DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWN OFFICES –
The regular monthly meeting of the Dunbarton Zoning Board was held at the above time, date and place with Chairman John Trottier presiding. The following members were present:
John Trottier, Chairman
John Herlihy, Vice Chairman
Alison Vallieres, Secretary
David Nault
Leo Martel, Alternate
Wayne Bracey, Alternate (Had not
been sworn in)
The Chairman verified with the Secretary that the meeting notice had been posted in three public places throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one day. In addition, the notice was on the Dunbarton Web Page.
John Trottier made an amendment to the July 11, 2005
minutes on Page 2 under Item 1 on the motion to include the date of the plan as
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning
Board of Adjustment approve the minutes as amended. John Trottier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7:00
p.m. – PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A REQUEST FROM DAVID SCHROEDER, SCHROEDER
FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION F. TO
ALLOW HIM TO APPLY TO THE DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD TO SUBDIVIDE THE CURRENT LOT
(F5-01-03) INTO TWO PARCELS AT PROPERTY LOCATED ON ROBERT ROGERS ROAD IN THE
LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH.
(ONE OF THE PARCELS WOULD HAVE LESS THAN 75 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A CLASS
V TOWN MAINTAINED ROAD. )
John Trottier, Chairman, stepped down because he was personal friends with David Schroeder. It was noted the following would be voting members for this evening. Wayne Bracy was unable vote because he had not been sworn in.
John
Herlihy
David
Nault
Alison
Vallieres
Leo
Martel, Alternate
David Schroeder appeared before the Board with a
Certified Plot Plan delineating the Wetlands on the lot he is proposing to be
subdivided off the parent tract as requested by the Zoning Board of Adjustment
at the June 2005 meeting.
David Nault asked the Surveyor (Will Stout) how many square feet is the existing
wetland?
Mr. Stout stated approximately ¾ to 1 acre total or
about 35,000 square feet.
David Nault stated that if you
go over 20,000 square feet, it requires a major wetlands permit, etc.
Alison Vallieres stated that we are creating a
non-conforming lot if we approve this.
In the past, in other instances, applicants have made conditions that
the lot will not be further subdivided, etc.
Noted Jacques Belanger lot off Old Hopkinton Road. She asked Mr. Schroeder if he would be
willing to agree to a condition that the lot not be further subdivided. He stated he would not agree to this. He stated that if something happened to him,
his family would need to be able to subdivide, etc. At this point, he is not planning on further
subdivision.
Alison Vallieres also stated that the Large Lot
Zoning Zoning had only been within the Zoning Ordinance for two years. Now we are already being asked to change
it. The reason the lot was subdivided
with the 321 foot frontage in one place and an additional 54 feet in other was
because of the wetlands issues. Mr.
Schroeder will have to obtain a Wetlands Crossing prior to the lot being
subdivided.
The proposed new lot will have 321 feet of frontage,
leaving the parent tract with only 54 feet of frontage.
Mr. Stout stated they will have to request a
Wetlands Crossing for which the Dunbarton Conservation Commission must sign off
on. In addition, the Planning Board
looks at it.
Leo Martel stated that if we allow this, we open the
door for others, etc. The lot is
substandard.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been
notified by certified mail:
Kathy/James Soucy – Not Present
Alfred/Doris Michaud – Not Present
Thomas/Elaine Ouellet – Not Present
Christine Boisvert – Present. Stated she was concerned. She does not want to see the land
developed. I appreciate David’s efforts
in trying to prevent the development of the parcel. I am concerned about development. We can’t guarantee anything. I live at 146 Robert Rogers Road right next
door.
David Shroeder stated he contacted Mrs. Boisvert to
see if they would be interested in purchasing the land and other abutters and
they were not interested. That was my
first solution.
Roland/Anita Ducharme – Not Present
Anthony Pivero, Jr. – Not Present
John/Yolanda Shea – Not Present
Paul/Michaela Blanchette – Not Present
Cheryl Tucci – Not Present
Scott/Nicole Spaulding – Not Present
S&M Forest Trust – Not Present
James/Judy Stone –
Present. Judy Stone stated that
everyone has a right to live here. You
can’t stop people from developing their land.
It is not right to ask him to put a condition on his property not to
further subdivide. What about Mansion
Road development? You let them
subdivide. What is the difference?
James Stone stated he would hope the Board would
grant this Variance. It is a good thing
for the Town in the long range.
Meadows Timberland – Not Present
Neil Smith –
Present. Asked if he could
assume that a road could be put in from the 50 foot frontage and develop
the property. County Road is a Class VI
road. Presently the lot is a single
family house lot. They could either
develop the property off County Road once it is upgraded or put a road in off
the 54 feet of frontage on Robert Rogers Road.
I have no objections. Any further
subdivision would have to go before the Town.
David Schroeder addressed the criteria for the
granting of a Variance as follows:
a.
No diminution in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;
Answer: Granting this variance would not adversely affect surrounding property values. This request does not affect any other requirements that are already in place. What this variance will accomplish is to define the frontage for this house lot to be the access point that is actually used for the lot rather than the 321 feet of frontage that is over 610 feet away from the current access point.
b.
Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest;
Answer: Granting this variance would not be contrary to the public interest. It will not make any difference to the general public if the legal frontage for this property contains the actual driveway for this property rather than a section of woods that is separated from the frontage in question by 2 house lots.
c.
Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the
owner seeking it;
Answer: Simplex Analysis (Use Variance)
(1)
The zoning restriction as applied to the
applicant’s property interferes with the applicant’s reasonable use of
the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its
environment.
(2)
No fair and substantial relationship exists
between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific
restrictions on the property.
(3)
The variance would not injure the public or
private rights of others.
(1) The 75’ frontage required by the large lot zoning ordinance interferes with reasonable use of this property. The 54 feet of frontage contains the existing driveway and for all intents and purposes is the frontage for the use of the lot. Other than foot traffic, the 321 foot section of frontage is not used to access the improved section of the property. Therefore, due to the unique configuration of this lot, the 54’ section should be considered adequate frontage so that the 321 feet of frontage can be used for other purposes.
(2) Based on the unique shape of this lot, a variance to reduce the minimum frontage requirement from 75’ to 54’ will not adversely affect the intent of the large lot ordinance. There is more than 4 times the minimum amount of land for the intent of large lot zoning and the variance would accurately reflect how the lot is used. Full application of the ordinance is not necessary to promote a valid public purpose.
(3) Granting this variance would not create either a public or a private nuisance.
Boccia Analysis (Area Variance)
(1)
Special conditions of the property make an area
variance necessary in order to allow the applicant to construct the development
as designed; and
(2)
The applicant cannot achieve the same benefit by
some other reasonably feasible method that would not imposed an undue financial
burden.
(1) Due to both the unique shape and frontage configuration of this lot, it is difficult to optimize the use of the 321 feet and 54’ sections of road frontage. Approval of this request would eliminate this obstacle without negatively impacting either the public or any abutter.
(2) An unnecessary burden would be imposed if this variance request is denied. The result would be a 25% reduction of frontage for a “second” lot that travels perpendicular to the intersection of the theoretical lot line with Robert Rogers Road. This significantly reduces the options for use of this piece of land considering the natural features of the property.
d.
Granting the variance would do substantial
justice; and
Answer: The injustice in this case is the restrictions that are applied to this lot due to limited frontage and unique configuration of lot lines. There is plenty of acreage to satisfy the spirit of the large lot zoning and justice would be served by granting this variance to the 75 foot restriction that currently applies. In addition, it will allow me to pursue other options for using this unique shaped property.
e.
The use would not be contrary to the spirit of
the Ordinance.
Answer: This proposed variance is not contrary to the spirit of the large lot zoning ordinance. The ordinance objective is to prevent overcrowding and to maintain adequate space between dwellings. The current 321 feet of frontage that is currently designated for this lot is over 610 feet away from the actual access point on Robert Rogers Road. This variance would simply allow the frontage that contains the lots’ access point to be used for the appropriate portions of the lot.
Board Discussion:
John Herlihy asked Mr. Schroeder if he were to subdivide this land in the future, would you consider setting aside some land for the Town use in the future. Would you consider putting a five acre lot aside for public use?
Mr. Schroeder did not agree to this.
David Nault stated he was more worried about the Wetlands Crossing for the new lot.
Will Stout, Surveyor, stated he didn’t want to second guess the Dunbarton Conservation Commission or the State. In the past, there has been no problem. There is enough room for a 4K area and a well.
David Nault stated that if the lot is further subdivided with 24 acres, there would be no way to access the back land off the 50 foot right of way. Would like to see some sort of easement for hikers, etc. to get to the back land.
At this point in the meeting, it was noted there
were four voting members which could result in a tie, etc. Based on this information, the Chairman
stated that Leo Martel would not be a voting member for this decision.
MOTION:
David Nault made a motion that the Dunbarton
Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request for a Variance to Article 4,
Section F. from David Schroeder, Schroeder Family Revocable Trust, to allow him
to apply to the Dunbarton Planning Board to subdivide the current lot
(F5-01-03) into two parcels at property located on Robert Rogers Road in the
Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH (One of the parcels would have less than
75 feet of frontage on a Class I Town maintained road.) Subject to the following conditions:
(1)
That the proposed subdivided lot be five (5)
acres or more as shown on plan by FWS Land Surveying dated 9/08/05, Project
#05-036 and,
(2)
That if the remaining parent lot (F5-1-3) is to
be accessed from the 53.92 foot frontage left on the lot, and they use the optional large lot
zoning with reduced frontage for all subdivisions, and the 24 acre minimum lot
size and minimum frontage of 75 feet for which they are seeking a Variance that
they must leave a twelve (12) foot wide easement off County Road (Class VI) for
the use of the Dunbarton Town’s people. The uses of that property (F5-1-3) shall be concurrent with the Current Use
Regulations for recreational use.
Alison Vallieres seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a majority with the
following vote:
Alison
Vallieres – No
John
Herlihy – Yes
David
Nault – Yes
OTHER BUSINESS:
It was decided by the members present that the
next Zoning Board meeting would be held on Monday, October 3, 2005 because the
second Monday of the month of October falls on Columbus Day.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alison R. Vallieres
Secretary