|
Zoning Board of Adjustment Warner, NH Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2008 Members Present: Martha
Thoits, Chair, Dennis Barnard, Vice Chair, Mike Holt, Janice Loz, and
Alternate Rick Davies (sitting for Eric Rodgers). (Jean
Lightfoot recording) Not present: Eric
Rodgers and Alternates Ted Young and Gordon Nolen. Ms. Thoits opened the meeting at 7:00 pm.
The roll call was taken. 1.
AREA VARIANCE Applicant: Ronald E. and Bethany
J. Bourcier Property Location: 31 E. Sutton
Road, Warner, NH, Map 17, Lot 4-6, R-2 zoning district. Proposed Use: Residential. Variance to Zoning Article VI, Section C.
Request variance to provide less than the minimum buildable area
of at least two acres. Ms. Thoits recognized Mr. Bourcier and asked him to present the application. He said that he and Mrs. Bourcier were before the Zoning
Board in April in regard to buildable area on his lot.
He said that they did a survey and found they were short of total
buildable area and have submitted an application for an area variance to
the two acre minimum buildable area requirements.
He directed the Board members to the tax map of the lot, showing
that they were part of a six lot subdivision in the late 1980’s. He showed the Board members a copy of the original
subdivision plan and a copy of the survey when they purchased the lot in
1991. He said the plan
approved by the Planning Board with the original subdivision shows a
brook which basically cuts the lot in two.
He said the front of the lot was always envisioned as where the
house was supposed to be. He
said there was no wetland application for crossing of the brook
submitted at that time. So,
he said, the Planning Board had to assume that if there were no wetland
application submitted, the construction was going to be on the front
portion of the lot. He said
that prior to the survey, they knew there were some steep slopes in the
back, but were a little surprised when the survey was complete.
He said that they knew the parcel as subdivided back in 1986 was
about two pieces, the front, the gentler, the more buildable area on the
side of the brook beside the road and the back of it with the steep
slopes and wetlands. He
handed out some new test pit information and said that it is comparable
to the same information from 1986.
He referred to the current survey map and said that it is a
better terrain map, showing the wetlands and steep slopes.
He said that he and his wife had applied for a wetland crossing
in 1994, when they were attempting to build their current house.
He said they built the house in a more challenging terrain and
did cross the wetland, leaving the flatter terrain in the northeast
corner of the property as it was. He
said they had understood that that was the more buildable area, which
can be seen by looking at the contours.
He said that that area in the northeast corner is actually only
1.4 acres of buildable land, based on wetland delineation and area and
the survey. He said with
the long narrow lot which is 2.37 acres and would encompass their house,
there would be the minimum frontage of 200 feet and they would only
absorb .2 of that 1.4 original buildable area.
He added that there would still remain 1.2 acres of buildable
land in that corner, where the more gently sloping land is still there.
He said that is the area they would like to have as a subdivided
lot. Mr. Bourcier asked if he should go
through the application. Ms.
Thoits asked him to read the questions and the statements on the
application as they had written them.
He read as follows: A.
The proposed use will not diminish the surrounding property
values. The
proposed use will not diminish the surrounding property values as the
proposed use is consistent with surrounding property uses.
The proposed single family residential structure would compliment
the surrounding residential dwellings. B.
The proposed use would not be contrary to the public interest. It is
not contrary to public interest to allow for a reasonable use of
property. The proposed subdivision is otherwise in compliance with
Warner’s ordinances. After
the single family structure is completed it will increase the tax base
for the Town of Warner. C.
Denial of the variance would impose unnecessary hardship upon the
applicant. Applicant’s
criteria for demonstrating hardship for an Area/Dimensional Variance are
as follows: a.
An Area/Dimensional Variance is needed to enable the
applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions
of the property.
Given the topography of the property, together with the stream
running diagonally through the property, it is not possible to satisfy
the 2 acres of buildable area. The
area on the property that is best suited to support a house is presently
unimproved.
There is an existing house that is built on the property that has
been legally built in a tougher area, in that it is located across the
stream and on the slope.
By granting the variance the most “builder friendly” area of
the property will lend itself to a single family residence. b. The
benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method
reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an Area
Variance.
There is no other
alternative for the applicant other than this variance.
