DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWN OFFICES –
The regular monthly
meeting of the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on the above date,
time and place with Chairman John Trottier presiding. The following members were present:
John Trottier, Chairman
John Herlihy, Vice Chairman
Alison Vallieres, Secretary
Gertrude Dulude
David Nault
Ron Slocum, Alternate
Dan DalPra, Alternate
Leo Martel, Alternate
Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Building and Zoning Department
The Chairman verified
with the Secretary that the Meeting Notice had been posted in three public
places throughout the Town in a timely fashion according to State Law and
published in the Concord Monitor for one day.
In addition, the public notice appeared on the Dunbarton Web Page.
7:00 P.M. – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – REQUEST FOR AN EQUITABLE WAIVER OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM GARY CHICOINE BUILDERS ACTING ON BEHALF OF DAVID BARKIE (C6-3-13) TO ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE TO USE AND MAINTAIN AN ARTESIAN WELL LOCATED CLOSER THAN THE REQUIRED DISTANCE OF 75 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY AT HIS PROPERTY LOCATED ON 58 JAY DRIVE IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
At
this point in the meeting, David Nault stated that he does business with Gary
Chicoine Builders, therefore he stepped down from the Request for an Equitable
Waiver from Gary Chicoine Builders, etc. request.
John
Trottier, Chairman, stated the following members would be voting on the request
this evening:
John Trottier
John Herlihy
Alison Vallieres
Gertrude Dulude
Ron Slocum
Jacques
Belanger, Surveyor, and David Barkie, present owner of the property appeared
before the Board. They presented a
Certified Plot Plan showing the location of the existing well and other structures
and septic system on the property.
(attached)
The
Board asked the applicant to explain the situation and how the well was drilled
too close to the boundary.
David
Barkie stated that he purchased the home from Gary Chicoine Builders. At the time the well was put in, Gary
Chicoine Builders owned the property.
David Barkie stated that he had moved the original stake only five (5)
feet, thus not causing the violation.
The stake had originally been put in too close to the boundary. The location of the well presently is 55 feet
from the lot line. There is a 20 foot
encroachment. No one knows who placed
the stake.
John
Herlihy asked where the well was shown on the plan.
Jacques
Belanger, Surveyor, stated the well was originally shown in the front of the
house. The house was located in a
different place.
John
Herlihy stated that Gary Chicoine knows what the setback is. To just to arbitrarily move it to where he
wants is not right. There is no excuse
for this. He knows better. He is a contractor.
Jacques
Belanger stated there is no way of knowing who moved the stake.
David
Barkie stated that during construction, he went out and the stake was in the
back of the house. I thought it was going to be a little close to the deck. I was told Rolly is the Site guy and if you
want it in a different location, you see him.
I looked at a copy of the plan.
The 50 foot setback line was on the plan. I only moved the stake 5 feet from where it
originally was.
John
Herlihy stated it was in violation before you moved the stake.
David
Barkie stated that he thought it was too close.
I questioned why it was in front of the house on the plan.
Leo
Martel said you don’t know who put the stake in?
David
Barkie said no one knows who put the stake in.
I only moved the stake five (5) feet.
I felt it was too close to the deck.
Jacques
Belanger stated there were Rol-Right, Capital Well, Gary Chicoine Builders and
the Owner involved. No one seems to own
up to putting the stake in. Dunbarton is
the only Town that has a well setback.
We design the plan so things fit and then they move things around.
John
Herlihy stated Dunbarton has a 75 foot well setback for a reason. Gary Chicoine is responsible. This is new construction. He bought the whole subdivision. He thinks he can just go in and get an
Equitable Waiver. He made lots of
money. He should pay for a new well.
Jacques
Belanger, Surveyor, stated he did not feel it was exactly that way.
John
Trottier noted that Ken Swayze is requiring an As-Built of the septic and the
well now. That is when the Town became
aware of the well location.
Jacques
Belanger stated they picked up on the situation also.
John
Herlihy stated that the 75 foot setback is for their protection. They also encroach on someone else’s
lot. There could be something happening
on the next lot.
Dan
DalPra stated that Gary Chicoine was responsible as the contractor for putting
the well in. Are they “bellying up” to
their share of the problem?
