The Walpolean

Walpole Zoning Board of Adjustment

Town Hall

November 16, 2016

7:30 pm

 

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway-Leclerc, Mary Therese Lester, Judy Trow, Tom Murray. Alternate: Ernie Vose came in a few minutes late.

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the December 2016 meeting for corrections, additions and/or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. There was a full board so an alternate was not needed to fill in.

 

Minutes: Ms. Lester made a few corrections – adding a word in two instances, deleting a word, correcting one misspelling. Ms. Leclerc asked that the name of George Graves be struck as an owner of the Graves pit as he was now deceased.  Ms. Trow made a motion to accept the October minutes as corrected. Ms. Lester seconded the motion and it was passed by the Board.

 

Old Business:

Public Hearing 1

Lewis Jeffrey property. Variance setback from the road. Old Keene Road and Hooper             Road. Map 8, Lot 8 and 8-1. Residential A Zoning District.

 

Mr. Joe DiBernardo was representing Mr. Jeffrey. Ms. Mansouri recused herself because she is the real estate agent for the sale of the Jeffrey property.

Mr. DiBernardo said that the property was two parcels and there were two houses on the property. The parcel nearest Old Keene Road has an incorrect deed because a house that is supposed to be on that lot is not in the deed. So the lot was extended to include the house and make it as conforming as possible.

Neither house meets the setback from the road, Mr. DiBernardo said. They are only 55 feet from the center of the road.

Ms. Leclerc said she thought the variance was for a setback for the house that was too close to the property line on the side. Mr. DiBernardo said he thought the setback was 25 feet from the side boundary. But when he found out it was 20, the houses conformed to the ordinance. The house is 22 feet from the side boundary.

In that case, Ms. Leclerc said, there is no need for a variance because the setback from the road is grandfathered since it’s been that way prior to zoning regulations. After some discussion Ms. Leclerc made a motion to send a letter to the Planning Board stating that a variance for a setback from the road was not needed because the houses were grandfathered. Ms. Lester seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

 

New Business:

Mr. Jesse Carr was speaking for Mr. Stephen Pena who is a chiropractor at 40 Main Street. Mr. Pena wishes to place a sign over the south window at 40 Main Street building. He had a letter of permission signed by the owner of the building, Dr. Dennis Pellegrino.

The sign would be similar in style to the one already on the building at the south Main Street window. It would be the same width but be shorter length because there are fewer letters. All letters would be capitalized and it would read CHIROPRACTOR. The raised letters would be on a gray-blue board, similar in color to the house next door.

A board member asked Mr. Carr how far it was from his sign. He said 30 to 40 feet. The 100-foot rule was noted.  Mr. Carr said he didn’t realize an exception was need if the signs were on a building.

Practically all the signs in the village have needed special exceptions to comply with the ordinance, Ms. Leclerc said.

The sign ordinance stipulates that:

“Signs of six (6) square feet may be placed between ten (10) and sixty (60) feet of traveled             roadway and between twenty (20) and one-hundred (100) feet of another sign by Special Exception from the Board of Adjustment when the Board is satisfied that the provisions of Article IV will be met and that the sign as placed will not have any adverse effect on abutting properties.”

A motion was made, seconded and passed to hold a Public Hearing next month (December) at the regular meeting for the Special Exception.

 

Old Business:

Matrix. The Board looked at the final draft of the Matrix and Ms. Trow said that a few arrows were missing. The secretary said that since the document was a PDF, she could not make changes to the document and the arrow wasn’t there when the document was sent to her.

Ms. Trow said she will make the final changes, send the document to the secretary and she will make copies for the next meeting.

 

Other:

New Procedure: Ms. Mansouri said a new procedure is in place for anyone who requests information from the secretary. The person must first contact the chair, give a couple of dates when to meet and then the chair will arrange a date that’s convenient for both parties.

Ms. Patricia Rodrigues of Westmoreland said that the law requires a hard copy

Ms. Mansouri said, “A hard copy is our minutes.”

Ms. Rodrigues said that she said a lot of things that aren’t weren’t mentioned in the minutes.

 

Graves Gravel Pit:

Ms. Patricia Rodrigues of Westmoreland was at the meeting and wanted to make a statement about the Graves Pit in Walpole and convince the Zoning Board that they had jurisdiction over the gravel pits in town and that Tim Graves had several violations. She also said that the town has been in possession of all these documents pertaining to the violations and that Mr. Tim Graves, because of the pit had grown from the original 8 acres to 18 acres, the expansion was considered an “Expansion of a non-conforming use,” which means he has to go to the Zoning Board for a special exception.

She read from a prepared statement and referred to zoning ordinances, letters from the Department of Environmental Services, excavation reports, etc. In these minutes her letter is in regular type and the information from letters, ordinances etc. is in italics.

While Ms. Rodrigues was talking, Mr. John Corduff filmed the board without telling the board that he was doing so. It was only after someone asked him if he was filming that he said yes he was.

 

Here is her letter:

“To All Boards Addressed:                                                                       3.

This letter is to inform your Town boards that, per Article IV, Section E- Removal of Sand and Gravel, of your town’s Zoning Ordinance, also per Section IV – Projects Requiring A Permit and specifically Part C of your town’s “Regulation Governing Earth Excavations,” the George Graves Revocable Trust Gravel Pit is currently out of compliance, and has been for some time, and must now obtain a Town Excavation Permit.

As the Gravel Pit lands are in the Rural/Agricultural District, and due to the fact  that the pit has expanded from its now null-and-void pre-2013 grandfathered status/size of 8 acres, to 18+/- acres, the expansion is considered an “Expansion of a non-conforming use, as described in Article X of the Zoning Ordinance, and must apply for a Special Exception, as in article VIII, Section C – Special Exceptions, and further, follow through with the usual Application for Excavation, as described in Section XIV of the “Regulations Governing Earth Excavations.”

The Town of Walpole has been in possession of all the necessary documents, which support these facts, including (all now attached) the:

Walpole ZBA Excavation report for sites established before August 24, 1979 – which state the Permissible Limits for the excavation site was the Westmoreland line.”

The report says, “Permissible limits. Westmoreland town line on south is a B&M railroad bed on West side – North & East side – our own property. Signed by George and Freda Graves on July 15, 1991.

‘NHDES 2013 Letter of Deficiency LRM 2013 -023, dated Nov, 2014 – which states that 10.4 acres had been excavated in Walpole, NH, and 2.5 acres had been excavated in Westmoreland, NH.”

The Nov. 4, 2014 letter from DES concludes:

1)The original gravel pit, located on the town of Walpole Tax Map 1, Lot 16, had been cleared in an amount of approximately 454,117 square feet (10.4 acres) without an Alteration of Terrain Permit from DES.

2) The newer excavation, located on the town of Westmoreland Tax Map 17, Lot 29, has been cleared in an amount of approximately 110,000 square feet (2.5 acres) without an Alteration of Terrain Permit from DES.

Walpole Tax Card for the George Graves Rev Trust gravel pit property, at Map 1, Lot 16 – which states that at least 9.94 acres is listed as ACTIVE GP, and that a LUCT action was called for as early as July 2014.

Tax Map Into – 7/14 per infor of DES/DRA & review of aerial pics total disturbed area is 10.86 acres and as such a LUCT (Land Use Change Tax) is required.

NHDRA 2016-2017 Notice of Intent To Excavate – which erroneously states in section 9 that the ‘Total Permitted Area’ is 8 acres.

Ms. Rodrigues said that every year the selectmen sign the Notice of Intent To Excavate and every years it’s 8 acres, but actually they must know it’s more than that.

The Department of Revenue Administration document says the total permitted area is 8 acres.

Alteration of Terrain Permit Application, dated 12/16/13 – which show state AoT permits is for 18.7 +/- George Graves Excavation Permit AoT – 1154, dated August 31, 2016 – which states in item No. 6 that permit DOES NOT RELIEVE THE APPLICANT FROM THE OBLIGATION TO OBTAIN OTHER LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL PERMITS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED.

Ms. Rodrigues said the Selectmen received this permit for 18.7 acres, which is more than the grandfathered 8 acres.

