|
Zoning Board of Adjustment Warner, NH Meeting Minutes of Members Present: Martha
Thoits, Chair, Dennis Barnard, Vice Chair, Mike Holt, Eric Rodgers, and
Alternates Gordon Nolen and Rick Davies. (Jean
Lightfoot recording) Excused:
None Not present: Member
Janice Loz and Alternate Ted Young Ms. Thoits opened the meeting at 1.
CONCEPTUAL CONSULTATION a.
Applicant: Al
and Maryann Plass b.
Property Location: c.
Proposal to subdivide.
They want to present several conceptual plans, some of which
would require an area variance. Ms. Thoits recognized Al and Maryann
Plass. Ms. Plass said that
they had bought the property a couple of months ago and have thought of
various ideas to utilize it. She
said that they would like to stick within Warner’s plan.
She said they want to do something that would not upset the
neighbors. She said that
they employed Lake Sunapee Survey to give them a few ideas as to what
could be done with the property. She
said they will do minor renovations to the house.
She said their first plan has four lots, one for the house, and
three others. She said that
since Warner has a 100 foot frontage requirement, and they have 409 feet
of road frontage, the problem is that the house sits in the middle of
the second 100 feet of road frontage.
Because of this, she said that in order to get 4 lots, Lake
Sunapee Survey suggested that the house lot be carved out leaving the
second lot with two 50-feet frontages on either side.
She said this is not contiguous, so a variance would be needed
for this plan and asked if a variance for this would be supported.
Secondly, she said, the second driveway enters in lot 4 and could
be used to enter lot 4 and lot 2, as well, so the road would not have to
be changed. Mr. Rodgers
asked if the driveway currently exists.
Ms. Plass said yes, it is a circular driveway.
She asked if the board has any recommendations about this plan.
Ms. Thoits asked how to get into lot 1.
Ms. Plass said that that would need a driveway.
Mr. Plass said that as far as water and sewer is concerned, there
is already access in that lot. Ms.
Plass said that Lake Sunapee Survey told them that the State does not
allow every ten feet to have a driveway and they would be allowed to get
one more driveway. Mr.
Rodgers asked if lot 2 is a non-conforming lot.
Ms. Thoits said there are other lots in town where the frontage
is split like that, so long as they have the hundred feet.
Ms. Plass said that the ordinance does say “contiguous.”
Ms. Thoits said that they would then have to have a variance for
that plan for the frontage. Ms.
Plass asked if because there are other lots in town that have that
situation it is possible that they would get the variance.
Ms. Thoits said it is possible and she thinks that the people
came for a variance when they did it.
Mr. Nolen asked if there is town water and sewer for the whole
area. Ms. Plass said yes.
Mr. Holt asked if lots 2 and 4 would share a common driveway.
Ms. Plass said yes, it is a circular driveway.
Ms. Thoits said that the driveway does affect 3 lots, but she
would expect that they would close off the one by the current house.
Ms. Plass said yes. She
said that the only way into lot 2 would be by way of a right-of-way
through lot 4. Mr. Holt
asked what the acreage footprint would be on lot 3.
Ms. Plass said she believes it is about ¾ acre.
Mr. Plass said it is six acres total and it could be pushed back
some, as well. Ms. Plass
said they are trying to be more generous with each lot so they are more
than ½ acre. Mr. Rodgers
asked if there are three lots of record there right now.
Ms. Plass said no. Mr.
Plass said that the surveyor said that there might have been three, but
it looked like there were only two at some point, but not now.
Ms. Thoits asked Mr. Rodgers why he thought there were three
lots. Mr. Rodgers replied
that that is how it was advertised.
Mr. Plass said that he thought it said it was subdividable.
Mr. Davies asked if they had been to the
Planning Board for a conceptual consultation.
Ms. Plass said no. Mr.
Davies said there are some site plan regulations and procedures and
guidelines for certain situations. He
said that perhaps some of these unique situations might be either talked
about or frowned upon in the regulations.
He said it might be worthwhile to go to the Planning Board for a
consultation because they would have to go through the subdivision
process. He said that they
might find some way to resolve the subdivision without having to have
any exceptions through the Zoning Board.
Ms. Plass said they knew they had to go to the Planning Board but
thought they would start with the Zoning Board because of the fact that
they would need a variance for one of the plans.
Mr. Rodgers said that the Planning Board is probably not going to
want to allow oddly shaped lots. He
said that they do not want intricate lot lines going all over the place
to manufacture enough acreage for road frontage.
He said that because of that there will probably be big problems
with the first plan. He said
it looks like a tuning fork – it is not a square or rectangle or
trapezoid. He said that he
has nothing to do with the Planning Board, but he does not believe that
they are very positively inclined to oddly-shaped lots in subdivisions.
Ms. Thoits said that if they decided to do the first plan, then
they would have to come to the Zoning Board for the variance because the
Planning Board would not address it without the variance.
Mr. Davies said that sometimes the Planning Board likes to set
things up by saying if you get this type of situation, they might be
open to that. Ms. Thoits
said that the Planning Board might come up with a way that they think
might be acceptable. She
said of all the plans, the first plan is the only one that would require
a variance for the non-contiguous road frontage.