David
Barkie stated he questioned the location and they told me to meet Rolly out
there and we did measure it.
Gertrude
Dulude stated that for the well at North Woods, we held the owner responsible
for the placement of the well. He is the
owner but someone else put the stake in.
The
Board noted that at the time the well was drilled, Barkie was not the owner of
the property.
Leo
Martel asked what happens in two years if he sells the house?
David
Nault said he knew the situation with the land that abuts the property and it
is a double lot and has a duplex already
on it. There will be no further
subdivision of this lot.
Jeff
Crosby stated a couple of years ago, my neighbor had to have a new well put
in. The State was in charge of the whole
project. They drilled a well 50 feet off
the property line more or less, and they had to go through my property to get
there. I said something to the well
driller. They were not concerned about
it one way or the other. They could have
drilled the new well any place else.
They don’t seem concerned
about
it and this is the State. Dave’s well is
a good producing well and you never know what you are going to get when you
drill a new well.
John
Herlihy stated the State is not beholden to any Town regulations. The State can drill anywhere they want. They are not beholden to zoning.
Abutters
were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail.
Thomas
Giovagnoli – Not Present
Michael/Soheila
Degieux – Not Present
James/Karen
Harris – Not Present
J.
E. Belanger Land Surveying – Present (Representing the applicant)
Other Members of the Public:
Kenneth
Swayze, Admin., Building and Zoning Department, stated that the real compelling
issue is health issues. It is a hard
thing to ask a person to put in a new well for $5,000 - $8,000. If he can possibly use his existing well, I
believe there should be some forgiveness granted.
Board Discussion and
Requirements of Equitable Waiver:
Gertrude
Dulude stated that the owner moved the stake.
Alison
Vallieres stated that the present owner, David Barkie, did not even own the
property when the well was drilled. Now
he is the one who has to pay. That is
not fair to the owner. What is the
difference between this request for an Equitable Waiver and Syersen at North
Woods?
John
Herlihy stated that the well should have been measured. They are definitely in violation by not
measuring or care so don’t feel they meet the criteria for the Equitable
Waiver. Stated the Site Work guys didn’t
bother to measure it. Gary Chicoine is
at fault here. He bought the whole
subdivision and knows where all the land is and I don’t think he can get
anything from this Board. Just laziness
to not go out and measure. He should not
be allowed to build in Dunbarton again.
Ron
Slocum stated the original stake was located on another part of the
property. They didn’t do their
homework.
John
Herlihy stated he felt it impacted the other people’s land, and I think it is
adversely impacting other person’s property when they don’t follow the
setbacks.
John
Trottier, Chairman, stated they have to meet the criteria of the Equitable
Waiver before the Board can grant. He
read the requirements as follows:
674:33-a - Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirement.
I.
When a lot or
other division of land, or structure thereupon, is discovered to be in
violation of a physical layout or dimensional requirement imposed by a zoning
ordinance enacted pursuant to RSA 674:16, the zoning board of adjustment shall,
upon application by and with the burden of proof on the property owner, grant
an equitable waiver from the requirement, if and only if the board makes all of
the following findings:
(a) That the violation was not noticed or discovered by
an owner, former owner, owner’s agent or representative, or municipal official,
until after a structure in violation had been substantially completed, or until
after a lot or other division of land in violation had been subdivided by
conveyance to a bona fide purchaser for value;
(b) That the violation was not an outcome of ignorance
of the law or ordinance, failure to inquire, obfuscation, misrepresentation, or
bad faith on the part of any owner, owner’s agent or representative, but was
instead caused by either a good faith error in measurement or calculation made
by an owner or owner’s agent, or by an error in ordinance interpretation or
applicability
made by a municipal official in the process of issuing a permit over which that
official had authority;
© That the physical or dimensional violation
does not constitute a public or private nuisance, nor diminish the value of
other property in the area, nor interfere with or adversely affect any present
or permissible future uses of any such property; and
(d) That due to the degree of past construction or
investment made in ignorance of the facts constituting the violation, the cost
of correction so far outweighs any public benefit to be gained, that it would
be inequitable to require the violation to be corrected.