6. The AoT permit states that “This permit does not relieve the applicant from the obligation to obtain other local, state or federal permits that may be require (e.g., from US EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, ets.). project disturbing over 1 acre may require a federal stormwater permit from EPA Information regarding this permitting process can be obtained at: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/stormwater/construction.htm.

Ms. Rodrigues said that it’s been 32 months since that statement was issued and so far no permit has been obtained by Mr. Graves.

8. The proposed stormwater containment/infiltration basin, as identified on sheet D of the project plans shall be constructed to the horizontal limits and elevations shown on the drawing entitled “Revised Drainage Pond Hydrologic Analysis, George Graves Excavation Site, Outcrop Edge/Bedrock Edge”, dated August 15, 2016. This was in bold in the letter.

Article X11 Section B Administration and Enforcement. “It shall be the duty of the Board of Selectmen, and the Board is hereby given power and authority, to enforce this Ordinance. “

B-2 The Ordinance also says “Upon any well-founded information that this ordinance is being violated, the Board of Selectmen shall take immediate steps to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance by seeking an injunction in the Superior Court or by any other appropriate action.”

“Last month we came here and you said go to the Selectmen and I went there and nothing.”The Board of Selectmen has allowed the Graves pit to illegally expand. “I’m not going to take the run around, and I’m not going to take it any more. It has taken a very great toll on our lives.”

The letter continues, “Also, as abutters of the Graves’ various properties, we are filing a complaint concerning several instances of blasting, which have shaken our home, which have been performed in the Gravel pit in the last few weeks without our notification nor obtainment of the required Town permit. Also, others, who are mandated by law to be notified have not been notified either, as we learned when we called the Walpole Police Chief on November 7^th with our complaints. It appears this blasting is associated with item #8 listed on the Gravel Pit’s AoT-11154 permit (construction of a proposed stormwater containment/infiltration basin) WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INITIATED WITHOUT OBTAINMENT OF THE REQUIRED TOWN EXCAVATION PERMIT.

“We expect that this well-founded information being provided demonstrates that Walpole Zoning Ordinances are being violated and that the Board of Selectmen shall take immediate steps to enforce the provisions of said Ordinances via appropriate action (per Article XII, Section B), and blasting, and all work in the now illegally expanded gravel pit shall Cease & Desist until all proper town, state, and federal permitting has been obtained.

Sincerely,

“Patricia Rodrigues and John Corduff, 52 Old Route 12 North, Westmoreland, NH 93467”

 

Ms. Pam Clark of Westmoreland said she didn’t know why something hasn’t been about this problem. “I don’t know why things are going on like this. I don’t know what you people are doing. You are dragging your feet on this, ignoring that things are not being done properly. The board is quibbling about about a sign and this is about blasting without a permit. I would think you would more concerned about it.” And we’re talking about a gravel pit and blasting that’s going on with out a permit.

“I would think you would be more concerned about the blasting and the abuse of the land in your town. I think it’s disgraceful. I have no idea why you’re doing this, what you’re getting out of it. ..It baffles me that three years, this woman had had to fight this situation. And has gotten nowhere. What do you have to say for yourselves? Please explain to us. Is somebody on the take? Is this because he’s an upstanding person of the community. You’re on their side and covering things for them. …Speak. Would someone speak to what’s going on? Why is this being allowed? I think we’re all entitled to hear. Anybody?”

Ms. Trow said you only came to us last month with this problem.

Ms Rodrigues said three years ago she was battling with the selectmen in Westmorelland. And she said she went to the selectmen.

Ms. Clark said that areas was designated “rare habit area. And that’s gone.”

The rail trail has been broken through – there’s a big gap in it. “Have any of you walked back there and seen what it looks like? She asked.

“It’s interesting that every year you fill out your gravel inspection reports and there was never ever mentioned that they went 21/2 acres over the town line into Westmoreland, “Ms. Rodrigues said.

This pit has a regional impact, she continued. It’s rural agricultural. It used to be beautiful. “We loved hiking in the area.  For 17 it was nice forest and now it’s total destruction. “

Ms. Clark said she spoke to a couple of people about this and one said, “I used to walk my dog on that area and don’t anymore. It’s a mess.”

Ms. Leclerc said that as far as this Board has been aware, the pit is grandfathered.

For 8 acres, Ms. Rodriques said. For at least three years.

Mr. Chuck Weed who has been in the NH Legislature for Keene for several years and is now a County Commissioner commented that he has been aware of this issue for three years. I became aware of it when I was a Legislator in Concord.

“And it’s ongoing.” he said “The biggest surprise to me was the inability of a citizen to get accountability from the Walpole selectmen, from DES, from the Department of Transportation – all of whom have some relationship with the permitting process.

“So I am kind of appalled as an elected official. I thought I had an idea about what the town and local leadership was about but how can a person get accountability for a well-document situation.”

This is hugely complex. “I’ve seen all the documentation. It’s overwhelming. But this explanation and those documents seem easily understandable. How can you not listen after this well-documented presentation? It’s a complex case. It’s  very straight-forward. I sympathize with this person.”

Ms. Leclerc said that a lot of information had been presented and she wanted to look at the documents before commenting. It was decided that the secretary would make copies of the documents for the Board and the matter would be discussed at the next meeting.

Mr. Murray asked if her house was in Westmoreland. He said apparently there are a lot of rules already in place that need to be followed. He was referring to the rules the Westmoreland Planning Board imposed on Mr. Graves.

Ms. Mansouri said that at this point there was nothing we can say until we see the documents.

Ms. Clark said it seems each passes it off on another board. “Who’s in charge?”

Ms. Mansouri said each board has its own function and the Selectmen are the enforcers.

Mr. Tim Graves said he called the secretary at the Town Hall and she is supposed to notify the police and fire department before the blast.

By law you have to notify an abutter with 250 feet. “She (Ms. Rodrigues) is a lot further than 250. He said he refused to notify Ms. Rodrigues as she lived in another town.

At this point everyone was talking at once. A motion was made to adjourn, it was seconded and passed by the board.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

 

Walpole Zoning Board of Adjustment

Town Hall

October 19, 2016

7:30 pm

 

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway-Leclerc, Mary Therese Lester, Judy Trow. Alternate: Tom Murray.

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the November 2016 meeting for corrections, additions and/or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. Mr. Bob Anderson, a valued member of the Board, has resigned for personal reasons. He will be missed. Ms. Mansouri asked Alternate Tom Murray to take his place on the Board. He agreed. Mr. Ernie Vose, a long-time member of the Board, is returning as an Alternate.

Minutes: Ms. Trow made a motion to accept the September minutes as presented. Ms. Lester seconded the motion and it was passed by the Board.

 

Old Business:

Public Hearing 1

            Tara Stuart: Variance for setback distance from the road, 1252 County Road, Map 3, Lot 21, Rural/Agricultural District. Ms. Stuart wants to put a 16-foot-by-18-foot addition on  the house as well as an 8 foot wide porch.

Mr. Lewis Shelley was representing Ms. Stuart.  He told the Board that the garage, which the Board approved to be rebuilt on the footprint of the old garage, had been torn down. He asked if a four-foot walkway could be built on the west side. It was there before and the roof extended four feet over a concrete walkway. Ms. Mansouri said she didn’t think it would change anything and agreed.

Ms. Mansouri asked if the abutters were notified, fee paid and legal posted and printed. The answer was yes.

Regarding the variance, which was needed because the setback from the road is 12 feet shorter than the setback distance ordinance of 65 feet from the center of the road, Mr. Shelley read the criteria.

1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because:

This is only an addition to an existing home and it will be built in the style of the current home, one that is fitting and appropriate for the area. The distance from the road should not be considered a detriment, to any buildings or the rural/agricultural uses of adjacent lands.

2. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because of the following special circumstance of the property that distinguish it from other properties similarly owned because:

The lot sits on a hillside with no other suitable options for additions to the house without great amounts of excavation/substantial construction. The chosen site is most suitable and allows for simpler effective construction.

3. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because:

It will allow for a reasonable sized addition to the home while not affecting the neighborhood. This will allow for the homeowner to increase the size of the home for her needs as an elderly person.

4.The proposed use would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:

It will only impede on the restricted area within the required setback by 12 feet. The area is further protected from the adjacent road (above the site) by a wooded berm area.

A question was asked if it would remain a log built home. Mr. Shelley said it will log like, rustic-style log. The buffer will remain. Some trees were removed because they were hazardous to the house.

Ms. Mansouri asked if the Board or the public had any questions.

Ms. Leclerc said she went by the property and there is no other place to put the addition.

One gentleman, an abutter, asked if the new construction is going to be like the old construction – log. Mr. Shelley answered that it is going to be like what’s there now and the roof line will remain the same.

And the garage?  he asked. Mr. Shelley said, the garage is stick frame with log-like siding that will look the same but won’t be full logs.

Someone asked if it could be seen from the road. Mr. Shelley said if you’re coming up from town you can see the house from road as you pass the driveway, but as you move on there’s a berm and only the roof is viewed from the road.

Ms. Mansouri closed the Public Hearing. Ms. Leclerc suggested that Mr. Shelley just read the question and the board could discuss his answer.

Regarding criteria No. 1, Ms. Mansouri said she agreed because it’s going to be sided in the same way and in the same line.

Regarding criteria No. 2, Ms. Lester agreed that because of the dropoff there was no other place they could put the addition.

Regarding criteria No. 3. Ms. Mansouri agreed that the space dictated where the addition had to go.  Ms. Lester said the setback is only a matter of 12 feet.

No. 4 . Ms. Lesclerc said it is  not an eyesore or a hazard for people driving by. The Board agreed it would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.

Ms. Leclerc made a motion to accept the ordinance as proposed. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lester and passed by the board.

 

            Public Hearing 2

Lewis Jeffrey property. Variance setback from the road. Old Keene Road and Hooper   Road. Map 8, Lot 8 and 8-1. Residential A zoning District. Request for Public Hearing.

Mr. Joe DiBernardo, the representative of the Lewis Jeffrey property, did not show up for the meeting. It will be postponed until next month.

 

            New Business:

Ms. Jazmine Breslend and her husband bought a house at 1101 County Road (opposite Whipple Road) (Tax Map Description, map-003 lot-013, sub-001, rural/agriculture district). Currently Ms. Breslend owns a hair salon in Keene and would like to have a one-chair salon in her home. The home is a four-bedroom home and she would like to take one of the bedrooms plus additional space in the home to make a bathroom and salon.

Ms. Trow read the ordinance for the rural/agricultural district and the ordinance for having an office or place of business in one’s home. The Uses ordinance for the rural/agricultural district reads “Residences may be used to house such customary uses by the owner or tenant as office for doctors, lawyers, real estate or insurance, or other recognized professions, or such home occupations as hair dressing or dress-making, except that the number of person employed at any location shall not number more than two persons in addition to the owner or tenant. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided on the premises.

Ms. Bresland was asked how many customers a day she expected. She answered between 3 and 6 a day. Ms. Trow asked about parking and Ms. Bresland said she has places for three cars besides her car and her husband’s car.

Ms. Bresland said the lease on her Keene salon isn’t up until July 2017, but she didn’t want to begin renovations until she knew it was permissible. She still needs to go to the Walpole Fire Department to get permission.

Ms. Leclerc said it sounds like she can do that. Ms. Bresland said she just wanted to make sure that there wouldn’t be problem later. She was told that there is a sign ordinance and she will be back for a sign.

 

Matrix: The matrix will be discussed at the next meeting.

 

Gravel Inspections: Ms. Mansouri and Ms. Lester went to inspect the Cold River and Whipple Hill gravel pits.  Ms. Mansouri said there were no problems. They’ve taken gravel out of Whipple Hill.

 

Graves Gravel Pit in Walpole and Westmoreland:

Ms. Patricia Rodrigues of Westmoreland came to discuss her complaints about the Graves gravel pit, which borders Westmoreland and is near where she lives. The owners, George Graves and Tim Graves of Graves Trucking, Inc. have a right of way over her property to the pit. Ms. Rodrigues appealed to the Department of Environmental Services for an After-the -Fact Alteration of Terrain permit AOT 1154.

Mr. Murray said that the secretary did mention DES had resolved the question of a gravel pit but it was about the Hodgkins pit at the Industrial Park not the Graves pit.

This is a brief account of some of Ms. Rodriques complaints.

Hours of Operations: Ms. Rodriques said work is 24/7. Work starts early, finishes late and the          work is also done on Sundays.

Mr. T. He is taking material from one site and processing on the site that borders Westmoreland.

Mr. T. Graves has virtually destroyed the section of Cheshire Trail that abuts his property and           the Cheshire Trail was made with public money.

Graves got a permit but Rodrigues contests it saying he is not satisfying all the requirements for        the permit.

There is also a concern that water is washing silt down into the Aldrich Brook and the gravel   pit has a culvert that directly empties into the Aldrich Brook. There is concern about the historic arch bridge there and the land under it being filled with sediment.

There is also an environmental concern because of a corridor from the uplands to the           Connecticut River has been destroyed for an endangered species needs that need it.

Rodrigues reminded the Zoning Board that a couple of years ago Mr. T. Graves was cited as excavating too much gravel in Walpole. A permit allows an owner to excavate 8 acres but he went over the limit. He also went across town lines into Westmoreland without any permit.

Ms. Leclerc said that the Zoning Board is required to inspect the gravel pits. The permits are received from the state. It is not known if public hearings are required before a permit is issued..

Regarding the operating hours, it was suggested she go to the Selectboard, tell them the situation and maybe they can intervene. The Selectmen are the enforcers, Ms. Mansouri said. They may be able to do something.

Mr. Murray asked if she could approach Tim Graves, and have a conversation about the hours. She said she didn’t think so. Relations relations are bitter because they are putting in an 18-acre subterranean quarry in Westmoreland that is going to come within 345 feet of her house and “it will probably ruin my well. “

“I’m going to be homeless,” she continued. “I’ve already been told that when they ruin my well, I have to take them to court.”

“I’m glad you brought this up and maybe one of us can talk to talk to Tim,” Ms. Mansouri said. If this were a new business, hours would have been set but since it’s grandfathered. You should go to the Selectboard to straighten it out.

 

Ms. Lester made a motion to adjourn, Ms. Trow seconded the motion and the Board agreed.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

 

cc: Town Offices, ZBA Board, The Walpolean

Post: Inside the Town Offices, on the bulletin board outside Walpole Grocery

 

Next meeting Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Agenda for Zoning Board of Adjustment

Wednesday,  October 19, 2016

Walpole Town Hall – 7:30 pm.

 

Roll Call: Appointment of alternates if needed.

Minutes: Review minutes.

Old Business:

Public Hearing 1

            Tara Stuart: Variance for setback distance from the road. 1252 County Road, Map 3, Lot 21, Rural/Agricultural District.

Ms. Stuart wants to put a 16-foot-by-18-foot addition on the house as well as an 8-foot-by-18-foot porch.

 

            Public Hearing 2

Lewis Jeffrey property. Variance setback from the road. Old Keene Road and Hooper Road. Map 8, Lot 8 and 8-1. Residential A zoning District. Request for Public Hearing.

 

Attached is a preliminary draft of a boundary line adjustment Lewis Jeffrey wants to do with his father’s property on Old Keene Road and Hooper Road.  The deed describes two tracts and it is believed the two homes shown on the plan were supposed to be on the tracts.  One home on each tract.  The smaller tract is described incorrectly which puts both homes on the larger tract. Lewis is trying to settle his father’s estate and wants to sell both tracts but needs to clean up the deeds before he can do so.

 

            New Business:
My name is Jazmine Breslend, my husband and I just bought a house on 1101 County Road  Walpole. (Tax Map Description, map-003 lot-013, sub-001) and I currently own a hair salon in Keene. I am starting the process for approval to have a small one chair salon in my home.
            Old Business:

Final Draft of Matrix

Junkyard digital copy. New Gravel  trouble at Graves pit.

Gravel Inspections.

 

Next meeting Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Walpole Zoning Board of Adjustment

Minutes: September 20, 2016

Walpole Town Hall

7:30 pm

 

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway Leclerc, Mary Therese Lester, Judy Trow.  Alternate: Tom Murray. Absent: Bob Anderson.

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the October 2016 meeting for corrections, additions and/or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. One Board member was absent so Tom Murray was asked to fill in.

 

Minutes of August: Ms. Leclerc made a motion to accept the August minutes as written. Mr. Murray seconded the motion and it was approved by the entire Board.

 

New Business:

            Request for a Public Hearing for a Variance by Lewis Shelley, acting as rep and contractor for Tara Stuart on 1252 County Road, Map 3, Lot 21, rural/agricultural district.

Mr. Shelley said the current log garage is in disrepair and needs to be rebuilt. It would be built on the same footprint. Ms. Stuart also wants a 16-foot-by-18-foot addition on the house, which is closer than the 65-foot setback on the road side. She also would like a 4-foot-by-18-foot porch at the same location. Both the porch and addition would be 59 feet from the center of the road. Placement would not fulfill the setback requirements.

Mr. Shelley said the house was built by Paul Galloway and Jerry Galloway in 1970; a year later the garage was built. There is a berm at the edge of road that helps to disguise the house from the road. Mr. Shelley said Monadnock Log Homes is doing the addition. He is doing the finish work.

The Board said the garage may be repaired or replaced on the same footprint as the current garage. Mr. Shelley just needs a building permit. The garage will be a different style and oriented differently, but the same size.

Regarding the addition, the Board said he needed a variance regarding the setback requirements. Ms. Trow made a motion to hold a Public Hearing in October for a variance to hear the arguments regarding setback requirements. The motion was seconded and approved by the Board.

 

            Request for a Public Hearing for a Variance. Jeffrey Lewis property, Old Keene Road  & Hooper Road, Map 8, Lots 8 and 8-1, Residential A. Request for a Variance to have as close to a conforming lot as possible within the parameters of the property. Mr. Joe Dibernardo was speaking for Mr Lewis.

Mr. Dibernardo explained that the property was currently taxed as two lots. In the deed there are two houses but the house to the north of the property is placed near the house at the southern end of the property, not where it actually is. The house at the southern end of the property was at one time a gas station, when Old Keene Road was the main route into Walpole Village. Besides being incorrect, the deed was written in 1958 before there were zoning ordinances. Mr. Lewis inherited the property from his father and is trying to sell it but can’t before there is a survey and the deed straightened out. Mr Dibernardo has been to the Planning Board. The Board recommended going to the ZBA for a variance for the side setback, which is not 25 feet, and the lots should follow the minimum area requirements. So the map has been modified to follow lot requirements.

Ms. Lester made a motion to have a Public Hearing in October for a variance to address the side setback. Ms. Leclerc seconded the motion and it was approved by the Board.

 

Signage: Ms. Kim Mastrianni, president of the Great River Co-op, requested permission to put up a sign at the property between The Scoop Shop and Pinnacleview Equipment on Route 12.

The sign is the one that was previously at Tractor Supply. It is 4-feet-by-8-feet, one sided, made of vinyl, and will not be lit. There will be two wooden posts. The sign will face Route 12. It is on land owned by Bensonwood. There are not signs within 100 feet.

Ms. Mastrianni contacted District 4 at the NH Department of Transportation and spoke with both Shari King and Frank Linnenbringer. Both confirmed that no permit was required.  She reviewed the site on Google Maps with Mr. Linnenbringer. The fence is 90 feet from the center line to the fence and 78 feet from the white line to the fence. So the sign may be placed roughly 10 feet on the road side from the existing fence, approximately in line with the existing Scoop Shop sign at Edwards Lane and not infringe on the DOT setback limit of 75 feet from the center line.

The Board approved the placement of the sign. Ms. Mastrianni will fill out a Sign Application and submit the application and a picture to the ZBA after the sign is up.

 

Gravel Pit Inspections: Two teams submitted Gravel Pit Inspection Reports.  Ms. Leclerc and Ms. Trow visited the Joe Sawyer gravel pit and the Tim Graves gravel pit on the Westmoreland line. Ms. Leclerc said there were not problems at either one. She said they didn’t fill out the excavation part for the Sawyer pit because he hasn’t taken out anything in years.  Mr. Sawyer said at some point he may take something out of the pit. A grandfathered pit must remove earth from it every year. A grandfathered pit has to take out one truckload a year. Mr. Sawyer’s is not a grandfathered pit.

Mr. Anderson and Mr. Murray visited the Hodgkins gravel pits. Mr. Murray said at the Drewsville pit there was a very steep slope, more than the allowed grade. However, there was a Danger sign pointing out that it was a steep grade. Roger Hodgkins said that by next year that the mountain of earth would disappear.

The gravel pit at the Industrial Park on Route 12 had some high water and there was some erosion into the gravel pit. The Department of Environmental Services had inspected it and the abutting brook and said it was okay. There was a berm that protected it.  Mr. Murray said nothing had been take out of there in quite a while. A sign on a tree that says the permit expires March 31, 2017. Ms. Mansouri said DES also monitors Cold River Materials.

 

Matrix: A couple of cosmetic changes were made to the Matrix. The document will be titled Application Procedures. A final draft will be submitted at the October meeting. It will be given out with appropriate ZBA applications and the Selectboard will be asked to give one to people who receive building permits. The whole idea of the Matrix is to make it easier for the applicant.

Ms. Leclerc said she would like to see it be more expeditious. So if the applicant goes to the Planning Board first and a special exception is needed, the Planning Board directs the applicant to the Planning Board and at the same arranges a meeting date to recommend or not recommend the special exception on the meeting following the ZBA meeting.

A motion was made at 8:15 to adjourn by Ms. Lester. Ms. Trow seconded the motion and it was approved by the Board.

 

Respectfully submitted.

Marilou Blaine

Agenda for Zoning Board of Adjustment

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Walpole Town Hall – 7:30 pm.

 

Roll Call: Appointment of alternates if needed

Minutes: Review minutes of June, Executive Session.

 

New Business: Signage

Lew Shelley – possible variance

Lewis Jeffrey property Variance for Lewis Jeffrey Old Keene Road and Hooper Road.        Map 8, Lot 8 and 8-1. Residential B zoning District. Request for Public Hearing.

Attached is a preliminary draft of a boundary line adjustment Lewis Jeffrey wants to do with his  father’s property on Old Keene Road and Hooper Road.  The deed describes two tracts and it is believed the two homes shown on the plan were supposed to be on the tracts.  One home on each tract.  The smaller tract is described incorrectly which puts both homes on the larger tract. Lewis is trying to settle his father’s estate and wants to sell both tracts but needs to clean up the deeds before he can do so.  The smaller tract is non-conforming. However, it is unclear if the tract was decided upon before zoning ordiance.

Continued work on matrix or Flow Chart..

            Junkyard digital copy.

            Gravel Inspections

 

Next meeting Wednesday, October 19, 2016

 

Walpole Zoning Board of Adjustment

Minutes: August 17, 2016

Walpole, Town Hall

7:30 pm 

 

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway Leclerc, Bob Anderson.. Alternate:Tom Murray. Absent: Judy Trow, Mary Therese Lester, 

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the September 21, 2016 meeting for corrections, additions and/or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. There was a quorum of three board members and an alternate.

 

Minutes:  One typo was corrected – wood to word and Ms. Mansouri said she thought Manning and Carr was a real estate office, not a law office. Mr. Anderson made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Murray seconded the motion and it was passed by the Board.

 

New Business:

Signage No. 1: Ms. Samantha Wilheim was representing Unity Homes, a subsidary of Bensonwood. Ms. Wilheim asked if the company could display a 2-by-3-foot sign, on 4-by-4-foot posts and 5 feet high on the right side of the driveway on Wentworth Road. It would be one-sided and would not be lit.

Unity Homes has a model home on the property, which is used as a showroom for potential customers. It is not occupied. Ms. Leclerc made a motion to accept the request as presented. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion and it was approved by the entire board.

Signage No. 2: Mr. Joel Stoddard requested a 3-foot-by-10-foot sign to be placed above one of the bays at his garage on Route 12, next to Walpole Ice Cream. It will be place four feet off center of the bay because the sign is 96 feet from another sign in the front by the road. The ordinance requires that it be 100 feet or a special exception is needed.

It was approved by the board as presented with two conditions:

That Mr. Stoddard get the signature of the owner of the building.

That the sign be placed four feet off center to the right of the bay.

Mr. Stoddard will leave the sign form at the selectboard”s office to be put in a file.

Gravel Pit Inspection Assignments:

Graves and Joe Sawyer – Jan Leclerc and Judy Trow

Hodgkins – Drewsville and Industrial park – Bob Anderson and Tom Murray

Cold River and Whipple Hill – Myra Mansouri and Mary Therese Lester.

At 8:05 the board went into executive session and came out of executive session five minutes later. It was moved and seconded that the minutes of the executive session be approved and sealed.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

 

 

Walpole Zoning Board of Adjustment

Minutes: July 16, 2016

Walpole, Town Hall

7:30 pm 

 

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Bob Anderson, Judy Trow. Alternate: Tom Murray. Absent: Vice-Chair Jan Galloway Leclerc, Mary Therese Lester,

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the August 17, 2016 meeting for corrections, additions and/or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. There was a quorum of three board members and an alternate. 

Minutes:  Five corrections were made, mainly typos or an extra wood.  Ms. Trow made a motion to accept the June minutes as corrected. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion and the board approved the motion.

Old Business:

            Public Hearing:Special Exception:: The Savings Bank of Walpole – Signage, Ames Plaza, map 12, Lot 55-3, commercial district. Zoning Ordinance Article IV. Special Exceptions are required if there are signs within 100 feet of one another. The sign will be 32-square feet, two-sided, free standing, up-lit and perpendicular to Route 12.

Martha Curtis was representing the Savings Bank of Walpole.  Although the bank has been there for 30 years, Ms. Curtis said there are still some people who didn’t know where the bank is. That’s the reason for the sign.

In addition to the above, she added that the lights would be LED, the sign would be close to the banks own driveway to satisfy the state requirement about the distance from to the center line of Route 12 and near where the generator is. The reason there is no sign on the Ames Plaza Board is that the bank owns its own property.

Mr. Anderson thanked Ms. Curtis for taking pictures of where the sign will be with the Ames sign in the background. Ms. Trow asked if the sign on the building was staying. The answer was yes. It is 63 feet from the new sign. The Ames sign is 120 feet away.

The Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Anderson made a motion to grant the Savings Bank of Walpole a Special Exception to put up a new sign. The motion was seconded by Ms. Trow and approved by the Board.

            Public Hearing 2: Expansion of a Non-conforming Use: Lynne and William Reed, 60 Main St., Map 20, Lot 46, the lot is a non-conforming lot. The Reeds wish to put a 3-foot-6- inch-by-7-foot roof over the entrance at the northwest side of the house. It is 17 feet from the nearest abutters.

Mr. Reed said that this would be a new entrance and the principal entrance on that side with the cars parked in front of it. It will be a concrete platform with a roof to provide protection from inclement weather and maybe add interest to that side of the building. It would be one step off the ground.

Abutter Ms. Peggy Pschirrer said she wanted to speak in support of their application of a non-conforming use. She said the addition will be consistent with all of other “excellent redesign work” they have done to that house and will enhance the neighborhood. It will add value to that house as well as abutting property.

Mr. Charlie Frye said it seems a good thing for the neighborhood and for the town and add value to the town.

Mr. Anderson asked if people parked in front of the house. Mr. Reed said there was room for three cars, but not on the street.

Ms. Trow asked if there was any historic evidence it may have had a roof over it. It looks like it belongs there, she said. The Reeds said no. Mr. Reed said it was a window and, he added, the second floor had been added.

Ms. Mansouri said it used to be the law offices of Manning and Carr.

Ms. Pschirrer said that at one time the building, as well as her house, was going to be torn down, but it was turned into the first historical society. The building where the Reeds were living was the gift shop. And at one time Guy Bemis owned them both.

Ms. Trow made a motion to approve the Expansion of a Non-conforming Use. Tom Murray seconded the motion and the Board agreed.

He was asked to send pictures of the improvement when it was completed. Mr. Reed agreed to do so.

 

            Public Hearing 3: Special Exception. Fuzzy Brothers LLC. 15 Sawmill Lane, Map 13, Lot    34-5. The Fuzzy Brothers want to use the barns and property to store and repair heavy equipment. Article VIII. Part C.

Mr. Ben Northcott represented the Fuzzy Brothers LLC and he passed out pictures of the area with a view from the road. Mr. Northcott said he was there for a change of use of the property that was Charlie Welch’s saw mill. The building he was most interested in using was the red building, the one closest to the road, which is Cheshire Turnpike.

There’s a pasture land used by the Fall Mountain High School and hay field on one side and that will remain the same. The small building that was an office at one time will be storage area for equipment. And same with the area behind the big red building.

The red building has garage doors on the front but the equipment will actually enter from the back and the front doors will not be used. The area in back of the building would be used for parking and storage. He would plant some trees in front of the red building and there are some breaks in the trees along the same side that need to be filled in, Mr. Northcott said.

He doesn’t expect to do much to the exterior of the building except paint it, replace a few rotten boards and broken windows. They are going to update the electrical system inside.

Mr. Anderson asked about a fence. Mr. Northcott answered that the Planning Board thought the trees would look better than a fence. Ms. Mansouri agreed.

How many pieces of equipment will be parked on the property? Ms. Trow asked. Mr. Northcott said in the winter maybe two trailer trucks, five excavators, several bucket trucks and a couple of rock crushers. In the winter there would be probably be three employees.

Ms. Mansouri asked about the tenant who was there. The tenants would move to a house on the property. The apartment would become the office.

There would be no sign. He is not looking to repair any other equipment than his own. The loudest noise would probably come from an air wrench.

Ms. Mansouri said that the Special Exception is subject to the Planning Board’s recommendation.

The Public Hearing was closed.

Mr. Anderson moved that the Special Exception be granted with three conditions:

1. That the repair work be only on the Fuzzy Brothers equipment.
2. That trees be planted so the equipment cannot be seen from the road.
3. That the Planning Board recommend the Special Exception.

Ms. Trow seconded the motion and it unanimously was agreed to by the rest of the Board.

 

            Signage: Jack Franks: Future Home of Cold River Brewing Co.

Mr. Jack Franks of Avanru Development came to ask if he could replace the current sign advertising Top Soil for Sale on Route 12 near Red Barn Lane be replaced with a sign saying “Future Home Of Cold River Brewing Co……Office/Retail/Suites Available.” The telephone number and web site are included. There may be a picture of the building on the sign.

The sign will remain where it is to satisfy state requirement and be the exact same size, 32-square feet..

Ms. Mansouri said that she saw no problem with that and the Board agreed.

 

The Matrix discussion was put off for a month. Then the Board went into executive session after a motion was made by Ms. Trow, seconded by Mr. Anderson. The Board came out of executive session about 15 minutes later and the Board adjourned.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

 

Walpole Zoning Board of Adjustment

Minutes: June 16, 2016

Walpole, Town Hall

7:30 pm 

 

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway Leclerc, Mary Therese Lester, Bob Anderson, Judy Trow. Alternate: Tom Murray has not been sworn in yet.

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the July 2016 meeting for corrections, additions and/or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. There was a quorum of five board members.

 

Leadership Academy: Ms. Mansouri welcomed the members of the Leadership Academy. She said soon after she moved to Walpole, she began going to Zoning and Planning Board meetings. She was an alternate on the Zoning Board before becoming a board member. She hopes someone in the Academy will be inspired enough to participate on a board. 

Minutes of May:  Ms. Leclerc made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Ms. Lester seconded the motion and the board approved the motion

New Business:

Savings Bank of Walpole: Signage – Martha Curtis, who was representing the bank, asked for a special exception to place a sign perpendicular to Route 12. Map 20, Lot 55-3, Commercial District. Ordinance Article IV, D-6.

Ms. Curtis said that although the Savings Bank of Walpole has been at the Ames Plaza location for about 30 years, some people who are new to the area cannot locate the building. Ms. Curtis asked for a Public Hearing in July for a Special Exception to place a sign, which is the allowable size of 32 square feet. The sign has the name of the bank on it and its logo. It will be lighted with LED lights that are on a timer and turn off at 9 pm. The sign is free-standing and two-sided.

The bank needs a Special Exception because the sign on the building is 60 feet from the proposed sign. Article IV Part D-6 states that there must be 100 feet between two signs.

Mr. Anderson said he was pleased that the bank moved the sign around to get the best vantage point.

Mr. Dalessio asked what was below the La Valley sign. It was a sign for Sears. Although the bushes hide that sign, the bushes were there before Sears placed the sign.

A motion was made to hold a Public hearing for a Special Exception in July. The motion was seconded and it was passed by the entire board.

 

Old Business:

            Public Hearing:

Variance for an Accessory building, article XVII A and P, Map 9, Lot 33, rural/agricultural district. Ms. Kashiyo Enokido wished to build a detached accessory dwelling on her property at 192 March Hill Road. The dwelling would be a two-car garage with one of the garage bays to be finished as an art studio. Above this space would be one bedroom, one bathroom, and living space.

Barry Bellows, speaking for the owner, thanked the Board for coming out to walk the site. Before he continued, Mr. Anderson asked him a question: Regarding this property, were granted any exceptions for a non-conforming use or do any non-conforming uses exist at this time. Mr. Bellows answered “No, none that I know of.”

Mr. Bellows continued that all the paperwork, maps, questions had been submitted. He gave a synopsis of what the owner wanted: an accessory building, a detached structure that is going to be used on an occasional basis. It is a space for their family to visit. It would be a two-bay garage with one bay being used for an art studio. Upstairs is a bedroom, bath and living space.

The owners do not want an attached building because it would block the entrance of the rear yard. This provides the owners for a potential caregiver. The structure will share all utilities with the main house – power, sewage system, telephone.

The owners are not pushing for a subdivision; the owners are not trying to create a density issue. Mr. Bellows said. The owners are not creating a new infrastructure. Mr. Bellows mentioned House Bill 45, which recently passed the NH Legislature that will be putting into law a new look at accessory buildings, he said. It is an important option and something that is coming in the future. This passed in a 2-to-1 margin the House and unanimous in the Senate. There are many people behind this, he said.

The accessory building will be a value to the town, Bellows said. It will increase taxes, put no burden on the school system or services. Mr. Bellows said he hoped that the route the Board is taking will service the needs of the townspeople in use of their own land.

Ms. Mansouri asked Mr. Bellows to read the answers to the criteria:

Question 1: Give specific details of the project.

Answer: “The constituents of the above stated property would like to build a detached accessory dwelling unit upon their property within a close proximity to the main house. This space is to be a two-car garaged on the base level with one of the garage bays to be enclosed and finished for the purpose of an art studio for one of the owners. Above this space, they would like to construct a one-bedroom space with a full bathroom that can house sporadically their family, or visiting friends upon their property. Due to the fact that their children live in other communities this will enable them to visit for extended periods if desired. The owners are in no means looking to create this as a rental situation for income or otherwise and look to the future as this could potentially house a caregiver allowing them the ability to age in their home and on their property. Their current house is a two-bedroom home that doesn’t allow for the needs that are wanting to be filled by this structure.”

 

Question 2: The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property value because:

Answer: “The construction and use of this structure will not cause any environmental, physical or emotional detrimental effects upon the neighboring properties. For the most part it is physically unable to be seen by neighboring properties and due to the nature of the site, the hllls and surrounding terrain, it is almost completely isolated.”

 

Questions 3: Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because of the following special circumstances of the property that distinguish it from other properties similarly zoned because:

Answer: “An attached structure is incompatible with the current design of the house. The existing house was specifically located next to a brook that wraps two sides of the home, the house accessed by a bridge that was required and the approach enters to an attached garage structure with just enough room to turn entering vehicle around. The remaining side faces a large embankment, part of which buffers the potential for an overflowing brook and also allows access to the rear of the house for landscaping maintenance, the potential of needing to get to the well in case of a pump or other system failure, and the ability for fire or emergency vehicle to access at least three sides of the home. Denial of this variance would  put limits and restrictions on the owners’ use of their property and use of their current home in a manner that is unappealing from  a functional, aesthetic and necessary access to all points of their home.”

 

Question 4: Granting the variance would do substantial justice because:

Answer: “It will allow the owners a space for their family and friends to visit who do not reside in this community. It allows them the ability to share and enjoy their property and to bring people to this community to enjoy the many things that it has to offer. It will avoid doing damage to the current design and function of the existing house, allow for better access to the house in case of emergencies or servicing and maintaining. It will offer the owners the ability to age in their home or  have family to assist them as they age or to have a caregiver on the site in a time of need.”

 

Question 5: The proposed would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:

Answer: “We are not exactly sure what the “spirit of the ordinance” is for the requirement of a common foundation. If we are to assume an understanding then we would say that this structure whether an addition or a detached structure represents exactly the same thing in size, function, use, and impact upon the land and surrounding neighbors. The proximity is close to the existing house and it will share the same utilities of phone, power, septic, driveway and use of property. The primary structure is owner-occupied, there is ample parking as need, the primary structure is the primary dwelling of the owners. The design and architectural appearance, along with creation of more open land and maintained land usage seems in context with the reasoning for ordinances. This structure will sit on an existing lot, it does not push for further expansion or subdivision, it represents very balanced growth and use of the existing system in an aesthetically pleasing manner, and it most certainly does not create a density issue with the ample size of the lot along with the fact that it will very likely have zero impact upon any neighboring properties.”

 

“In Summary: We see at this current time in our state a need and a push towards the ability to have accessory dwelling units. This lot of ample size has the ability to subdivide and construct this space in the open field on the approach, but in my opinion this would be more of an impact much less efficient use of existing systems, the elimination of open land, the creation of more density in the rural aspect of your town and the loss of the commodity of land attached to residential needs. This structure that we are looking for approval to construct allows the potential of the owners of this primary residence the ability be able to look to their personal needs of the future when the ability to live and age without relocation becomes a factor.”

 

Ms. Mansouri said, “The way the Board has always done this is that we have voted on each question. But first, are there any questions from the audience?”

Mr. Anderson, reading from one of the zoning manuals, said “the Board does not have the discretion because they like the applicant or because they the project is a good idea.”

Someone in the audience asked. “Why would that ever come up,”

Another audience member asked why ask them to go through a variance if you are not open.

Ms. Mansouri replied, “We are open and listen to the answers and then the Board decides what it wants to do.”

Mr. Steve Dalessio, a selectman and leader of the Leadership Academy, suggested going back to Zoning Article 5 that describes a single or one family dwelling and then go back to the section of definitions. There is nothing that talks about detached or one foundation. Go back to the work dwelling in definitions. Wherever in this document, does the explanation of the word dwelling appear.

“That’s either a single or two-family house is on one foundation,” Ms. Mansouri said. It does not say house. Mr.  Dalessio said. A dwelling would be where someone lived, Ms. Mansouri responded.

On page 25, under article 17, Ms. Trow read “a dwelling is a building of one foundation. A one-or-two family dwelling shares the same foundation.” Mr. Dalessio said, “It doesn’t day house.” Ms. Trow said, “It says dwelling.” Mr. Dalessio said, “ A dwelling could be a garage. The document doesn’t define dwelling.”

What is the definition of a foundation, an audience member asked. Ms. Mansouri said., “What a house is put on.”  “But what about a two-family house, “ He asked. Ms. Mansouri said that would be up and down.”

Ms. Mansouri said that the owners have a lot of road frontage. They could give access over the driveway for a right of way and put that on the subdivided part, still have all the utilities come from the main house and put a clause in the deed that the two lots could not be sold separately.

Mr. Crouse asked if it is the intention to keep the two structures together.

Ms. Mansouri said you only need 200 feet of frontage. So you take 200 feet, provide access over the driveway, the house would be a separate lot or record but the deed says they could never be sold separately

“I’m not sure that makes sense,” Mr. Crouse said. You have to go through the meadow out to the road and take 200 feet of frontage and create a new lot.

Someone from the audience asked if it would not be easier to record them as one. This way they have to go to the Planning Board, get a subdivision, record in the deed that the two buildings would always be sold together. It will be winter before construction could begin.

“They can get what they want exactly and also conform to the zoning ordinance,” Ms. Leclerc said. “Then there is no point in the variance.”

Ms. Peggy Pschirrer said she was concerned about requiring something in a deed that stamps of regulatory statement. “You are restricting the owner economically by saying you will never divide this space. That’s similar to eminent domain. Now if you had compensated him and deny him the right later to separate that property, you can do that, but its regulatory statement.”

Ms. Trow said that what is being suggested is that after they subdivide, they put a clause in their deed it cannot be sold separately.

Ms. Pschirrer said, “You are restricting what they can do.”

Ms. Leclerc said the owners said they did not want to separate these properties. Putting it in the deed would give them what they want. They don’t have to.

Ms. Pschirrer said you’re requiring it. Ms. Mansouri said, “We’re not requiring it.” Ms. Pschirrer said if she were the applicant she would say “absolutely not. You are prohibiting that free use of that land. It may give them what they want, but it’s a dangerous road to do down.”

Ms. Mansouri said the Board was only suggesting it because they said they always wanted the two pieces to go together.

“Then I would rely on their good faith to do so,” Ms. Pschirrer said.

Someone from the audience asked if they subdivided wouldn’t they have to have their own septic and other services.

Mr. Bellows said it is too close to the other building. Ms. Leclerc asked if was 40 feet. Mr. Bellows said it was more than that. Ms. Leclerc said all you need is 20 feet from the property line.

Mr. Richard Francis asked if the Board’s suggestion is an avenue they might take if the applicants were turned down. If you go through the five criteria and everybody agrees with what was being done, they don’t need to do that. If somebody disagrees with one or more criteria and the variance is turned down, are you now suggesting this is an avenue for them to take.

Ms. Mansouri answered this is a legal avenue for them to take to get them what they want.

Mr. Anderson said one of the questions is about hardships. And then the Board has to consider whether or not there were options. He asked, could you build a second story over the garage and create what you want?

Not in a pleasing manner, Mr. Bellows said. “Is it physically possible, anything is possible.”

“Could you add an addition to the side of the house,” Mr. Anderson asked. “Which side?” Mr. Bellows asked.

“My answer would be no,” Mr. Bellows answered. “The well is there, the propane tank, the septic is there. I wouldn’t recommend it.”

Mr. Anderson asked, “Does the house have a basement.” Mr. Bellows answered, “It has a crawl space under two-thirds, basement under one-third with no egress.

Ms. Lester asked if there would ever be a kitchen. Mr. Bellows said, “No.”

Mr. Anderson said New Hampshire law requires an ordinance to have an attached accessory dwelling unit, it does not require us to have a detached accessory building. That is optional. He continued that Mr. Bellows believes they are the same. “My reading is that they are not the same.”

Mr. Bellows asked what difference does it make if the structure is 15 feet away or attached. Mr. Anderson said he couldn’t answer that because all the towns in this state are going to be trying to figure this out for attached and detached.

One thing I have found in towns like Peterborough allows this with restriction of lot size, which is 10 acres. Ms. Mansouri said the town voted on the ordinance and the Board had to follow the ordinances of our town.

Mr. Bellows said he thought there’s a reason for it and a need for it. Ms. Leclerc agreed and said she personally felt it could be a good idea to have detached dwelling units but the Board has to look at what Walpole has for ordinances now.

Mr. Crouse said one of your responsibilities is to consider variances. Ms. Leclerc agreed if the applicant meets the criteria. Mr. Crouse added that a lot of the words in the form are not that clear.

There being no further questions, Ms. Mansouri closed the Public Hearing.

She asked Mr. Bellows to read Question 1 and his answer. (Please refer to the previous question and answer.)

Mr. Leclerc agreed it wouldn’t diminish property values as did the rest of the Board. Vote 5 for 0 against.

Question and answer 2. Ms. Lester said she tends to agree because of the placement of the house. You could not get a fire truck in there and if there were an issue with the well. I realized that things as people age they like things on the first floor. And she would be denied the ability to do her work if an art studio is not built.

Ms. Leclerc said, “If the lot were small, I would agree. I agree it would spoil look of the house.” But when you consider the size of the lot, it allows the owners to subdivide so she can get what she wants.

Mr. Anderson said, “I don’t see a hardship in the property. I think there are ways for you to establish your goal.”

Mr. Trow said, “I also do not see a hardship. The way existing house was built, the style of the house. If either of those had been different, we wouldn’t be here. They have plenty of land to subdivide.”

Ms. Lester said, “I guess I think someone designs a house and then decides after the fact to do something, it’s because they want to keep it intact. I think we can’t deny it’s a hardship. It’s aesthetically pleasing.” Maybe they didn’t know about a subdivision and all the extra work.

Mr. Bellows said it’s an existing house and everyone can look back and say they should have this, they should have that. But this is what it is. It is now something they want years later.

Ms. Mansouri interrupted and told Mr. Bellows that at this time he wasn’t allowed to speak. He apologized.

The vote on hardship in the property was 4-1.

Question and answer 3.

 Ms. Leclerc said she didn’t agree because they can do what they want without a variance.

Ms. Lester said, “I guess I have a hard time with word substantial. It doesn’t do substantial justice.

Mr. Anderson said he didn’t have a problem with substantial justice. Ms. Trow agreed. The vote was 3 to 1 with 1 abstention.

Mr. Anderson proposed that if we agree to this accessory dwelling and the property is sold, the new owner could decide to put in four more accessory dwellings. The property would have has already gotten a variance, so there is a history that would make it possible.

Ms. Leclerc said when they changed the zoning to common foundation and people who had a house here and a garage there and they would make a roof between the two. And another time a trailer was put on a property and a variance was granted to an elderly relative to live in it. When she died, they rented the trailer, which violated the zoning. And at that time, if two residences were on a lot, it was controversial. So having a common foundation fixed that problem. In the future thing may change, especially on large lots. But for now we have this ordinance.

Question 4

The vote on this question was 5-0.

A vote on the entire ordinance was 5-0.

Mr. Dalessio explained the appeal process. They may appeal for a rehearing in 30 days and then it goes to the Selectboard.

Mr. Crouse said, “You set us up from the beginning. You had made up your mind.’

Someone in the audience asked, “Why not go directly to the Selectboard.” Ms. Pschirrer said they have to exhaust their administrative rights.

Mr. Bellows said he was requesting another Public Hearing for next month. A motion was made and seconded and passed unanimously by the Board.

 

New Business:

Mr. Archie Brown and his wife Jeanne Marie are purchasing the property of the former sculpture Jonathan Clowes at 98 March Hill Road. His wife is a professor at Keene State College in the Theater and Dance Department. She also advises new Equity productions. Mr. Brown works for the Brattleboro Development Credit Corporation and the couple has an interest in holding workshops and classes for rural entrepreneurs.

The primary use of the house would be as a home. But could she do some workshops and could I do some consulting at that location. It has this huge open room. If Jeanne Marie were work shopping a new show, could she have artists there – for a week or weekend?

If we had nonprofit status, could there be performances for the community?

Mr. Brown was before the Board making sure these ideas would be OK and ethical. “We want to be open and transparent about what we will be doing,” he said.

Ms. Trow read the ordinance relating to working in your home.

Ms. Lester said consulting in your home, shouldn’t be a problem. Regarding the theater workshops she asked how many people. Mr. Brown said probably no more than 10. He added that rehearsal space is very expensive.

Someone asked if he would have employees. He answered no more than occasionally their college-age children.

Ms. Mansouri asked about parking. Mr. Brown said it was a pretty long driveway and he thought it would be adequate.

If we had a new play, we could invite people to audience reaction – maybe 30 people.

Ms. Lester said it would be like a theater party.

 

Expansion of a non-conforming use:

Lynne and Bill Reed, 60 Main St. Map 20, Lot 46 would like to put a roof over some step that outside the back of their house. It is 17 feet from the property line and the setback is 20 feet. Mr. Reed requested a Public Hearing for the month of July. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved to the hold the session.

 

A motion was made to go into executive session. The Board was in executive session for about 10 minutes.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

 

Agenda for Zoning Board of Adjustment

Wednesday,  June 15, 2016

Walpole Town Hall – 7:30 pm.

 

Roll Call: Appointment of alternates if needed

 

Minutes: Review minutes of May.

 

New Business: Signage

            Savings Bank of Walpole has found that there is some blockage of view of Ames sign, so is waiting for us to advise them about what to do.

 

Old Business:

            Public Hearing:

            Variance for an Accessory Building, Article  XVII A and P. Map 9, Lot 33,       rural/agricultural district.  Ms. Kashiyo Enokido wishes to build a detached accessory dwelling on her property at 192 March Hill Road that is a two-car garage with one of the garage bays to be finished for an art studio.  Above this space would be one bedroom, living space and a bathroom.

        

            Mr. Northcott would like to postpone his Public Hearing for a Special Exception until July.  He wants to do repair work and store large earth moving equipment on the property on Saw Mill Lane. Rural/Agricultural District. Map 15, Lot 34.

 

            Continued work on matrix or Flow Chart..

 

Next meeting Wednesday,  July 20, 2016

Walpole Zoning Board of Adjustment

Minutes: May 18, 2016

Walpole Town Hall

7:30 pm.

 

Present: Board Members: Chair Myra Mansouri, Vice-Chair Jan Galloway Leclerc, Mary Therese Lester, Bob Anderson. Absent: Judy Trow.

Recording: Marilou Blaine. These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the June 2016 meeting for corrections, additions and/or omissions.

Roll Call: Ms. Mansouri called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. There was a quorum of four board members.

Minutes of April:  Mr. Anderson made one correction – the letter “w” to “s” in the sixth paragraph on the first page changing the word “well” to “sell.” Ms. Leclerc made a motion to accept the April minutes as corrected and Ms. Lester seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Mansouri said that Ms. Judy Trow has accepted the position as a board member and has been sworn in. Mr. Tom Murray, the newly appointed alternate, was in the audience as he hadn’t been sworn in yet.

Old Business:

            Enokido Public Hearing for a variance for an accessory building: Ms. Mansouri said the hearing would be held next month. Ms. Enokido and Mr. Crouse decided that since there would be a quorum of four, which could result in a tie, they preferred to wait until next month when there is a full board. Also, they would be unable to attend this meeting.

 

Old Business:

            Public Hearing for Special Exception for Mr. Eric Frink, 131 Merriam Road, Map 3, Lot 54.  Rural /Agricultural District, Ordinance VIII, Part C. Mr. Frink has applied for a Federal   Firearms License. He was at the meeting at the request of Mr. Thiery Soucy, an investigator for the Bureau of Firearms, Alcohol and Tobacco.

Ms. Mansouri said Mr. Frink went before the Planning Board last Tuesday and they said the Planning Board would have a Public Hearing next month.

Mr. Frink brought along the tome of rules and regulations he must follow if he gets a license. Mr. Vose asked that he do so at the last meeting.

Ms. Mansouri asked why Mr. Frink felt he should get a special exception and read why he felt he met the criteria.

Mr. Frink said because there would be 20 or fewer customers per month. There will not be any hazard to health, safety or property value. Everyone in the neighborhood is familiar with firearms. There would be no noise, odor or excessive traffic. He repeated that he was only selling to friends and family. There would be no advertising, signs and no need to worry about parking. “One or two cars in the neighborhood won’t even be noticed,” he said. “I’m doing it for profit.”

One abutter was at the meeting, Mr. Roger Bienvenu. He said he just wanted to see what was going on.

Later he asked if anyone had been up on Merriam Road. Mr. Anderson said he had driven up there and Ms. Mansouri said she had been there before.                                                                       1.

On the special exception form Mr. Frink said that his house is 1,500 feet from the road and 50 feet or more from side boundaries.

Mr. Murray asked if the was going to have a gun range for people who buy guns to test their new weapon. Mr. Frink said “no.”

He said he sometimes shoots in his yard sometimes at his home. Ms. Mansouri asked if needed to be a certain distance from someone’s house. Mr. Frink said he’s well within that distance. The next property from the back of the house is over half a mile away. There are five houses on the road where he lives.

Ms. Lester asked if he was doing it during the day. Mr. Frink said it would be more like “by appointment.”

Mr. Frink said he didn’t consider it retail because he’s not going to have lots of guns to sell at his house. Ms. Lester said is it like mail order? Mr. Frink said “yes.” He would order a firearm from a wholesaler and someone would pick it up on the weekend. “That’s basically how Amazon started,” Ms. Lester said.

Ms. Mansouri asked who delivers. Mr. Frink said UPS. He has to sign for the delivery. If he isn’t there, the UPS person leaves a printed note and he can pick up the item at the UPS warehouse in Keene.

Ms. Lester asked if he had thought about US mail. Mr. Frink said he would rather not use that service.

Ms. Mansouri said the Planning Board said that the Zoning Board could grant the special exception and with their recommendation, he would be approved. But the board could put limits on the approval such as hours of operation, no firing range. Mr. Anderson added limits on 20 customers a month. His concern was that he would be operating out of his house and he didn’t want the business to get too big.

Mr. Anderson made a motion that the Board approve the special exception subject to a Planning Board recommendation to allow firearms be sold by Eric Frink from his home at 131 Merriam Road in Walpole in the rural/agricultural district with the following conditions:

1. Operating hours would be Saturday and Sunday from 9 am to 5 pm.
2. Federal and state permits must be obtained. Approval of the Walpole police chief is required.
3. If any of these permits are amended, suspended or renewed, the change must be filed with the Zoning Board of Adjustment in Walpole.
4. No more than 20 customer sales per month.
5. No unsold inventory will be held on the property.
6. No advertising of firearms or ammunition will be performed.
7. No firing range for customers can exist on the property.
8. Operations cannot be changed or expanded without returning to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for its permission. If any of those conditions are changed, you would have to come back to the Zoning Board for a review.

Ms. Lester seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

Mr. Frink asked if the Board could notify Mr. Soucy. Ms. Mansouri asked the secretary to notify Mr. Soucy of the US  Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the outcome of this Public Hearing.  She also asked Mr. Frink if when he gets his licenses to make a copy and give them to the secretary. Mr. Frink said he would do so. He said it may take four months or so.                                                                                 

Signage for the Savings Bank of Walpole: Ms. Martha Curtis said that the sign did not block the Ames Plaza sign until a car gets about 30 feet away. They will either correct the problem or forget about the sign. Ms. Mansouri  asked about pictures. The secretary did not receive any.

Site Walk Minutes:  Ms. Mansouri said these were comments by Barry Bellows. Corrections were the word “proposed” before accessory building should be added in paragraph three.  In the same paragraph, last sentence insert the word “is: after the word It.  In paragraph five, add an  “e” to the word your. The minutes were approved as corrected by Ms. Lester, seconded by Ms. Leclerc. The motion passed.

Matrix: Ms. Mansouri said that  the Board will discuss the Matrix, which is a flow chart that describes the steps of a variance and special exception, when Ms. Trow returns.

Junkyards: Ms Mansouri asked the Board what they wanted to do about junkyards. Ms. Lester said she was busy with work until the school year ended. So, it was decided to revisit junkyards in July.

RSA books: Ms. Mansouri distributed copies of the new RSA book.

Northcott Public Hearing: the secretary reminded the Board that they voted to hold a Public Hearing in June for Ben Northcott to use the property he was buying for winter storage and repair of equipment.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine