|
Zoning Board of Adjustment Warner, NH Meeting Minutes of Members Present: Martha
Thoits, Chair, Dennis Barnard, Vice Chair, Eric Rodgers, Janice Loz, and
Alternate Gordon Nolen. (Jean
Lightfoot recording) Excused:
Member Mike Holt and Alternates Rick Davies and Ted Young Not present: None Ms. Thoits opened the meeting at 1.
CASE #06-08 USE VARIANCE a.
Applicant: Debra
(Baslow/Simon) Haywood b.
Property Location: 549
Route 103 East, Warner, NH, Map 28, c.
Proposed Use: Change usage of hair salon to extra living
quarters. Everything is already there for living space and there are
sisters in the doublewide with 2 children and spouses. Request Variance to terms
of Article IV.L. of the Warner Zoning Ordinance relative to the
allowance of only one permanent structure containing residences per lot.
a. Review Application – Accept/Reject/Continue
b. Public Hearing
c. Action Taken – Approve/Disapprove/Continue Ms. Thoits recognized Debra Haywood and asked her to present the
variance application. She
said that she would like extra living space for the people who are
living at the double-wide. Ms.
Thoits asked her to read the answers to the questions on the
application. Ms. Haywood
read as follows: A. No diminution
(decrease) in value of surrounding properties will occur.
Increase in value. B. Granting the variance
will not be contrary to the public interest.
Not contrary to public
interest. C.
Denial of the variance would impose unnecessary hardship on the
applicant. Applicant’s
criteria for demonstrating hardship for a Use Variance are as follows: a.
The Zoning restriction as applied interferes with a landowner’s
reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the
property in its environment.
Denial of this variance
would impose undue hardship to the landowner.
This set-up is already in existence and as the owner of this
property this would be very useful for family and friends. b.
No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the specific restriction on the
property.
This is a true statement. c.
Granting the Variance would not injure the public or private
rights of others.
No.
Granting variance would not injure public or private rights. D. By granting the
variance, substantial justice will be done.
Absolutely.
I will be able to make full use of my space. E.
Granting the variance will not be contrary to the spirit of the
Ordinance.
Absolutely not. Ms. Haywood added that because the space is there and it can be used,
even though it’s not connected, not allowing somebody to not use that
space seems to be an inadequate usage of the space.
She said it is set up for and was used as a beauty salon.
She said there wasn’t enough business to keep it running so it
was closed. She said the way
it is set up now works perfectly for family and friends to be able to
use it. Ms. Thoits asked for questions from the Board.
Mr. Rodgers asked where the house is.
Ms. Haywood said it’s across the street from the Bocces’.
She said that all the requirements for a living space are already
there because the water and septic was already there for the beauty
salon. Mr. Rodgers said,
then, that Ms. Haywood wants to change the use to a residence from the
hair salon. Ms. Haywood said
yes. Mr. Rodgers asked if
there is a kitchen. Ms.
Haywood said yes. Mr.
Rodgers then said that makes two dwellings on one lot.
Ms. Thoits said that is why she is here for the variance.
Mr. Nolen asked who uses the separate building.
Ms. Haywood said her daughter and her boyfriend.
She said that one daughter lives in the doublewide with her
husband and two children and the other daughter would live in the
separate building with her boyfriend.
Mr. Nolen asked if Ms. Haywood would be living there.
Ms. Haywood replied no, she lives at 352 Route 103 and the
property is at 549 Route 103. There
was further discussion about the location of the property.
Mr. Rodgers asked if there is anyway to connect the two buildings
inexpensively. Ms. Haywood
said she had thought about it, but there is no way without
reconstructing where the doublewide is and then having to go in through
either one of the bedrooms or the bathroom.
She said the other alternative was a deck on the back which would
be like a covered bridge and would use up a lot of the back yard.
Mr. Nolen asked if anything was to change in the structures.
Ms. Haywood said no, only the use. Mr. Rodgers said that the problem is that historically, the town
wants to keep one dwelling per lot because if you start getting more
than one dwelling on a lot, and you sell it and someone else buys it,
then it becomes two, three, or four rental properties on one lot.
He said that causes loss of value to everyone else in the
neighborhood. Ms. Thoits
agreed that it does diminish the value.
Mr. Rodgers said that he has a similar situation with a small
house in the back that he had wanted to convert for his mother and he
was told no, not unless they’re connected.
Ms. Thoits said that if it’s connected, then it becomes a
mother-in-law apartment which is allowed.
Mr. Rodger said that the connection doesn’t have to be
insulated. Mr. Barnard said
it could be just an open walkway with a roof over it, connecting the two
buildings. Ms. Haywood asked
if it actually has to be part of the other building.
Mr. Rodgers said no, a front porch could be extended to connect
the two buildings, and then it would be connected.
He said that way you don’t have to cut a hole in the wall.
Mr. Barnard said that it looks like the two buildings are
relatively close together so it would seem you could connect those.
Ms. Thoits agreed that it could be a porch, which would have to
have a roof that is connected, and that would connect the two
structures. She asked if a
deck with a roof could be constructed that went from the door of the
beauty shop that went to the door of the house.
She said it would be more like a porch because it has a roof.
Ms. Haywood said she wondered if she is far enough away from
Route 103 to do that. Mr.
Rodgers said that he thinks that if she came to the Zoning Board and
said that she wanted to spend, say, $3000 to connect the two buildings
with a deck, but that she needs a 10-foot variance on the setback from
the road, more than likely she might get it every time.
Ms. Thoits said she would come nearer getting the setback
variance than the use variance she is currently requesting.