II.In
lieu of the findings required by the board under subparagraphs I(a) and (b),
the owner may demonstrate to the satisfaction of the board that the violation
has existed for 10 years or more, and that no enforcement action, including
written notice of violation, has been commenced against the violation during
that time by the municipality or any person directly affected.
III.Application
and hearing procedures for equitable waivers under this section shall be
governed by RSA 676:5 through 7.
Rehearings and appeals shall be governed by RSA 677:2 through 14.
IV.
Waivers shall be granted under this section only from physical layout,
mathematical or dimensional requirements, and not from use restrictions. An equitable waiver granted under this
section shall not be construed as a nonconforming use, and shall not exempt
future use, construction, reconstruction, or additions on the property from
full compliance with the ordinance. This
section shall not be construed to alter the principle that owners of land are
bound by constructive knowledge of all applicable requirements. This section shall not be construed to impose
upon municipal officials any duty to guarantee the correctness of plans
reviewed by them or property inspected by them.
John Trottier stated he
did not feel the request met the requirements of b. or c. Stated it is not our responsibility for who
has to pay. He stated d. is a Judgment
Call. Don’t feel this outweighs b and
c. I think they can face up and drill a
new well for this property.
Gertrude Dulude stated
the owner, (Barkie) is the one being hurt.
Dan DalPra stated he
felt the wrong person was sitting at the table. The contractor is
responsible. There is the cost of
litigation versus the cost of replacing the well. Asked if there was recourse with the
responsible party that should enter into the decision?
Gertrude Dulude asked
the applicant if he was already living in the house.
D. Barkie replied Yes,
he was.
Jacques Belanger stated
that in 75% of the State, they wouldn’t be coming to the Zoning Board.
John Herlihy stated that
if you don’t meet all the requirements for an Equitable Waiver, you shouldn’t
get approval. Gary Chicoine made the error and he should be
drilling a new well. He made plenty of money and he should pay.
The Board noted they
cannot force him to drill a new well.
Jacques Belanger stated
that Gary Chicoine did not put the stake in.
There are a lot of people involved.
Ron Slocum stated that
based on what Jacques says, we have to be one of the only towns to have this
well setback. I have a real problem with
moving stuff around from the previously approved plans and just doing it. We should be thinking about changing the
Zoning Ordinance . I am sure the
raccoons moved the stake.
John Trottier stated
that he felt it is all about the 75 foot setback. We need to approach the Planning Board and
have that changed. Maybe this needs to
be changed. The Zoning Ordinance is here
for a reason. We need to take a position
on this so that builders are aware of this.
Kenneth Swayze stated
that the State has six categories of waivers to allow the well to remain in
place. I don’t know why they put the
well where it is. They have five acres.
John Herlihy stated that
he thinks we let these things slide, and we have got to get a little
tougher. I am just one vote. Stated that Gary Chicoine is responsible and
should be made to drill a new well. He
knows the regulations. He shouldn’t be
allowed to build a dog house in Dunbarton.
Ken Swayze should not issue a
building permit to Gary Chicoine to build in Dunbarton again.
Gertrude Dulude asked if
we were to deny the request, where does that leave the owner.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment deny the request for an Equitable Waiver from Gary Chicoine Builders acting on behalf of David Barkie (C6-3-13) to allow them to continue to use and maintain an artesian well located closer than the required distance of 75 feet from the boundary at his property located on 58 Jay Drive in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH for the reasons that he does not meet all the criteria of the Equitable Waiver specifically 1. b and 1. c.
John Trottier seconded the motion. The motion passed by a Majority Vote as follows:
Trottier – Yes
Herlihy – Yes
Slocum – Yes
Dulude – Abstained
Vallieres – No
7:15 P.M. – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – REQUEST FOR AN EQUITABLE WAIVER OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM FRED DION (E3-2-51) TO ALLOW HIM TO USE AND MAINTAIN AN EXISTING WELL CLOSER THAN THE REQUIRED DISTANCE OF 75 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY AT THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED ON TUCKER HILL ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
David Nault stepped back to the Board.
At
this point in the public hearing, Leo Martel, Alternate, stepped down from the
Board because of a conflict of interest.
