|
Zoning Board of Adjustment Warner, NH Meeting Minutes of August 8, 2007 Members Present: Martha Thoits, Chairperson, Dennis
Barnard, Martha Mical, vice chair, alternate Rick Davies, alternate Mike
Holt, Eric Rodgers, alternate Janice Loz and Deborah Freeman, recording. Not present: Joanne Hinnendael and alternate Ted
Young. Chair Thoits opened the meeting at 7:00 pm.
Roll call was taken. Chair opened the public hearing on the Kramer / Robinson special exception. Case 10-07: Special Exception – Kramer /
Robinson Applicant: Gabe and Jill Robinson, 1201 Hall St., Manchester, NH 03104, represented by Ian McSweeney of Stonewall Consulting Group Property Owner: Jeffrey & Katrina Kramer Location: 50 East Joppa Road, 2 acres on Map 6-Lot 42 in R-3 low density residential zoning district Proposed Use: Convert a barn to an in-law apartment Special Exception under
Ordinance table 1, section 2 Robinson’s paid the invoice for the legal notice.
All abutters were notified via certified return receipt mail and
a legal notice was run in the Concord Monitor. Mr. McSweeney speaking on behalf of the property owner and applicant. The Robinson’s are under contract to purchase this property from the Kramers. The Kramers are applying for a special exception to retrofit an existing detached barn into an in-law apartment for Gabe’s mother. She will be the sole occupant. There will be no change of footprint to the existing barn, with minor changes to the exterior appearance of the barn. A. The
use requested is identified in the ordinance as one which may be
approved by the board in the district for which the application is made.
Table 1, Use Regulations,
in the Zoning ordinance allows the proposed use in districts R-1 and R-2
and in R-3 by special exception which is why we are here. B. The
requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or
welfare. The
proposed retrofit will increase the assessed value of the property and
therefore the taxes paid to the town, with little increase in demand for
town services and no additional burden to the schools.
In addition, this retrofit will create housing without causing
additional buildings to be constructed or land developed and allow the
neighborhood to retain its rural character.
Should Gabe’s mother vacate the apartment the Robinsons would
only use it for other immediate family members.
McSweeney added they would be happy to have any restrictions
placed by the board on that nature. C. The
requested use will not impair the integrity or character of the district
or adjoining districts, nor be detrimental to the health, morals or
welfare. The retrofit will cause
only minor changes to the exterior appearance of the existing barn and
will not cause any change to the character of the district nor diminish
the value of neighboring properties.
The current septic system would be upgraded from the now outdated
3 bedroom 1,000 gallon tank and leach field to a State approved 4
bedroom septic 1500 gallon tank and leach field.
Bringing the septic system up to current standards will help to
ensure maximum protection for wildlife and the wetlands of the 12 acre
pond located 250-300 feet from the property. Board: How far the property is located from the
nearest house? Response, @
400’. The lot is
triangular shaped with a wide portion as frontage.
Proposed floor plan was reviewed.
Visually the exterior of the barn will not change.
No parking upgrade is proposed, the parking available in the
driveway is adequate. This
property does have an easement to a property across the road which can
accommodate two parking spaces if needed.
If attached, this property would still require a special
exception due to the fact it is in R-3 zoning.
Two dwellings on the same lot is not allowed in the towns zoning
ordinances. Board member
clarified, if there were no kitchen or cooking facilities in the
proposed unit, the Robinson’s could in fact go ahead and apply for a
building permit to put in a bedroom and bath – Board concurred that a
bedroom and bath or other finished living area would be permitted
without a special exception. McSweeney
stated there is a potential to connect the two buildings, there is
12’4” between the two buildings.
Board member observed there is a spiral staircase in a unit
proposed for an elderly person, with the bathroom down stairs and the
bedroom upstairs. There are
2 exits. The proposed unit
is 18’ x 32’. Chair opened the public hearing - Abutters to speak
first. Gary Jacques stated his home is directly behind the
Kramers, approximately the same distance from the pond, 200 – 250’.
First concern is does the special exception go with the property if it
changes hands? Board
responded, yes – a special exception goes with the property.
Second, Mr. Jacques expressed concern that recently the zoning
went to 3 acres per unit and this proposal is for 2 units on 2 acres –
concerned regarding the precedent being set to allow 1 unit per acre.
