citizen.
To my knowledge the NH court has not addressed whether one who lives in the neighborhood of a project and who might be impacted by the traffic has a direct interest that would rise to the level of recusal under 673:14
I consulted Rathkopf’s Treatise on Zoning and it identified one case on this topic. In Victoria Corp v. Atlanta Merchandise Mart 112 S.E.2d 793 (Ga.Ct. App. 1960) the court concluded that ownership of property ¼ mile from the development which would suffer only from the general increase in traffic in the area suffered by all property owners in the area did not constitute a direct interest sufficient to challenge the zoning decision in court.
The traffic impact from this development will not impact my property in any way that is different from the rest of the property owners on Western Ave so I do not believe I have a direct interest in this project that differs from other citizens.
I also do not believe that I have approached this project any differently because of its location. Unlike many of my colleagues on this board, I interpret the zoning ordinances strictly as I believe it is our job to apply the ordinances as written. My approach to this case has been no different than the approach I took to the development on Bacon Road based upon its density for the proposed location. A decision on recusal is in part a subjective factual inquiry. I do not believe I have a direct interest in this project that is different from the rest of the Western Ave property owners, but I am happy to hear from other board members on this topic.”
Chairman Parker asked for any other discussion. Hearing none, the Board voted as follows: The motion to deny the Motion for Rehearing/Reconsideration was denied, 5 – 0.
5 Yes – 0 No
Bob: Yes Joan: Yes Doreen: Yes
Kris: Yes Leon: Yes
Discussion of this case ended at 8:11 pm.
Correspondence:
Chairman Parker reviewed a year-to-date budget statement. The ZBA budget is $7575; $881 has been expensed to the budget thus far.
New Business:
Chairman Parker stated that a new secretary has been hired for the Town office. No applicant for the planning consultant position has been interviewed yet.
Chairman Parker stated that Board members need to recruit new alternates. It is the Board’s consensus that members of the Board should serve as alternates before becoming full members.
Review of Minutes:
Minutes of the May 16, 2007 were reviewed and corrections were made. Kris Blomback moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Bob Stamps seconded. Motion carried, 5 – 0.
Kris Blomback moved to adjourn the meeting. Doreen Connor seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Astholz
TOWN OF HENNIKER
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Approved Minutes
Members Present: Leon Parker, Chairman; Doreen Connor; Joan Oliveira; Kris Blomback; Jeff Connor, Alternate
Others Present: Bob Stamps, Alternate Board Member; Jennifer McCourt; Laurie Rauseo; Eugene Sullivan, Esq.; Joseph Morette; Mr. and Mrs. Charles LeClair; Michael Martin; Dorothy Martin; Ethan Martin; Judy Champlin; Debora DeMello; Ron Taylor; Marshall Connor; Ken Erikson; Bruce Corsetti; Art Siciliano; Scott Osgood.
Chairman Parker called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. He reviewed the procedures for conducting the public hearings. He stated that as an alternate, Bob Stamps is eligible to discuss the cases but will not vote.
Public Hearing:
Continuation of Case# 2007-102: Joseph and Jinhua Xian Morette have submitted an application for a Special Exception.
(It is noted that the applicant tape recorded the proceedings.)
Jennifer McCourt, McCourt Engineering, began the presentation by stating that since the Board will be voting on all seven individual criteria again, and Joan Oliveira was not at the last meeting, the applicant will review details of all seven criteria. Ms. McCourt described the existing property and the need to divide it into three lots to put in condominiums. This needs to be done to satisfy the one principal building per lot requirement. She stated that the site is appropriate as minimal regrading of the area will be necessary. Newton Road will be upgraded to Town standards. She stated that the traffic study has been done and will be reviewed tonight. She reported that there will be adequate vegetative buffering around the exterior of the buildings to mitigate noise, and she sees no reason to cut trees in the back area. Ms. McCourt described screened storage areas and dumpsters with stockade fencing with a gate opening.
Ms. McCourt described adequate traffic accessibility with the design of Newton Road to 22-feet of pavement (may be 20-feet depending on the Town Board requirements). She stated that they are working to properly determine the actual right-of-way, especially at the intersection of Western Avenue. She stated that they will try to preserve the abutter’s property. Research was done that shows a 33-foot right-of-way was conveyed to the Town of Henniker in 1775, although it does not show exactly where it is. There are clearly marked boundaries on one side of the road, but the boundary on the other side is not clear.
The field area is to be left open and the interior of the designed horseshoe will be left available for recreational needs as deemed appropriate by the condo association. Ms. McCourt described adequate access for emergency vehicles. Adequate parking has been provided with a minimum of two spaces per unit; some units may have more parking available.
The buildings are to be two bedroom units with 1000-square feet of living area. Neighboring land uses include various types of commercial and residential properties. This will also eliminate the large truck traffic currently on Newton Road. The proposed use will be an improvement and will benefit the neighborhood.
Laurie Rauseo, P.E., PTOE, gave her report of the traffic study that was conducted the week of April 20, 2007. The detailed written report was provided to Board members for review. Current traffic conditions were recorded and the anticipated trips per day generated by the proposed development were calculated. Specific peak hours were noted, and it was determined that level of service still fell within “Category A” status. Ms. Rauseo stated that there are no capacity concerns once Newton Road is upgraded. Two recommendations are stated: 1) erect object markers be placed by the culvert since it is so close to the road; 2) as headlights will shine into the house on the corner, it is suggested that the developer erect screening for that area (this has been shown on the plans).