John
Herlihy asked the applicant if he wished him to step down from the Board
because he had shown his sentiment on the previous request for an Equitable
Waiver. Mr. Dion stated he felt it was
alright for Mr. Herlihy to act on his request.
Fred
Dion, Owner of the Property, Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, appeared before the
Board. In addition, Guy Camire, Owner of
the property next to Dion was present at the table for discussion. Jacques Belanger submitted a Certified Plot
Plan of the property. (attached)
Fred
Dion explained that in measuring of the location of the well, he felt they
measured at a diagonal instead of a straight line. At the time we measured the well location, it
came up 75’ from the line. The well
driller came down and drilled the well.
Two things could have happened, either we made a mistake in the
measuring process or the stake got moved.
In addition, my well was not grouted and it should have been. We completely missed it. There are two ways of resolving the well
issue. Putting in a Jaswell Seal which
seals it completely or moving the well ten feet. He stated that in speaking with well
drillers, moving the well ten feet would not be a wise decision. Want to make sure it would be 100% safe.
Kenneth
Swayze stated that the requirements of the Planning Board for the subdivision
was that all wells at Tucker Hill be grouted.
David
Nault stated that according to the Equitable Waiver Requirements, one of the reasons
for granting can be an error in measurement.
He knew the law and tried to do things right. A mistake is a mistake.
Abutters
were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Carl
Mitchell – Not Present
Janet
Zeller/Holly Marden – Not Present
Janet
Zeller/Diana Jenkins – Not Present
Dorothy/Sam
Abram – Not Present
Stillwater
Properties – Not Present
Town
of Dunbarton – Present. (Ken Swayze,
Building Department)
J.
E. Belanger Surveying – Present.
(Representing the applicant)
Other Members of the
Public:
Mark
Foster, 37 Gardner Drive, Auburn, NH – Stated he had a concern about the
well. Stated that his two girls are
going to school in Dunbarton and will be living in this Town. My concern is one of safety. With the Equitable Waiver, my concern is the
salt shed is directly across the street from this lot. If at a later date, and it is my kids that
are living there and there is a problem with the water, the Town will be responsible. I have run into a similar situation in
purchasing property and looked at the deed and saw that the deed holder had to
hold the Town harmless for a well closer than 75 feet from the lot line and we
cancelled the real estate contract because of it. If the well is within 75 feet, there is a
potential for a safety problem. That is
my concern.
Kenneth
Swayze stated that if this Board is leaning toward granting a Waiver, would
suggest you include a Hold Harmless Statement to the Town of Dunbarton for the
Salt Shed and that the well be sealed with the Jaswell Seal. The Waiver should not be granted without
these two conditions.
Guy
Camire stated he is building a house two houses away. The well is in place already with no
seal. My question is the 75 foot
setback. Am I to understand that the
other towns have 50 foot setback and the
State has a 75 foot setback.
John
Trottier stated that other Towns have well setbacks and the State setback is 75
feet with possible Waivers for certain conditions in addition to requiring a
4,000 receiving septic area. Stated that
the 75 foot setback in Dunbarton is a regulation. It becomes a health issue.
Kenneth
Swayze stated the State has a 75 foot well setback throughout the State and
they have conditional waivers.
Jeff
Crosby stated the idea is to treat all cases the same. You can’t decide one way one time and another
way on another well. If you denied the
first request this evening, you had better deny this one also. If Gary
Chicoine was sitting it the audience, I know how you would have to
vote.
The
public hearing was closed.
Board Discussion:
Alison
Vallieres stated that she had more of a problem with the location of this well
than the previous request because of its close proximity to the Dunbarton Salt
Shed. In addition, it had been a
requirement of the Planning Board approval that all wells in the Tucker Hill
Subdivision be grouted. This lot was the
closest to the Salt Shed and had been discussed many times at Planning Board
Public Hearings, etc. The grouting was a
condition of the Planning Board Subdivision Approval. She as a member of the Planning Board would
not approve this because of this reason.
Even if this Board approves the Equitable Waiver for the location, they
will still have to come back to this Board because the well was not grouted in
accordance with the Planning Board approval.
At
this point, the Chairman stated that the Board was not concerned about the
requirements of the Planning Board approval conditions. The Zoning Board can only act on the request
for the Equitable Waiver.