Margi Jacques restated and affirmed concerns expressed by Gary
Jacques. Ms. Jacques added her concern that additional garages or
outbuildings may be required for additional units, destroying the rural
character of the property. Board
confirmed as long as setbacks are being met the property owner may apply
for a building permit to build garage(s).
Ms. Jacques inquired if the property can be restricted to housing
just relatives? Board
responded, the zoning board can put conditions on a decision. Mr. Kramer, property owner, suggested a stipulation
not allowing the second unit to be leased. Fran Brown suggested the unit be considered a guest
cottage or guest quarters. Board
responded that current zoning ordinance does not make the distinction
between guest quarters and second dwelling unit Chair pointed out the zoning is very clear on not
allowing two residences on one property.
The board could ask the buildings to be joined to allow the
property owner to request a special exception to put a second unit in
one residence. Board could
put the stipulation that it could only be used for guests, allowing only
family - monitoring who resides on the property or if it is rented is
not something the Zoning Board wishes to do.
Mr. McSweeney suggested that a restriction of family members only
could be recorded with the deed to ensure all future transfers are aware
of the stipulation. Hearing no additional speakers the Chair closed the
public hearing and reopened the board meeting. Rodgers stated he is opposed to this special
exception based on the possibility of resale and having a rental unit in
that neighborhood. Abutters
and neighbors don’t want it. Additional
living space without the kitchen would not raise an issue. Davies clarified if this were new construction to
be a two family it would be required to have 1 ½ times the buildable
area – 4 ½ acres (R-3 requires 3 acres for one residence).
Chair clarified this does not apply for an existing building.
Referencing the “no additional burden to the schools” stated
in the application, the special exception goes with the property; there
is the potential for future burden on the schools. Rodgers made a MOTION to deny the special exception
based on two dwellings on a small lot in an R-3 zoning district is not
desirable to public welfare, will impair the integrity and character of
the neighboring properties, it is essentially an additional rental unit
and is not in the spirit of the ordinance. Chair asked Mike Holt to vote for Joanne Hinnendael. Martha Mical seconded the MOTION. Chair Thoits called for a vote. A yes vote will deny the request for special exception; a no
vote will approve the exception. Rodgers
– yes, Mical – yes, Holt – yes, Barnard – yes, Thoits – yes.
The special exception is unanimously denied.
The applicant has 30 days to appeal.
A notice of decision will be mailed. Court Remand Chair apologized to attorneys present expecting the
board to deliberate regarding a court remand in the matter of Warner
Citizens for Smart Growth v. the Town of Warner.
The Board requests permission from the attorneys present to
postpone deliberations and put on the next meetings agenda.
Attorney Hogan stated he has no objection to the board
deliberating this evening even though it is not on the agenda.
Attorney Hogan acknowledged that he just learned that the board
received his correspondence on this issue just this evening, and has no
objection to the board proceeding.
Attorney Bassett stated he waive any objection to the fact that
notice was not posting, believing notice is not required and further
stated he has no objection to the board proceeding. Chair stated the next item on the agenda is the
court remand relative to the hotel decision – Citizens for Smart
Growth v. the Town of Warner. Mr. Davies and Ms. Loz volunteered to recuse
themselves and removed themselves from the table. Ms. Mical suggested the board take the time to
review the documents received and deliberate at the next meeting.
Other board members concurred.
Ms. Mical made a MOTION to continue deliberations at the
September meeting clarifying that there is no time limit on the remand
(confirmed by town counsel there is no time limit).
Seconded by Mr. Holt. Mr.
Rodgers abstained. MOTION
unanimously approved (4:0). Chair clarified the next board meeting is scheduled
for Wednesday, September 12th, this item will be a
deliberation of the board – there will be no public input at that
time. Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2007 Mr. Rodgers made a MOTION to accept the June 13,
2007 minutes as drafted. Seconded
by Ms. Mical and unanimously approved. July 11, 2007 meeting minutes Mr. Davies suggested on page 4 at the bottom be
reworded to replace “litigant” with “previously a member of
organization that appealed the ZBA decision”.
Mr. Rodgers abstained. MOTION
seconded by Ms. Mical; MOTION passed unanimously (4:0). Miscellaneous Correspondence Board briefly discussed an article in Town &
City, published by the Local Government Center, on the role of
Zoning Board alternates. This
board encourages alternates to attend meetings to stay informed and
participate even if they are not chosen as a voting alternate at that
meeting. Mr. Rodgers made a MOTION to adjourn, seconded by
Ms. Mical – meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deborah McGlew-Freeman
|