Ms. Plass asked if they wanted to go with
the first plan, would they just come to the Zoning Board and ask for a
variance and if it is granted, they would go to the Planning Board and
say, “Here is our subdivision.”
Ms. Thoits said that Mr. Davies is suggesting that they go to the
Planning Board with a conceptual, just as they did here, and see what
they say about the design. She
said if they are bent on doing that design, they would have to come to
the Zoning Board first for a variance before the Planning Board could
deal with it. She said that
the Planning Board can give them opinions and help before having to come
back to the Zoning Board with a conceptual consultation.
Mr. Rodgers said that this has four lots so it would qualify as a
major subdivision. Ms.
Thoits said she thought it would be a good idea, especially with this
plan, to do a conceptual consultation with the Planning Board and then,
if they decide to go with this design, come back to the Zoning Board for
a variance. Mr. Nolen added
that is if the Planning Board encourages them to do that.
He said that they may not encourage it.
Mr. Plass said that is what they thought they were doing tonight.
Mr. Rodgers said there are two sets of issues and the Zoning
Board has nothing to do with lot design.
He said that the Zoning Board deals with area and distances.
Ms. Plass asked if the Board saw an alternate way of doing lots 2
and 3 that they think the Planning Board would like better if they
wanted to keep the 4 lots and not go with any of the other plans.
She suggested that lots 4, 1 and 3 would stay where they are, but
to the right of lot 3, take away the 50 feet and just ask for a variance
of 50 feet for the frontage. Ms.
Thoits said that their chances of getting that kind of a variance are
slim because it is so much less than the required frontage.
Mr. Rodgers asked if the State said that they may only put in one
more driveway. Ms. Plass
said yes. Ms. Thoits asked
what that would do to the setbacks of lot 3 if the lines were moved.
Mr. Holt said that if they go with exhibit 1, then the setbacks
would not be affected. Ms.
Plass said she was suggesting moving the right lot line over and the
left lot line closer to the house and to comply with the setbacks which
she said she believes is 15 feet. She
asked if the surveyors could come up with a way to get, say, 75 feet of
road frontage, would granting a variance be more likely.
Mr. Barnard said that if they did that, it still looks like there
might still be a tuning fork effect.
Mr. Davies said that he thinks a recommendation from the Planning
Board would be helpful. He
said that in the instructions with the Zoning Board application, there
is a strong recommendation to go to the Planning Board first and get
some referral with perhaps some direction that might be able to help the
Zoning Board. He said that
until there is an actual application in front of the Board, a hard, fast
decision cannot be made. Mr. Rodgers asked if one of the plans is
their preference. Ms. Plass
said that number one was their preference because they thought it would
have the least amount of impact on the neighborhood.
She said the second one would require putting in a road and there
would be 6 house lots. She
said the last drawing would be the house on ¾ acre, one lot to the left
of it and then 4-1/2 acres that could be sold off to another developer.
She said that their second choice would be the last drawing.
Mr. Rodgers said that that is the cleanest one and most likely
the one that would result in the most support from the Planning Board.
Mr. Barnard and Ms. Thoits agreed.
Mr. Rodgers said that he didn’t think there would be any
variances required on the third one, although the setbacks might be a
little short. Mr. Barnard
asked what the little building is that appears to be right on the
proposed lot line. Ms. Plass
said there was another garage there but it collapsed last winter, so it
is only a foundation now. Ms. Thoits asked if they have considered
the wetlands and the buildable area of each of the various proposed
lots. Ms. Plass said yes.
There was some discussion about the size of the various proposed
lots. Mr. Plass said that
they had thought about the second plan because of Warner’s long term
plan to get more 55 and older housing.
He said that that plan could fit well into that plan.
He said they were thinking possibly of a small subdivision of
duplexes and wondered how that would affect things.
Ms. Plass showed the Board another drawing showing possible use
of the larger lot. There was
some discussion about condominium, shared land and multiple dwelling
regulations. Ms. Thoits said that she thinks the best
advice is to go for a conceptual consultation with the Planning Board,
make a decision about what they prefer, and if they need a variance,
then return to the Zoning Board for that.
Ms. Lightfoot said that they could get on the Planning Board
agenda for January 5th. She
offered to copy what they gave the Zoning Board for that and Mr. and Ms.
Plass agreed. Mr. Davies
suggested that they read the ordinances related to Site Plans in
preparation. Mr. Rodgers
said that as the population ages, they don’t like to live in big
houses anymore and the idea of duplexes might work.
Ms. Plass said that a number of people approached them with the
idea for 55 and older housing so that is what gave them the idea.
There was a short discussion about the
Master Plan Visioning Session that was held on Monday night.
Mr. and Ms. Plass thanked the Board and left.
2. MINUTES Mr. Holt MOVED to accept the minutes of 3. COMMUNICATIONS AND
MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Davies said that he had a paper entitled “Basics for Zoning
Boards of Adjustment – Organization and Procedures” which was
prepared by an attorney for the Planning and Zoning Conference in 2003.
He said it is practically an “owner’s manual” for zoning
boards and asked that copies of it be made for the Zoning Board members.
There was no other business. Mr. Rodgers MOVED to adjourn. Mr.
Holt seconded. The motion
was PASSED unanimously. The
meeting was adjourned at
|