David
Nault stated that with regard to b., Mr.
Dion is admitting that he made a mistake.
If I were the homeowner, I would have probably measured from the same
place. I think he meets the conditions
of b.
The
Board members agreed amongst themselves that Mr. Dion’s request did not meet
the requirements of Section 1. (b) and 1 (c) of the Equitable Waiver
Requirements.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment deny the Request for an Equitable Waiver from Fred Dion (E3-2-51) to allow him to use and maintain an existing well closer than the required distance of 75 feet from the boundary at their property located on Tucker Hill Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH because the request does not meet the requirements of the Equitable Waiver Sections 1. (b) and 1. (c). Alison Vallieres seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by the following vote:
Trottier – Yes
Herlihy – Yes
Slocum – Yes
Vallieres – Yes
Dulude
- Abstained
7:30 P.M. – PUBLIC HEARING – REQUEST FOR AN EQUITABLE WAIVER OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM ALFRED SANTILLI (K1-01-14 (INCLUDES 13-15-16 ALSO) TO ALLOW HIM TO USE AND MAINTAIN AN EXISTING WELL CLOSER THAN THE REQUIRED DISTANCE OF 75 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY AT HIS PROPERTY LOCATED ON 31 HOLIDAY SHORE DRIVE AT GORHAM POND IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Alfred
Santilli, Jr. and Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, appeared before the Board with a
Certified Plot Plan of the property.
(attached) Mr. Santilli stated that he had not been aware that he was in
violation with the location of the well which had been put in four years
ago.
Kenneth
Swayze stated that Mr. Santilli had come in for a Building Permit and was told
we would deny the request because of the location of the well which was put in
previously. He stated Mr. Santilli owns
four lots which have been combined to be one of
the largest lots at the Gorham Pond location. He was able to locate a house, septic and
garage on the property with no Variances required.
Mr.
Santilli stated he bought the property in 1993 and completely restored it so I
had the well replaced also. Capital Well
put the well in.
Gertrude
Dulude stated that considering he owns one of the largest lots at Gorham Pond,
he has got to have the right to put in a well.
The
Board noted this was a single family home.
Abutters
were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Beverly
McDonnell – Not Present
Daniel/Virginia
Murray – Not Present
Bruce/Annemarie
Merrill – Not Present
David
Kashulines/Michael Smith – Not Present
Patrick
Stringer – Not Present
Mark/Nancy
Lang – Not Present
Tom,
James, M. Colon and Patricia Murphy –
Not Present
Gorham
Pond Association – Not Present
Peter
Stevenson – Not Present
Lana
Berger – Not Present
Roland
Laporte Jr./Marianne Matzd – Not Present
Janet
Lynn, Trustee – Not Present
J.
E. Belanger Surveying – Present
(Representing the applicant)
Other Members of the Public:
Jeff
Crosby stated the only concern he had is there are a lot of wells that have
been put in at Gorham Pond, and I don’t
know if any of them conform to the 75 setback.
At least you have a chance to have them get it on record which is the
actual goal. Need to get it done right. These lots are ¼ acre in size. The Town has stated they are buildable
size.
There
were no further comments from the public.
Board Discussion:
The
Board addressed the requirements of the Equitable Waiver as follows:
They
noted that the applicant fulfills the requirements of item a. of the Equitable
Waiver RSA.
The
Board noted that with regard to section b., the applicant has no other place to
put the well. No one took the effort to
measure the well four years ago.
Ron
Slocum stated that part b. fails in his opinion.
David
Nault stated this one fails worse then the previous well for part b. of the
Equitable Waiver requirements.
The
Board noted that with regard to Section c., the setback would be on the
abutting parcels across the street.
Gertrude
Dulude stated he has the right to have a well.
He doesn’t have any choice as to where to put it.
With
regard to section d., David Nault stated this was a “close call” He can’t locate it any where else. There is no other place to put a well.
Ron
Slocum stated that this is a case where it doesn’t satisfy the requirements of
b. With this particular well, there is
no option to put in any other place. If
at the time the well was put in, the Variance would have been granted. It would not have been withheld at that
time. This is a case where someone
decided to bring it into conformance.
David
Nault stated that I would expect that
Capital Well would know what the rules are.