The applicant does not own other property that is adjacent to
this property. The owner
did attempt to purchase adjacent property (which is located in Sutton);
however, the owner did not desire to sell.
Therefore, the applicant has no reasonable alternatives. D.
Granting the variance will do substantial justice. This
element of the variance test asks this Board to balance the harm to the
applicant against the public gain.
Only when the public gain outweighs the harm may the Board find
that substantial justice is not done.
Granting the variance will allow the reasonable development of
the applicant’s property. If
the variance is not granted then the applicant will not be able to
develop the most “builder friendly” area of the property.
It should be noted the resulting non-conforming lot is actually
larger than the resulting conforming lot. E.
Granting the variance is not contrary to the spirit of the
Ordinance. With
the exception for the need for the area variance, the applicant’s
proposed use is otherwise in accordance with the Town of Warner’s
Zoning Ordinance. The
proposed use will allow for the reasonable use of the applicant’s
property. If the
spirit of the ordinance is to allow for a lot that can sustain itself
then the variance is not contrary to the same.
The resulting lot will easily be able to sustain a single family
dwelling in that the test pits show it will sustain a subsurface
disposal system.
If the spirit of the ordinance is to prevent overcrowding then
the variance is not contrary to the same.
The resulting lot is actually larger than the resulting
conforming lot. Therefore, the granting of this variance will not result in
overcrowding and likewise is not contrary to the spirit of the
ordinance. Ms. Thoits asked if there were any
questions. Mr. Holt asked
if there is a proposed site for the house.
Mr. Bourcier said no, but that it would be in the 1.2 acres of
land near where the test pits were done in 1986 and recently.
He said the material hasn’t changed since 1986.
The elevations of the seasonal high water table are the same.
He concluded by saying the area that was originally approved has
not changed. Mr. Davies
asked if test pit #6 is located on the current map.
Mr. Bourcier said it is on the previous map.
There was some discussion about the test pits on the map.
Ms. Loz asked if the house would go on the front corner.
Mr. Bourcier said yes, it would be within the setback lines
required. Mr. Davies asked
what the buildable acreage would be for each of the proposed lots.
Mr. Bourcier said it was shown on the top of the plan.
Mr. Davies said it is just the total that is listed.
Mr. Bourcier said that the smaller narrow lot, where the existing
house is, is exactly 2 acres of buildable, with all the rest of the
buildable area going to the larger proposed lot.
Mr. Davies asked where it was indicated on the plan.
Mr. Bourcier said it is 3.5 minus the 2 acres, resulting in about
1.5 acres. Mr. Davies said
it is not on the plan. Mr.
Bourcier said that there is about 1.2 acres in the front of the larger
proposed lot and there is about .3 acre in the back of the lot which is
part of the 1.5 acres that is considered to be buildable.
Mr. Davies asked where on the plan it says what the acreage is of
lot #1. Mr. Bourcier said the total acreage of the new lot would be
3.613 acres. Mr. Holt said
that 5.984 acres is the entire parcel and then it will be subdivided. Mr. Bourcier said they will take off 2.37 acres for the new
smaller lot. Mr. Davies
said on the larger lot, a total of 3.6 acres minus the 1.5 of buildable
area equals 2.1 that is not buildable.
Mr. Bourcier agreed. Ms.
Loz said she understood that they would leave 2 acres on the smaller lot
which is buildable. Mr.
Bourcier said yes. He added
again that the area in the front of the larger lot is the 1.2 acres of
buildable land. He said that the area that was approved by the Planning Board
originally was 1.4 and the setback took nearly all of that.
He said that the area was always a little less than an acre in
size. Mr. Davies asked what
the frontage is on the larger proposed lot.
Mr. Bourcier said it is the balance after subtracting exactly 200
feet which is for the smaller lot, resulting in about 300 feet for the
larger lot. He said that
the plan is to try to leave all the excess available as possible to the
newly-subdivided lot. It
would have the greatest amount of frontage and the greatest amount of
total area. Ms. Loz asked
if he had a picture of what will eventually go in the buildable area and
asked if he were going to be the one to build there.
Mr. Bourcier said that they did not intend on building a house;
their plan is to just hold on to it for now.
He said their intention is to hold it back for their daughter.