The applicant stated that the development is in the public’s best interest as it will provide less expensive housing in the area without unduly impacting the Town schools and other services. Ms. McCourt reported that Henniker Community School and John Stark Regional High School reported only 12 students live in the River Meadows condominiums which have 30, three-bedroom units in its development. This development allows for workforce housing in this area instead of more permitted commercial venture.
Vegetative buffers and the buildings will provide noise buffers for the immediate abutters. Condo association documents address recourse if there is a problem. Ms. McCourt stated that condo residents tend to be self-regulating as they do not want to live with problems themselves.
At 7:35 pm, Chairman Parker called for public comment.
Bruce Corsetti stated that he was neither in favor nor against the proposed development but is very concerned about determining the proper boundaries. He gave a brief history of the house and triangular piece of property that is in question; between 1968 and 1974, a trade occurred with the town. He stated that Ron Goss was the former road agent at that time and may be able to share relevant information. He strongly recommended that the road boundaries be clearly determined prior to moving forward with the development in order to protect Mr. Morette, the Town and his property.
Chairman Parker stated that in his experience, when granite markers do not exist, an agreement may have to be created between the affected parties.
Ms. McCourt stated that if a change in plans is necessary as determined by the Board of Selectmen and/or the Planning Board, they will respect the boundary that is currently known as the Corsetti’s property and will do all that they can to work around it, if possible. Road width was discussed in light of the boundary issue. NFPA makes recommendations, however, the suggested 24-feet of road width is not law. If necessary, it would be tight, but Ms. McCourt thinks it could probably be designed within the available area.
Ken Erikson, resident, stated that while he sees improvement in the design, he is still opposed to the development due to the intensity in the area.
Mr. and Mrs. Charles LeClair, lifelong residents of Newton Road, voiced their opinion in favor of the development and the improvements to the road.
Chairman Parker then called for comment from the Board members.
Doreen Connor asked if there is any study done on the number of accidents on a road with 370 trips per day. Ms. Rauseo stated that they look at factors involved in accidents. She stated that based on the data, traffic should be able to navigate safely through the area. There are no statistics based on number of trips made. Ms. McCourt stated that if the road plans have to change, they will come back to the ZBA. The applicant wants to do their best in respecting property boundaries and creating the best design for the neighborhood.
Kris Blomback, Board member, stated that he feels very confident that a road can be designed within the understood boundary.
Atty. Eugene Sullivan agreed that the Town needs to clarify the property boundary with Mr. Corsetti.
Public comment was closed at 7:51 pm for Board deliberations.
Bob Stamps commented that this design is much improved over former designs.
Jeff Connor, Board member, stated that he is happy with the changes to the plans.
Joan Oliveira, Board member, stated that she is still concerned about the density of the project, but agrees that it is a much improved design. She also asked for clarification of the term “workforce housing.” Atty. Sullivan distributed data regarding legislative study on workforce housing. He stated that professional, working people are having difficulty affording property in New Hampshire.
Previously, a realtor suggested that these units sell for $160,000 - $200,000.
Doreen Connor stated that she is still concerned about the overall density of the project. The Town passed the ordinance of one principal building per lot to keep this type of thing from happening. She stated that she believes that the applicant’s statistics on the anticipated number of children and cars is too low and, therefore, inaccurate.
Votes on the individual criteria are recorded as follows:
1) The specific site is an appropriate location for the use or structure.
3 Yes – 2 No
Jeff – Yes Leon – Yes Joan – No
Doreen – No Kris - Yes
2) The use requested is allowed by special exception.
5 Yes – 0 No
3) The use will be compatible with neighboring land uses.
3 Yes – 2 No
Jeff – Yes Leon – Yes Joan – No
Doreen – No Kris – Yes
(Doreen stated that the other condo being compared was pre-zoning and is therefore not a good comparison.)
4) The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety.
3 No – 2 Yes
Jeff – No Leon – Yes Joan – No
Doreen – No Kris - Yes
(Kris stated that based on science and professional data, this will not be a problem.)
5) That granting the permit would be in public interest.
4 Yes – 1 No
Jeff – Yes Leon – Yes Joan – Yes
Doreen – No Kris – Yes
6) That the proposed use would not create hazards to the health, safety or general welfare of the public nor be detrimental to the use of or out of character with the adjacent neighborhood.
3 Yes – 2 No
Jeff – Yes Leon – Yes Joan – No
Doreen – No Kris – Yes
7) That the proposed use would not constitute a nuisance because of offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat, glare, or unsightliness.
5 Yes – 0 No
Doreen Connor moved that the Board deny application# 2007-102 because there was not majority vote on the required seven criteria (Item #4 did not pass.) Joan Oliveira seconded the motion. The motion passed, 4 - 1 (Kris Blomback dissenting).
Continuation of Case# 2007-103: This application for special exception was withdrawn by the applicant.
Case# 2007-106: Michael Martin has submitted an application for Special Exception. The property is located on 20 Crescent Street on Map 2 Lot 240-A in the Residential Village (RV) Proper. The Special Exception is requested from Article V, Section 133-22: to permit the construction of a three bay garage with owner’s/manager’s quarters on the second level.
Doreen Connor and Kris Blomback verified that all paperwork was filed correctly and abutter’s were noticed properly.
Michael Martin presented his proposal for an accessory building with owner’s quarters. There is currently a duplex on the site. Another option is to put in a parking lot which does not need a special exception. The applicant stated that this plan is better for the property and the neighborhood. He reviewed the written answers for the seven individual criteria. The accessory building is subordinate to the existing main building. He stated that the neighborhood is surrounded by a parking lot, apartment building, municipal buildings, college buildings and private homes.
Chairman Parker called for public comment at 8: