ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
July 27th, 2011
Members Present: Ken Chester, Hunt Dowse, Jon Grosjean, Dan Beers, Jeff Reder, Linda Renna, Alison Rossiter, and Linda Coughlan, Secretary
Others Attending: Mark Schaal, Dennis Rossiter, Blandine Hafela and Hillary Davis
7:00 P.M. – Schaal Hearing
Alison called the hearing to order and introduced the Board. She read the published notice and noted that fees had been paid and the notice had been published and posted. She said the voting members for the hearing would be herself, Hunt Dowse, Dan Beers, Jon Grosjean and Ken Chester. Linda Renna and Jeff Reder would be the alternates who would not be voting but would be allowed to participate. Alison explained the procedures that would be followed during the hearing.
Mark Schaal came forward to present his case for the application for a Special Exception to Article 15.6.11 for a right of way to an existing backlot. He began by stating he had purchased the property on Peterborough Road which included three lots of records with two houses. He said they would like to access the back lot R07, Lot 46A, using the natural terrain along the stone wall for the driveway. He said the State has approved the driveway site. It was noted there wasn't a copy in the file, but the permit number was 04-201-0008. Mark said he would provide a copy for the file.
Mark went on to point out the proposed house location and said that it seemed the most logical site considering the slope of the terrain. He noted the property is bounded by stonewalls. It was noted that there is poorly drained soil but the proposed septic is sited over 125 feet away from that area which would meet the setback requirement. Mark said the 350 foot frontage requirement will be met using the right of way.
Alison asked if the Board had any questions or comments relative to the testimony given so far. Jon Grosjean asked if this was one lot and Mark said they are three distinct lots of records on the town maps and are billed as three separate lots.
There being no further questions or comments from the board, they moved on to the testimony as provided by the applicant in the application beginning with general conditions under 15.5 Special Exceptions – General Conditions.
1. The proposed use is similar to one or more of the uses already authorized in the District:
The proposed Right of Way is for access to an existing backlot of record. The proposed use would comply with existing allowable uses within the zoning district. (R&A).
2. The specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use:
The proposed Right of Way has been located in accordance with Town of Hancock regulations and NHDOT driveway and safe site distance requirements. Mark added that this is to access one backlot, the land can't be subdivided further. He said he maintains it is a single ROW.
3. The proposed use would not adversely affect property values of neighboring properties:
The proposed use is consistent with existing allowable uses in the district.
4. The proposed use and the associated plans for parking, access and egress would not create a nuisance or serious hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic or excessive traffic congestion nor create excessive wear and tear on public Streets:
The proposed right of way is to access an existing lot of record and will not create any of the hazards or problems listed above.
5. The proposed use, following installation of visual and noise screening measure by natural or structural means to the extent and in the manner as may be specifically determined by the Board, would not create a nuisance to neighborhood properties by reason of noise, odors, fumes, smoke, dust, vibrations, light, sound electromagnetic, or communications interference or the storage or dissemination of hazardous materials or otherwise be injurious, obnoxious or offensive:
The proposed use will not cause any nuisance to abutting properties from the above listed items.
6. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the use, including (where applicable) facilities for potable water and disposal of waste:
The proposed right of way is to access an existing backlot of record which meets requirements for potable water (well) and waste disposal (acceptable on-site septic area).
7. The proposed use is consistent with the purposed and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Hancock Master Plan, after having given due consideration to recommendations if any, received from the Planning Board: and
The proposed use is consistent with the intent of Hancock zoning ordinance and Master Plan.
8. The proposed use falls within and meets all of the conditions of a Special Exception hereinafter listed:
The proposed use meets all the conditions of a Special Exception as listed in the Zoning Ordinance.
There being no questions or comments regarding the testimony the applicant had provided on the application concerning the general conditions, the Board moved on to the review the criteria the applicant provided under Article 15.6.11.
188.8.131.52) Each proposed lot (that is, the existing backlot and the abutting lot across which the Right of Way runs) shall have access to a Street provided either directly or by a permanent Right of Way not less than fifty feet in width.
Existing backlot and abutting lot across which the Right of Way runs shall have access to a street directly or permanent Right of Way of not less than 50 ft wide: Proposed Right of Way is not less than 50 ft wide.
184.108.40.206) Such Right of Way shall be located no less than 500 feet from any existing Street or other Right of Way which is recorded or which is proposed at the same time, and shall be configured so as to suitable for future accommodation of a Street that shall meet the requirements of the Hancock Subdivision Regulations, provided, however, that this requirement shall not preclude the creation of one Right of Way for each existing backlot.
Proposed Right of Way (ROW) to be not less than 500 ft from existing street or ROW. Proposed ROW is approximately 400 ft from Old Hancock Road, but is providing access to a single backlot – which shall not preclude one ROW for each existing backlot.
220.127.116.11) Each proposed lot shall have frontage either on the Right of Way or on a public Street equivalent to the stated frontage requirements of the zoning district.
Each proposed lot shall have frontage either on ROW or public street equivalent to the stated frontage requirements of the zoning district. Required frontage is 350': both lots are provided more than 350'. Mark added the plan provides 350 feet of frontage as shown on the plan.
18.104.22.168) Lot areas, frontages and all set back requirements for each Lot shall be met to the extent possible without including the area of the Right of Way in the area, frontage or set back requirements for either Lot. For this purpose, all set back dimensions shall apply with reference both to the proposed Right of Way and any Street abutting the Lot.
Lot areas, frontages and all setback requirements for each lot shall be met to extent possible w/o including proposed ROW area for either lot. All setback dimensions and areas for each lot comply with required zoning regulations and are depicted on attached plan. Mark added the plan shows that the setbacks will be met.
22.214.171.124) No more than one Lot shall be served by one Right of Way. The ZBA shall not grant Special Exceptions involving a series of subdivisions that would provide Right of Way access to more than a single lot.
No more than one lot shall be served by one ROW. Proposed ROW is for access to a single existing backlot of record. Mark added this has been shown in prior testimony.
126.96.36.199) The owner of each proposed Lot (that is, the existing backlot and the abutting lot across which the Right of Way runs) shall have consented in writing to the following waiver and conditions subsequent pursuant to NH RSA 674:41:
188.8.131.52.1 –Waiver: "The Town of Hancock shall have no responsibility to maintain said right of way nor any liability for any damages resulting from the use thereof". Note has been included on plan. Hunt asked where this note was located on the plan and Mark said pointed out the section which was No. 7 under NOTES.
184.108.40.206.2 – Condition subsequent: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any Lot served by said Right of Way, the applicant shall produce evidence that notice of the limits of municipal responsibility and liability has been recorded in the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds. Mark said the ROW would be recorded at the Registry which would include the note regarding the limits of municipal responsibility and liability. He said he acknowledged signing the building permit would be contingent on evidence of the recording of the document.
Alison asked Mark if he had any additional comments and he said he believes he has met all of the required conditions. He said he feels that the intent and spirit of the ordinance is to make these back lots accessible.
Alison opened the hearing to the public for questions or comments. There being none, she closed the public portion and the Board move on to the deliberation portion. Alison asked the Board if they had any comments or questions. Hunt said it was nice to see such a thorough presentation. There were no further comments or questions from the Board and the consensus was that they were ready to vote on the application.
Hunt moved the having met all of the conditions under the General Conditions as shown by testimony and plan provided, the application for a Special Exception be granted. Dan Beers seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
On the specific article, Hunt moved that the having met all of the criteria under Article 15.6.11 as shown by testimony and plan provided, the application for the Special Exception for a right of way be granted. Jon Grosjean seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to grant the application for the Special Exception.
Alison advised Mark of the 30 day appeal period. She thanked everyone for attending.
The Board moved on to unanimously approve the minutes of the June 22nd meeting. It was noted that a hearing is pending for August 24th.
Hunt brought up for discussion having a workshop meeting in the fall to go over procedures and other matters that might be of interest. The Board was in favor of doing this.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M.