Ms. Thoits asked if there were any other
questions. Mr. Holt asked
to repeat the questions from Mr. Davies about the frontage.
Mr. Bourcier reiterated what he had said before – 200 feet with
the old lot and the balance of about 300 feet would go to the new lot. Mr. Davies asked to indicate where the buildable areas are.
Mr. Bourcier showed him on the plan, showing the larger part in
the front and a small area in the back of the lot.
He said that the 1986 drawing and its contours did not depict the
same type of contouring that they have.
Mr. Davies measured them and said there appears to be
approximately 1 acre of buildable area near the road.
Mr. Bourcier said it was surveyed and it’s actually 1.2 acres
near the road. He said that
the area the surveyor gave him would be 52,740 after the subdivision.
He said that equates to about 1.2 acres.
He said that before the subdivision, it is only 1.4 acres, so the
existing lot would take up .2 acre along the edge of the road and is
encumbered by building setback. Ms.
Thoits asked where the brook is. Mr.
Bourcier showed it to her on the plan.
There were no other questions.
Ms. Thoits said that Mr. Davies will be
taking Mr. Rodgers’ place for this meeting in Mr. Rodgers’ absence.
Ms. Thoits closed the Board meeting and
opened the public hearing asking if there were any abutters who wished
to speak. Susan Olsen, an
abutter, said that they had requested a copy of the application and were
unable to obtain one. Alan
Olsen, an abutter, said that they did not realize that there are two
buildable areas in the proposed new lot.
Mr. Bourcier showed him on the plan where the current house
exists and the two-acre buildable area on the old lot.
He said the other buildable area of the new lot is along Sutton
Road in the northeast corner of the lot.
Mr. Olsen asked what Mr. Bourcier’s plans are for the back of
the lot near their property. He asked if there were plans to build there.
Mr. Bourcier said no. Mr.
Olsen asked if he had a house plan already to be built.
Mr. Bourcier said no. He
gave the Olsens and the Board a copy of a satellite view of the property
from Google Earth with the lot lines superimposed on it.
He showed where the Olsens’ house is and where their house is
on the view and what is the buildable area.
He said that the Olsens’ house is approximately 600 to 650 feet
from their house. He said when the house is built on the new lot, it will be
about 950 to 1000 feet from the Olsens’ house.
Mr. Olsen said their concern was what was going to happen on the
back part of the property. Mr.
Bourcier said the buildable area is in the front and that is the area
that would be for residential zoning.
Mr. Olsen asked if he had plans to sell the lot once it was
subdivided. Mr. Bourcier said that they are hoping to maintain the lot
for their daughter. Mr.
Olsen asked if it could be sold if the variance is approved.
Mr. Bourcier said yes. Mr.
Olsen said then, anything that Mr. Bourcier is talking about here would
be null and void, if someone else bought the lot.
He said they could come in and choose what they wanted to do with
the lot, beyond what Mr. Bourcier’s visions are.
Mr. Bourcier said they would have the ability to do anything they
want with their own property; however, they would have to cross a
substantial wetland to get to the back of the property.
He said that they had crossed the wetland once for their house,
but he said he doesn’t think the State will allow someone to cross it
again. He said he could put
a covenant and easement that says that the buildable area would be in
the front, providing that no one would build in the back, though they
would still have the use of the back.
They could use it as they wish; they could log it or do whatever
they want. He said that the
house lot would be destined for the front.
Mr. Olsen asked if the brook through the property runs all year
round. Mr. Bourcier said
yes. He added that when
they crossed it back in 1995, they crossed it at the minimal point and
that is why the house is on the far south side of the property.
He said they crossed it with a wetland permit that was filed with
the State and approved. He said they wanted to be further from the road and they are
about 250 feet from the road. Mrs.
Olsen said if there were no covenant or easement, they would object.
Ms. Thoits asked if there were other
abutters wishing to speak. There
were none. She asked if
anyone else in the audience wished to speak.
There were none. She
closed the public hearing and re-opened the meeting. Mr. Davies asked what types of covenants
or conditions can be placed on a variance.
Ms. Thoits said that the buildable part is the only buildable
part of the lot. Mr. Davies
said the back corner is the smaller portion of the buildable part.
Ms. Loz asked if a condition could be placed on the use of the
land. Mr. Davies said not
for a variance. Ms. Thoits
said she didn’t know what kind of a covenant could be put on it. She said that Mr. Bourcier still has to go to the Planning
Board for the subdivision. She
said that he’s only asking the Zoning Board for the variance.
She said it is the Planning Board that would do the subdivision
and that would be a Planning Board issue.
Mr. Davies said that is what he thought, but wanted to discuss
it. Ms. Loz asked if the
1.2 buildable acres is just the front corner and not including the back
buildable area. Ms. Thoits
asked Mr. Bourcier if the 1.2 buildable acres is where he plans to put
the house and not in the little piece in the back.
Mr. Bourcier said yes. Ms.
Thoits said that the little piece added makes the total buildable area
larger. Mr. Davies said he thinks that’s the only place it could be
put because of the swamp areas in the lot.
Mr. Holt said he thought the buildable area was 1.6 acres.
Mr. Bourcier said that it’s 1.5 acres total, after some
discussion with Mr. Davies about it. Mr. Holt said that is about a 40% reduction, and Mr. Bourcier
said it is 25%. Mrs. Olsen
asked if there are precise numbers.
She said she’s not clear what variance is being requested –
is it a 40% reduction or a 60% or 50% reduction.
Mr. Bourcier said the surveyor gave him the numbers and the
reduction is 25% from 2 acres down to 1.5 acres.
Mrs. Olsen asked if that included the area in the back.
Mr. Bourcier said yes. Mr.
Davies asked if the large part of the wetlands area in the back is
seasonally wet. Mr.
Bourcier said that it is fairly dry right now, but the brook does run
year round. He said the
wetlands are a flood plain and are wet in the spring and then recede in
the summer. He said
there are many trees there; he said he thought it might be called a red
maple swamp. Mr. Olsen
asked if he could ask questions. Ms.
Thoits explained that the public hearing is over and generally no more
questions from the public are allowed.
Mr. Olsen said more questions have been raised with this
discussion. Ms. Thoits
allowed him to speak. Mr.
Olsen asked if the total buildable area being discussed includes the
front section and the back area. Mr.
Bourcier said yes. Mr.
Olsen asked if these two separate sections are combined together
resulting in an acreage number that he states is buildable, when, in
actuality the two locations are divided by wetland.
Mr. Bourcier said yes. Mr.
Olsen added that his initial problem is that the actual acreage in one
locale is a smaller portion than the total being talked about.
Mr. Bourcier said that the stream has been there since 1991 when
they moved in. He said the
total buildable area in the front originally was only the 1.4 acres and
that’s the way they purchased the property as approved by the Planning
Board. He said that they
chose to build further back from the road and got the required permits.
Mr. Olsen said they had built as far from the road as they could,
too, for privacy issues. Mr.
Bourcier said that by removing the piece for the smaller lot, they are
only taking out .2 acre out of the 1.4 originally allowed area for
building. Mr. Holt said that the 25% reduction is
not a problem for him. He
said that it is his understanding that the wetlands haven’t changed a
lot since 1986. Ms. Thoits
said that you have to feel in your mind that the five questions have
been appropriately answered, that is, that you can answer yes to all
five questions. She asked
if the Board members saw any of the five questions that have not been
passed. Ms. Loz said no,
but the one that stands out most is that an area variance is needed in
order to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given
the special conditions of the property.
Ms. Thoits said that that is what a variance is – that is, due
to the special conditions of the property, a variance is needed to
reasonable use his property and there is no other solution.
Mr. Davies said he thought about this in the same way as a
cluster development, where there are one acre lots in certain districts.
He said here there is about 1.2 acres of buildable land in one
area and then a lot of open area. He
said this is not a cluster development, but he tried to think of how the
land would be used and it seems like a reasonable use.
He said he doesn’t see a reason why someone would build in the
back but that is not Zoning Board’s prerogative to choose.
He asked Mr. Olsen if their house is at the back corner of the
Google Earth view. Mr.
Olsen replied yes. Mr. Barnard MOVED to grant the variance
because there is no other place to build on the property and the
Bourciers have satisfactorily met all five criteria as required.
Mr. Davies seconded. Ms.
Thoits asked if there was further discussion on the motion.
Mr. Davies recommended removing the part that says there is no
other place to build on the property.
Mr. Barnard agreed to the amendment.
The AMENDED motion is to grant the variance because the Bourciers
have satisfactorily met all the five criteria required for the variance.
Mr. Davies seconded the amended motion.
Ms. Thoits called the roll.
Mr. Holt, yes. Mr. Barnard, yes. Mr. Davies, yes. Ms. Loz, yes.
Ms. Thoits, yes. Ms. Thoits reminded Mr. Bourcier that
they must go to the Planning Board for the subdivision approval.
2. AREA VARIANCE Applicant:
Warner Historical Society Property Location:
Upton-Chandler House Museum, 10 West Main Street, Warner, NH, Map
31, Lot 25-1, B-1 zoning district. Proposed Use:
Handicap access ramp to west side door of museum. Variance to Zoning Article
X, Section C.2. Request
variance to setback requirements in order to build a handicap access
ramp. Ms. Thoits said that due to the fact that the Warner Historical
Society is a non-profit organization, they have asked to have the
application fee waived. There
was no discussion. Ms. Loz MOVED that the $100 fee be waived for the Warner Historical
Society. Mr. Holt seconded. The motion was PASSED unanimously. Ms. Thoits announced the fee has been waived and recognized Rebecca
Courser. She said there are
two maps of the building. She
said they are seeking a variance for handicap access on the west side of
the building. She read the
application: A.
No diminution (decrease) in value of surrounding properties will
occur. A
handicap accessible ramp with subsequent landscaping will increase the
value of the Upton-Chandler House Museum and all surrounding properties. B.
Granting the variance will not be contrary to the public
interest. The
public interest will be better served by having a handicap accessible
ramp and entrance to the Museum, providing guests who are unable to
climb stairs with an alternate entrance.
The Museum will also be in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, providing handicap access to a public
building. C.
Denial of the variance would impose unnecessary hardship upon the
applicant. Applicant’s
criteria for demonstrating hardship for an Area/Dimensional Variance are
as follows: a.
An Area/Dimensional Variance is needed to enable the
applicant’s proposed use of the property given special conditions of
the property.
An area variance is requested for a handicap accessible ramp and
entrance at the westerly doorway of the Museum because:
a) the 15 foot setback required by law would be lessened by the
building of a handicap accessible ramp; b) the Warner Historical Society
does not own enough land at the easterly doorway entrance to build a
handicap accessible ramp; c) the front door entrance would not allow
wheelchair access through the two doorways immediately off the front
hallway; d) therefore, the new and wider westerly exterior doorway that
leads into wider, interior doorways is the only location for the
construction of a handicap accessible ramp.
The westerly exterior doorway provides direct and wheelchair
accessible access to the first floor rooms and bathroom. b. The
benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method
reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an Area
Variance.
The Warner Historical
Society would not be able to provide handicap access to the
Upton-Chandler House Museum without the area variance for the setback on
the westerly side of the Museum. D.
By granting the variance, substantial justice will be done. This
area variance of the 15 foot setback would allow for the construction of
a ramp and provide handicap access to the Museum. E.
Granting the variance will not be contrary to the spirit of the
Ordinance. The
Upton-Chandler House Museum and Harry’s Garage are located on two lots
with a distance of 16 feet and 6 inches between the buildings at the
westerly entrance of the Museum. In
2002 the Society removed part of the ell that was attached to the west
side of the house where the proposed handicapped ramp would be located.
This ell was closer to the property line than the proposed ramp
would be. We believe that
the ramp could be “grandfathered,” as the original structure
occupied the space we are using for the ramp.
The only “new” structure we will be adding is the ramp
itself, not the landing and steps.
Because of the close proximity of the buildings and the need for
a handicap accessible ramp, the Warner Historical Society believes that,
with additional landscaping around that area and the front yard, the
Museum’s exterior appearance will be greatly improved and have a
positive effect on surrounding buildings and Warner’s Main Street.
At the same time, the provision of a handicap accessible ramp
will support the goals of community improvement and access to public
buildings. Therefore, the
Warner Historical Society does not believe that the area variance will
be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. She explained that one map shows the outline of the building that was
done when the building was acquired and indicated the part of the ell
that was removed in 2002. She
said a portion of the ell was left that juts out from the house by about
6 feet. She said the ell had contained a bathroom and kitchen and was
in bad shape, so they decided to remove about 2/3 of that ell.
She then referred to the other map.
On the westerly entrance, the walkway from the front would lead
to the ramp going up, shown by the lines going back and forth, with a
deck at the top to accommodate a wheelchair and access the building.
She said that not only is there not enough property on the
easterly side to have a ramp, but the door on that side opens directly
to a wall; also, on the front of the house, the door opens right into a
wall. So, there is not
enough room to maneuver a wheelchair in those areas.
She said that is why they are requesting the westerly entrance.
Mr. Barnard asked if the doorway is 3 feet wide where the ramp is
proposed. Ms. Courser said
yes. Mr. Barnard asked
where the swing to the door is. Ms.
Courser said it is to the left. Mr.
Davies asked about the type of construction to be used and if there are
any railings. George
Pellettieri said he had done the design work and the landscape plan.
He said they were considering using granite and may still use it
if they can provide adequate weatherproofing against the building to
prevent moisture from gathering. He
said if that is not possible, they would use pressure-treated wood frame
made out of fir or other type of material.
He said the landing itself and the small step on the back side
are fully within the area that was originally occupied by the old ell.
He said the only addition that is being added is the ramp in the
front. Mr. Davies asked how
high it is off the ground. Mr.
Pellettieri said about 18 inches. Ms.
Courser added that she had spoken to Harry and he said he had no problem
with it being on his side. Mr.
Pellettieri said that with the removal of most of the ell, the structure
is less non-conforming with the regulations than it was with the ell. He
said there is no other way to get into the building and provide access
without creating a whole new entrance.
Ms. Thoits asked if there were any other questions.
Mr. Davies and Ms. Loz said it seemed fairly straightforward. Ms. Thoits closed the meeting and opened the public hearing. She asked if there were any abutters who wished to speak.
Michelle Smith said they are owners of the property on the east
side of the building. She
said on the plan (which they did not receive with their certified
letter) they noticed the hard pack driveway.
Ms. Courser said the plan was already implemented and they had
talked with Ms. Smith’s father, Tom, and the hard pack is already
there. She said he had
given permission to do that. Ms.
Smith asked if there was anything else that they plan to do on the east
side. Ms. Courser said not as far as the driveway is concerned.
She added that they keep it plowed in the winter.
Ms. Thoits asked if there were any other abutters wishing to
speak. There were none.
Ms. Thoits asked if there were any people in the audience wishing
to speak. There were none. She closed the public hearing and re-opened the
meeting. Ms. Thoits asked if there was anymore discussion.
Mr. Barnard asked if the ramp will comply with the ADA with its
elevation, etc. Ms. Courser
said yes. Mr. Davies said
there are provisions in the RSAs to put a time limit on handicap access
type items and he wondered if there is a reason to put a limit so that
when the owner changes, that the variance would disappear at that point.
He said he saw no need for it, but wanted to put it up for
discussion. Ms. Thoits
asked for clarification. Mr.
Davies said that usually when there is a variance granted, there is no
condition unless there is some logical reason for that condition.
He continued to say that it is in the RSAs that if there is a
handicap access, the Zoning Board could put a restriction on the
variance that would terminate that variance when the land changes hands
in the future. He said he
thought the land probably will not change hands for quite a while.
He further explained that if it were sold and the condition were
put on the variance, then the ramp would not be in compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance. He said
that he saw no reason to put the condition on because this is an area
where you would typically have a walkway access anyway.
He said he does not think it’s obtrusive, so he would not
support adding the condition. Ms.
Thoits said she saw no need for the condition.
There was no other discussion on the point. Mr. Holt MOVED to approve the Warner Historical Society’s request
for an area variance for the purpose of installing a handicap accessible
ramp to the west side door of the Upton-Chandler House because they have
met the five criteria required. Ms.
Loz seconded. There was no
further discussion. Ms.
Thoits called the roll. Mr.
Loz, yes. Mr. Davies, yes. Mr. Barnard, yes.
Mr. Holt, yes. Ms. Thoits, yes.
The motion PASSED. Ms. Thoits said the variance has been approved.
3.
USE VARIANCE Applicant:
Norman E. Carlson, Madgetech Property Location: 201
Route 103 West, Warner, NH, Map 37, Lot 1, R-2 zoning district Proposed Use:
Light Industrial – electronics assembly and machine shop Variance to Zoning
Article VI, Section A. Request
variance to bring operations of business into compliance. Ms. Thoits recognized Norman Carlson of Madgetech who is asking for a
variance to bring the operations of his business into compliance. Mr. Carlson said it all started about six weeks ago when they
had received a large order from some large companies. He said to fill the orders he did not have the needed
capacity to build the parts. He
said he thought it was an emergency and approached the Selectmen saying
he needed another machine to produce the products.
They said yes with the stipulation that he could build a
container to house the machine and he had to go to the Planning Board to
be sure it was okay with them. He
said he appeared before the Planning Board and they agreed to waive the
site plan. He said he then
built the container. When
it was nearly done, the building inspector, in his review, discovered
that Madgetech was in violation of the Zoning laws of Warner.
He said they have been doing manufacturing for seven years and he
said he should have realized, but did not, that it was in violation of
the special exception initially granted.
He said he has applied for a variance and in doing so has caused
a lot of headaches and heartaches for the people in the town, some of
which he said he takes very personally. He said that some of the comments that have been made are
nasty and unwarranted because he has always opened his business to the
community. He said he has
always invited people to come over.
He said when he set the machine shop four years ago, he invited
George Packard, one of the abutters, to come see it and he said, “Wow,
this is neat.” He said he
has always invited anyone who would take the time to come in and see the
company. He said he was always very proud of it. He said it was founded by people in Warner.
He said they decided to try to have all the work done by the
people in Warner, by people who had grown up in Warner.
He said he grew up in Warner.
He added that he thinks they are the best company that the town
has ever seen in the way they operate. He said that he wants to withdraw the request for a variance and he
is going to move the company out of Warner, and probably immediately. He said he’s not sure how long it will take, but he will do
it as fast as he can beginning tomorrow morning.
He said he thinks that they will continue doing a little of what
they’ve been doing for the last 7 or 8 years, but he said he will move
out as fast as he can. He said he, therefore, withdraws his request for
a variance. Ms. Thoits asked Richard Cook if it then becomes a Selectmen’s
decision to allow Mr. Carlson to continue until he can move out.
She said that he’s said he will get out as quickly as he can,
but, obviously, he’s going to have to be allowed time to do this.
She said it cannot be done overnight.
Mr. Cook said he cannot speak for the Board of Selectmen, but he
suggested that Mr. Carlson submit something to the Selectmen requesting
the time to move, knowing that it’s in violation of the Zoning at this
point, but his hope is to get out of violation as quickly as possible
and move. Mr. Carlson said
he honestly did not know he was in violation and said that he should
have known. He said that
these were personal and unwarranted comments and he resents it.
He said he’d heard from a number of people and he said he is
ready to close tomorrow if he is told he can’t operate anymore.
He said he will begin the process tomorrow.
Mr. Cook said to present that information to the Board of
Selectmen on Tuesday night, June 10th, and either come or
submit something in writing stating what he has just stated to the
Zoning Board. Ms. Thoits asked if the Board members had anything to say. Mr. Davies said that if it’s been withdrawn, then there is
nothing further to discuss. Ms.
Thoits said if he has withdrawn his application, then there is nothing
to act on. She said she
believes his next recourse is with the Selectmen because he’s not
asking for a variance, so the Zoning Board cannot give him permission to
work. Ms. Thoits said she
didn’t think the Selectmen were going to act before Tuesday.
Mr. Cook agreed that he didn’t expect the Town to be there in
the morning to shut down the business.
He added that with the steps that Mr. Carlson has taken, all the
abutters would be understanding that he is trying to rectify the
situation as quickly as he can. Mr. Carlson said that he resents the approach that people took who
haven’t grown up in this town. He
said he grew up in this town with a certain set of values and caused
Madgetech to be different from any other company, to be successful, to
have the best health care for all of its employees.
He said they have retirement plans; they have profit sharing.
He said they produce parts for companies all over the world. He
said they produce parts for NASA. And,
he continued, it’s all done by people in this town. So, he said, he resents people who haven’t grown up in this
town, coming in and saying these things.
He said he resented a comment made the other day by Paul Proulx
that he had sold his soul to the devil.
He said that he hadn’t and he can’t expect a person who can
say that to a crowd, having never met me before.
He said that he went to talk with Mr. Proulx for an hour and
worked it out. However, he said, in general, there should be a nicer way of
handling things, particularly when everybody who knows him, knows how
hard he’s worked to make the company successful for the town, for the
people who work there, and for everybody.
Ms. Thoits said that generally comments don’t need to be taken from
the audience at the meeting, but she said she thinks this is an unusual
thing. She said she did not
want it to become a name-calling kind of thing.
She recognized George Packard.
Mr. Packard said if there’s any name-calling going on against
Mr. Carlson or his company, he would be the first to get up and silence
whoever is doing it. He
said he has a deep appreciation for Mr. Carlson and what he has done for
the town and for his people. He
said this situation became extraordinarily complicated and blew up in
ways that he could not manage or figure out how to manage.
He said that in a letter that the abutters had sent to the
Selectmen, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board and Laura Buono, they
said some tough things about how they did not want any company in that
property to be able to have a light industrial variance.
He said that they had said very clearly that they would like the
Zoning Board to establish an agreement that would allow Mr. Carlson and
his company to have a grace period to continue his operations as he’s
doing now so the move can be successful and accomplished with no harm to
the company. He said that
they stand by that and ask strongly that the Board of Selectmen, if they
are the ones to grant a grace period, to allow Madgetech to do that and
in no way create any adverse situation to harm Mr. Carlson, Madgetech or
his employees. Ms. Thoits recognized Paul Proulx.
Mr. Proulx said that since Mr. Carlson had identified him as the
person making the comment, he said he did make the comment.
He said he did not personally address it to Mr. Carlson. He said he was sorry if Mr. Carlson had misinterpreted it.
He said that his comment was, “A lot of people make
applications and sell their soul to the devil to get what they want.”
He said he considered that to be a generalization.
He said his recollection is that he did not say that personally
to Mr. Carlson, and if he feels that way, then he said he apologizes.
Mr. Carlson said that it was not made to him, but to a group of
people. Mr. Proulx said he
said, in generalization to the Board, that some people would do that,
and, he said, if Mr. Carlson believes that it was pointed at him, he
said he publicly apologizes. He
added that they had had a great conversation and he thinks that the
business is one of the best in the Town of Warner.
He said that he thinks that what Mr. Carlson has agreed to do is
something that is probably great for everybody.
He said that Warner does not need to lose that kind of business,
however, what he and Mr. Carlson discussed, their feeling was that it
just does not belong in a residential area anymore. He said that
hopefully the company will grow even more.
Again, he apologized to Mr. Carlson if he felt that way.
Mr. Carlson said he accepted the apology.
He said he’s known for a long time that Madgetech cannot stay
in what is a residential area. He
said that he did not plan on the company being as successful as it was.
He said he still has not put a sign out because he wasn’t sure
if it would take off. He
listed a number of large companies from which he has contracts.
He said that these are the types of companies that if they
don’t get their stuff on time, there are penalties and credibility
issues. So, he said, he
treated it as an emergency, as if when Cricenti’s burned, we started
selling food in the Town Hall. He
said when Warner Power burned, we started operating in Cricenti’s very
quickly. He said that is
how he treated it in his mind. He said he thought he was taking the right route through the
Selectmen. He said he
didn’t mean to not hear everybody.
Ms. Thoits said that Warner needs Madgetech, so hopefully, the
Selectmen will come to an agreement.
Mr. Davies said this is a unique situation and there is a process
for any situation to go through to work something out.
He said you have a group of people here and a group of people in
the Selectmen’s Office and the Planning Office, who, if the process is
allowed to go through, they work the way out.
4.
MINUTES Ms. Thoits asked for discussion on the May 14, 2008 minutes. There was a short discussion, but no additions or
corrections. Mr. Holt MOVED to accept the minutes of May 14, 2008 as written.
Mr. Davies seconded. The
motion was PASSED unanimously. There was no further business to discuss. Mr. Barnard MOVED to adjourn. Ms.
Loz seconded. The motion
PASSED unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
|