|
Zoning
Board of Adjustment Warner, NH Meeting
Minutes of January 13, 2010 Members Present: Martha Thoits, Chair; Mike Holt; Eric Rogers;
Rick Davies; Janice Loz; and, Alternate Gordon Nolen. Not Present: Alternate Ted Young The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. 1. CASE #05-09: USE VARIANCE (Continuation of 12/08/2009 meeting) a.
Applicants: Cheryl Blais, 69 East Main Street, Warner NH 03278 b. Property Location: 59 East
Main Street, Warner, NH Map 30, Lot 33, B-1 zoning district. c. Proposed Use:
Change usage to pet sitting and pet boarding business. d. Variance to Zoning Article
X. Section A. Request variance to allow pet sitting and pet boarding. It was clarified the address for the requested Variance is for 59
East Main Street and not 69 East Main Street. Ms Thoits read Article X Section A as follows: Uses
permitted by right shall be those designated by a letter P in the column
B-1 of Table
I, and that Table with column B-1 only is hereby made a part of this
ordinance. She explained there is no variance for that. Mr. Blais asked what
that meant for them. Ms. Thoits explained that the only thing she found
that could pertain to them was in the Use Regulations in Agricultural 6
which reads: Commercial
stables, kennels or veterinary hospital in which all animals, fowl or
other forms of life are completely enclosed in pens or other structures Ms. Thoits asked if Ms. Blais agreed this would apply. Mr. And Mrs.
Blais both agreed it did. Ms. Loz agreed this regulation was as close as
it comes since the animals are confined to a home and fenced area and
are not able to run loose at anytime. So it was decided Ms. Blais is
applying for Variance for Agricultural #6 on the Use Table. Ms Thoits invited Ms. Cheryl Blais to make a presentation of what she
is doing and read her 5 statements. Ms. Blais stated that she has run a pet sitting service for 23 years
and for the past six years we have offered various pet sitting services
with 95% in their clients homes, 65% of their clients are special needs
and geriatric pets requiring medications. A select group of animals are
boarded in their home without pens or kennels because they are either
geriatric or special needs and they do not kennel very well. She stated
that anyone who has had kenneling done will know a specific animal in a
kennel environment is susceptible to disease and they lack social
interaction in kennels even though they are staffed 24/7. She stated she
and her husband are home 24/7 where they can provide a service where the
animals can be cared for in a stress free and illness free environment.
The business is conducted on their property, however, most of
which is on the client’s property. Cheryl stated that the business has
expanded far beyond just someone’s dog for a walk. Ms. Thoits asked Ms. Blais to read the five questions in her
application, Ms. Blais essentially stated: A. No decrease in value of surrounding properties will occur. No changes to building or property. B. Granting the Variance will not be contrary to the public interest. No. I provide specialized service for
personalized care for animals. C. Ms Blais stated
denial of Variance would it hurt anyone maybe yes maybe no. It would
mean the dog would be left home and she would need to travel
to the owner’s property daily which Cheryl stated would not affect her
in any sense. She does have clients as far as Rhode Island which she
meets half way. Cheryl stated she did not understand c and b. She stated
no changes are needed to run her business it runs itself and by granting
the Variance it just remains in place. She stated she does not benefit
from her business although she does collect a paycheck every week it is
her clients that benefit because they have animals that they know are
cared for properly in a stress free environment. Denial of Variance would impose unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. Applicant’s criteria for demonstrating a hardship for Use Variance are as follows: a. The Zoning restriction as applied interferes with the landowner’s reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting if of the property in its environment. No adjustments to be made to property to support business. b. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the specific restriction on the property None- No changes needed. c. Granting the Variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. No 90% of the
business is conducted at the owners’ homes. Ms Blais was asked to read into the record what she wrote for d and
e. D.
By granting the Variance, substantial justice will be done. Ms Blais
continued by stating by granting the Variance substantial justice would
be done since the business has been in existence 6 plus years (23 years
total caring for animals). Many customers are special needs: regimen and
medication administration is necessary; therefore, specialized care is
given to animals with special needs to avoid emotional strain promoting
the well-being of the animal. E. Granting the
Variance will not be contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance: No,
because I provide specialized service and a stress free environment to
pet owners. Ms. Loz asked Ms. Blais what brings her here before the Board today.
Ms. Blais stated she had no idea she was told she needed to. Ms. Thoits
explained to Ms. Blais the reason for meeting before the Board because
her primary business is a Bed and Breakfast and she did not have
permission to have a business at this particular piece of property. It
was explained that the type of business is not a permitted use in her
District therefore a Variance is needed. Rick Davies asked if animals were in a fenced area and asked her to
describe how big that area is. Mr. Blais said the fenced area is
approximately 8 feet long, about 15-20 feet wide with the widest point
being about 50 feet wide. He stated it is bordered by Michael
Chesney’s property on one side and the stream on the other. Mr. Davies asked if they just deal with dogs, Ms. Blais stated no
they do deal with other animals. Mr. Davies stated the reason he was
asking was because her request specifically talks about dogs. Ms. Blais
explained that is because the concern was about dogs. She then explained
to the Board that they limit their boarding to dogs and they do not take
cats in unless it is an emergency. She limits the amount of dogs to
eight (8) at any time. Ms. Thoits verified with Ms. Blais that four (4)
of the dogs were her own. A question was asked of Ms. Blais what she
would do if dog number nine (9) came about and she stated she would
refuse and the client would need to return when she had an opening. Mr. Davies asked if she had any complaints from neighbors regarding
her dogs and Ms. Blais said never. Mr. Davies asked if there were any
questions from the Selectman about the operation on the property and she
said no. Mr. Davies asked Ms. Blais to clarify question C regarding the
hardship because the answers written were not consistent with the
question. Ms. Blais stated she still did not understand exactly what was
being asked. Mr. Davies read part (a) The Zoning restriction as
applied interferes with the landowner’s reasonable use of the
property, considering the unique setting if of the property in its
environment. He asked what is unique about the property and why the
Board should make an exception for that area of town.
Ms. Blais explained the property is in a convenient area for
clients to locate. Mr. Blais then added it is not practical to purchase
another piece of property in the rural district as this property is
their existing home; therefore, it is not feasible to relocate the
business because it is a small business. They are not a large kennel
with a large staff and with it only being the two of them they only have
a limited number of four (4) slots available; therefore they would not
be able to relocate to anywhere other than their home. Ms. Loz agreed
that is a reasonable explanation. Ms. Loz verified with Ms. Blais the 90% of the business is conducted
outside of their home and at the owner’s home therefore the majority
of business is not conducted within the home. Mr. Blais stated they
board no more than four (4) dogs at a time and they care for well over
100 animals. Mr. Davies explained the reason for the questions he is asking since
if the Variance is granted the Variance is in effect forever. Mr. Blais
stated he understands. Ms. Thoits asked the Board if there were any further questions. There
being no further questions from the Board, she opened the Public Hearing
part of the session. Ms. Thoits asked if there were any abutters in the
audience who wished to speak. Mr. John Mimnaugh stated he lives on the other side if the Bed and
Breakfast owned by Ms. Blais at 69 Main Street and was looking for
clarification which of the two properties the business would be located.
He verified the address is 59 East Main Street and asked if any animals
would be limited to that property. His other concern is with a kennel is
there any Board or State Certification required. Ms. Blais explained she
is not a kennel because they do not isolate animals and they do not keep
a large amount of animals. Mr. Mimnaugh asked if it would only be four
(4) dogs in addition to their own. Ms. Mimnaugh voiced a concern regarding traffic in general on the
street. Mr. Blais explained there would not be a lot of traffic due to
the fact that their clients drop off and pick up at different times.
Usually there is no more than one car at a time. Mr. Mimnaugh asked if
the clients drop off at the 59 East Main Street property and Mr. Blais
said yes. Ms. Thoits asked if there were any other Abutters. Since there were
no Abutters Ms. Thoits asked if anyone else would like to speak. An audience member asked if granted what the Variance would allow at
the property if the applicants moved on. Eric Rogers explained it would
be whatever the Variance specifically says and how it is worded. Mike Holt asked how many dogs are boarded overnight. Ms. Blais said
no more than four (4) it is limited whether they are in for the day or
just a few hours the limit is eight (8) total. Janice asked if four (4)
would be a good number. Eric asked if they have any other animals come
in. Mike asked if they take in cats also and Ms. Blais stated no.
Eric asked if it would be fair if the Variance were worded at 5
animals total over and above their own personal animals would that cover
four (4) dogs and another animal. Mr. Mimnaugh stated that if agreeable with the Mr. and Mrs. Blais, he
would like to stick to just four (4) dogs. Rick Davies asked if only dogs would be in the outside pen area. Ms.
Blais said yes. Ms. Thoits asked when outside would the dogs be apt to
be allowed barking. Mr. Blais stated that when the dogs play there may
be a little barking but there would not be excessive barking. Ms. Thoits asked the Board for further questions or comments. Ms. Thoits closed the Public Hearing and re-opened the meeting. Ms.
Thoits asked if there were any other questions. Rick Davies pointed out
that the request specifically talks about dogs therefore animals should
not be used because it is not what was advertised. Ms. Thoits suggested limiting it to their four (4) dogs and four (4)
additional dogs. Ms. Loz agreed that they are asking for four (4) dogs
so just word it that way. Ms. Thoits suggested saying we accept the
Variance because we find all five (5) questions were answered
satisfactorily on the application and clarified in person since Ms.
Blais had explained the questions better in person than in the
application. Mike Holt MOVED to accept the request for a boarding facility that
would maximize a total of four (4) dogs plus their own personal four (4)
dogs because it satisfactorily met the terms of the five (5) questions
written and in person interpretation. The special conditions would be
specialized service boarding and no expansion of the pen. Rick Davies
seconded the motion. Ms. Thoits asked if there were any further questions and Eric Rogers
asked if all the dogs that they keep at the house are specialized
boarding or just dogs. He suggested dropping the work “specialized” The motion was amended to take specialized out. All members agreed. Ms. Thoits asked for a vote and stated a yes vote would give Ms. Blais a Variance to conduct a Dog Boarding Facility and a no vote would deny that privilege. The Vote was unanimous to ACCEPT the amended motion as: To accept the request for a boarding
facility that would maximize a total of four (4) dogs plus their own
personal four (4) dogs because it satisfactorily met the terms of the
five (5) questions written and in person interpretation. The special
conditions would to be no expansion of the pen. Ms. Thoits explained that there is a 30-day appeal period for anyone
to appeal the decision of the Board. Rick Davies asked if they would need to go before the Planning Board and it was agreed to confer with Ms. Annis and the Secretary would let Ms. Blais know if that was necessary. 2. MINUTES
Mike Holt MOVED to APPROVE the minutes of December 08, 2009 as
amended. It was seconded. The majority were in favor.
Eric Rogers abstained. 3. COMMUNICATIONS
AND MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION OF NEW ZONING APPLICATION: Rick Davies stated to summarize what was changed is anything that had
to do with a Variance being called “Use” or “Area” Variance
being combined to read “Variance” due to the law that went into
effect January 1, 2010. It will now be consistent with what the
Ordinance will read after March Vote from the Public. Mike Holt asked if the entire packet will be sent out or will it be
separated into separate forms. Rick Davies recommended it be a full
packet. On the Town Website it is all together as an entire packet. A discussion was held regarding the difficulty people have
understanding the directions and would it be better to put it in
layman’s terms for it to be more easily understood. Ms. Loz asked if
putting it in layman’s terms, that could open it up to interpretation.
Ms. Thoits stated that although the book states the Board is not allowed
to help the applicant sometimes it is necessary to help them understand. Ms. Thoits asked if there were any further questions and with no
further questions Ms. Thoits asked for a vote to accept the New Zoning
Application. Rick Davies made a MOTION to ACCEPT the instructions and forms as
presented. Mike Holt seconded the motion. All were in favor. DISCUSSION OF MEETING WITH COUNSEL Ms. Thoits explained that the Board is supposed to meet with counsel
regarding Mr. Fisher’s case. Eric asked if anyone has explained to the
Board specifically why it is the Board’s responsibility. Ms. Loz
referenced the Board of Selectman’s December meeting minutes. Eric
Rogers thought that Mr. Fisher should come in and file for Variance
before the Board seeks legal counsel. Ms. Thoits stated what was agreed
to was to meet with counsel with the Selectman to find out exactly what
needs to be done so that everyone is in agreement with what the counsel
says. Rick Davies agreed with Eric Rogers that an application should
come before the Board first and then a decision can be made to postpone
until legal counsel is sought. Ms. Loz agreed with seeking legal counsel
first. Eric Rogers stated he agreed with Ms. Thoits to have a joint
meeting with the Selectman. Ms. Thoits said the Selectman have already
agreed to the meeting they just need to know when. It was agreed to try to meet with counsel at non-Public
meeting before the next Zoning Board Meeting about 6pm. The Secretary
will contact counsel regarding an appointment. 4. ADJOURN A Board Member MOVED to adjourn. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM
|