Mr. Rodgers reiterated that he did not guarantee that a variance
would be granted, but that more than likely it would be granted.
Ms. Thoits agreed. Mr.
Barnard said there is a better chance of getting that variance for the
setback than for the two dwellings on one lot. Ms. Thoits explained that the Zoning Board members need to believe
that all the criteria were met to allow a variance.
She said that she cannot honestly say that it is not contrary to
the spirit of the Ordinance. She
said that the spirit of the Ordinance is trying to keep only one
residence on a lot, no matter how large the lot is.
Ms. Haywood said that she had suggested it because it was already
a structure that was in existence and it was already being used on the
property. Ms. Thoits said
she understands, but it was not a sleeping quarters before.
Mr. Rodgers said that if the kitchen weren’t there, it would
not be a house, by definition. Ms.
Loz and Ms. Thoits said they were not sure that he was right.
Ms. Thoits said that Ms. Haywood may sell the property and then
the new people may think they have a rental property.
Ms. Haywood asked if it is family, does it matter.
Ms. Thoits said you cannot have two residences on one piece of
property and that is in the Zoning Ordinance.
She added that to her, granting this variance does go against the
spirit of the Ordinance. She
said that Ms. Haywood can promise that she won’t rent it, but there is
no assurance if it is sold, then the next person would want to rent it.
Mr. Rodgers said this is a precedent setting situation where if
Ms. Haywood is allowed to do it, then everybody else in town who has
wanted to do the same thing in the last ten years will be here asking
why it was allowed. Mr.
Barnard said that there have been many that were turned down.
Ms. Loz said that this situation is no different from anyone
else’s situation. Ms.
Thoits said there were people with family who were turned down, as well.
Ms. Haywood asked if she needed to go to the Planning Board to
build a connector. Mr.
Rodgers said he thought she only needed to go to the Selectmen for a
building permit. He said
that they may ask her to go the Planning Board, but he doubted it.
Ms. Thoits said that they and the Building Inspector will insist
that the setbacks are met. Mr.
Barnard said they will want to see a little drawing of what you have
planned and what the setbacks are. Mr.
Rodgers said that if Ms. Haywood cannot meet the setbacks and before she
spends any money on materials, then she should come back to the Zoning
Board for the variance on the setbacks.
Ms. Thoits agreed that if the setbacks aren’t met, then she
will need to come back for a variance.
Ms. Thoits said that the setback requirement is 40 feet from the
edge of the road. She told
her to do the drawing, take it to the Selectmen and the Building
Inspector will look at it. Mr.
Rodgers said by doing this, Ms. Haywood is improving the property and
increasing the overall square footage of the one dwelling, which
increases the value of her land and increases the value of those
properties around it. Ms. Thoits asked if there were any other questions.
There were none. She
then closed the meeting and opened the public hearing.
There was no public comment.
She read a letter that was received:
“To the Town of
“I do approve of Debra Haywood making her hair salon into a
living quarters.
“Diane L. (Buskey) Surrette /s/
“573 Route 103 East
“Warner, NH 03278” Ms. Thoits closed the public hearing and re-opened the meeting.
Mr. Rodgers MOVED to deny the variance based on potential future
loss of equity in surrounding properties and it is contrary to the
spirit of the Ordinance.” Ms.
Loz seconded. There was no
discussion. The vote was
taken. A yes vote would deny
the variance. Mr. Rodgers,
yes; Mr. Nolen, yes; Mr. Barnard, yes; Ms. Loz, yes; Ms. Thoits, yes.
The motion was PASSED and the variance was denied.
Ms. Thoits advised Ms. Haywood to go to the Selectmen for a building
permit to connect the two buildings with something with a roof.
Mr. Barnard said that it has to have a roof that connects from
roof to roof. Ms. Haywood
thanked the Board and left. 2.
MINUTES Mr. Rodgers, Mr. Nolen and Mr. Barnard said they were not at the 3.
COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS The Board discussed the new Right-to-Know law in e-mails and other
communications. It was
agreed that the Board rarely e-mails each other, but that if there were
e-mails relating to matters before the board, they will copy the Zoning
Board office to be saved and printed for the files for the public
record. Ms. Thoits said that
they know not to discuss matters before the Board in private, and do not
do it, let alone in e-mails. But,
it is a good reminder that whatever is talked about has to be open to
the public. Ms. Loz said
that the only e-mails she remembers relate to confirmation of meetings.
Ms. Lightfoot said that that is exempt since it is procedural.
Ms. Thoits said that the only one she has received e-mail from is
Rick Davies, who e-mails everyone when he does, including the Zoning
Board office. Ms. Loz asked
if there are questions and they want to come in to get information from
the files, is that all right. Ms.
Lightfoot said yes, it is public information.
There was discussion about whether a board member could go on to
someone’s property. Ms.
Loz said the question is whether we could walk on the property.
Ms. Thoits said that Mr. Herrick from last month will be on the
agenda for next month and someone had asked if he could go and look at
the property. Mr. Rodgers
said that he thinks there should be notification for a site review and
they can say yes or no. Ms.
Thoits agreed, but said it would be as a group to look at the property.
She said that the question was whether one person could
individually go and look at the property.
Mr. Barnard said that he didn’t think you could legally walk on
someone’s property without asking permission.
Ms. Loz said that the decision was that, even with permission, an
individual member should not walk on someone’s property.
She said that it was agreed that usually we would arrange for a
site walk and all go together and it is open to the public.
4.
ADJOURN Mr. Rodger MOVED to adjourn. Mr.
Nolen seconded. The motion
was PASSED unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
|