How can we accept this one and not the others? They did not even measure the distance from
the boundary line.
First Motion:
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that
the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment deny the request for an Equitable
Waiver from Alfred Santilli (K1-01-14 including 13-15-16) to allow him to use
and maintain an existing well closer than the required distance of 75 feet from
the boundary at his property located on 31 Holiday Shore Drive at Gorham Pond
in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH because the request does not meet
the criteria of section 1. (b) and 1 (c) of the requirements for the Equitable
Waiver. Alison Vallieres seconded the
motion.
Board Discussion:
John
Trottier asked where else could he put the well. There is no other place on the lot.
John
Herlihy stated that personally he felt he should be asking for a Variance
instead of an Equitable Waiver. In my
mind, he should get a Variance because the lot cannot contain everything on the
lot. In the other requests this evening,
everything could be put on the lot and what should be before us should be a
Variance not an Equitable Waiver.
John
Trottier stated that an Equitable Waiver is after a violation is found.
John
Herlihy stated that 90% of the people who are before us have already built
something there, and they are requesting a Variance for setbacks.
John
Trottier stated he was contemplating as to how Mr. Santilli could protect the
well.
The motion failed with the following vote:
Herlihy – Yes
Trottier – No
Dulude – No
Vallieres – No
Slocum – No
Second Motion:
MOTION:
John Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request for an Equitable Waiver from Alfred Santilli (K1-01-14 including 13-15-16) to allow him to use and maintain an existing well closer than the required distance of 75 feet from the boundary at his property located on 31 Holiday Shore Drive at Gorham Pond in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH because the physical conditions of the existing lot will not allow him to maintain the 75 foot setback requirement with the condition (1) that Alfred Santilli provide the Town with a “Hold Harmless Release” for the Town as well as any abutting parcels. Ron Slocum seconded the motion.
At this point in the discussion, Alison Vallieres stated she would like to make the following amendment to the motion:
(2) That Alfred Santilli be required to put a Jaswell Seal on the existing well to prevent contamination to the well plus other wells in the area.
At this point in the meeting, John Trottier agreed to attach the above amendment to his motion.
Ron Slocum seconded the motion with the amendment.
Board Discussion:
John
Trottier stated he had a problem with what measures we are going to start
dictating by telling them what they are going to do.
David
Nault stated he understood that if the well became contaminated, it would also
contaminate other wells in the area. The
well is so close to the road, we need some assurances. We have put plenty of requirements on
approvals in the past.
The motion passed by a majority vote as follows:
Trottier – No
Herlihy – No
Vallieres – Yes
Dulude – Yes
Slocum – Yes
Acceptance of Previous Meeting Minutes: Monday, November 8, 2004
A motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously to accept the Monday, November 8, 2004 Minutes as written.
OTHER BUSINESS:
At
this point in the meeting, Fred Dion stated he wished to speak to the
Board. He stated he just wanted to make
a statement. Asked if he leaves his well
where it is and signs a waiver to the Town along with the Jaswell Seal, don’t
they think that is a smarter idea? I am
going to come back to the Town. I can
understand rules and regulations and was an engineer. All I am trying to do is get in the
house. We are trying to get everything
done. We are going to be paying
more. Will have to pay $7,000 to move
the well. Also am paying for the girls
to go to school in Dunbarton, etc.
Ron
Slocum asked Mr. Dion why he moved the well.
Mr.
Dion stated that he could not put the well on the slope of the land. Why would I even try to. Came up at an angle. It is not like we were intentionally trying
to get rid of something. We had to move
the septic system. This was a
mistake. We all try to abide by the
rules. I am willing to sign a Waiver to
the Town.
The
Board pointed out that Mr. Dion had the right to appeal. The Board informed him he needs to provide
new information for the basis of the appeal.
Non-Conforming Lot Proposed
Amendments:
Alison
Vallieres passed out drafts of Non-conforming Lot proposed amendments. She stated that the Town had contracted with
Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission to work on these proposed amendments. She stated this only applies to lots of
record prior to 1970 when Zoning was enacted.
The
Planning Board will be holding a Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning Amendments
including these in January.
There
being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Alison
R. Vallieres, Secretary