Town of Kensington
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 3, 2002 Public Hearing/Meeting
Approved November 5, 2002
Roll
call: Chairman Joan Skewes, Katherine Clark, Paul Kimball, Dan Chaisson and
John Ronan
The Meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm.
1. Application of Wesley Rosencrantz, Route 107, Kensington, NH for a Special Exception for commercial use in accordance with Article 8.4.I.A of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Regulations. Applicant is requesting to use the property for the existing John Deere Tractor dealership.
Kevin, Wesley and James Rosencrantz
presented a proposed plan to subdivide 8 acres of Wesley’s property and annex
them to James Rosencrantz’s grandfathered lot, which would provide the required
frontage. Plans include erecting a
storage building approximately 72 ft by 195 ft, which would house the tractors
and pertinent equipment, with the exception of equipment trailers due to their
size, e.g. hay wagons. An earth berm is
being built between Mr. Chetsas’ property and the proposed lot for screening
and as a barrier to noise, etc. The
purchase and sale agreement for the eight acres is pending Board approval.
Wesley explained that the right-of-way
depicted on the Town’s maps for Map 2, Lot 4-10 has changed and is now between
lots 2-3 and 2-2. Lot 2-3 was granted a
special exception on April 6, 1993 for a greenhouse/landscaping business. Wesley also stated the site plan review
included equipment display.
Mr. Chaisson had questions about the
grandfathered uses and the legal aspect of expansion and requested to confer
with Town Counsel. He asked why eight
acres were needed for a building and James Rosencrantz replied that he had
always wanted to buy the land and gave a brief history of the ownership. Mr. Chaisson expressed concerns about the
extent of the growth and what their intentions are, since these will be binding
for the future. The three Rosencrantz’s
explained that the land would go down to the power lines, which would protect
them and ensure that a subdivision of houses could not be built behind the
business. K. Clark emphasized that the
Board needed to look at the property as a whole, since this is a business and
although the current business lot is grandfathered, the special exception would
be an expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use. She cautioned that this would not be allowed since a special
exception cannot be added to a special exception. Dan Chaisson explained that a non-conforming use has no
restrictions on the intensity of the use; however, expansion into another areas
is different. Chairman Skewes read from
Attorney Tucker’s letter that a special exception was required.
Abutters James and Jacqueline St. Cyr
addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Chetsas.
He stated that Mr. Chetsas was very opposed to a special exception and
had written a letter addressing his concerns.
Mr. St. Cyr read the letter to the Board which stated in part:
I am 100% against a special exception being granted
to Wesley Rosencrantz for commercial use on his property. For the past year the Rosencrantz John Deere
Company has been illegally operating on this lot and continues to this day to
operate even after being told by the Town of Kensington to move all equipment
and cease and desist all operation.
Article 8.3 clearly states that a special exception can not be granted which could cause any harm to
:
1. Property Values. The continued illegal operation on this lot has affected my
property value. To allow a 195 X 72
storage facility will destroy my value.
I have called real estate firms for their opinions and they have stated
it will have an effect on my property value.
2. Hazards to health. The junk that is still on the lot, which
includes old 250 gallon rusted oil tanks, junk cars and a bus, can all leak oil
that can seep into my well. Storage in
this facility would not be seen by the public and with the history of the
business operation I am very concerned what would be stored in the facility.
3. Offensive to public. The erection of this facility would destroy
the beauty of the area. All land around
this area is beautiful. What has
happened to this lot to date is offensive.
To allow a huge facility to be erected would be a travesty to the
surrounding residential area.
4. Noise. My peace of mind has been destroyed due to noise. Myself and family have not had quiet for over a year. Machinery is running and operating illegally on this lot ten to sixteen hours, six to seven days a week. If a facility o f this size is erected there will be trucks loading and offloading. You cannot build a wall or berm large enough to contain the noise. Noise travels in the woods and this is a huge problem that we have been forced to live with because the Rosencrantz Corporation continues to this day to operate illegally on this lot.
5. Noxious odor. We have tractor trailers parked illegally on this lot and idling for hours. The fumes are horrible. The amount of equipment and trucks that will be entering and exiting this area would be unbearable.
6. Vibration. There would be tractor trailers entering and exiting this lot. I have had to live with the problem of
vibration for the past year and it would be increased with the amount of heavy
equipment being on and off loaded and moved.
7. Excessive traffic. The storage facility would increase truck and heavy equipment
traffic. This would be the main
distribution center for equipment.
There is also another issue with lot 4-10. There was a 4116 square foot storage facility built on James
Rosencrantz’s lot 1 that clearly is in zoning law violation. The building does not have the proper set
backs on the west and south side and is clearly on lot 4-10. This building is too close to my lot because
of the zoning violation and I feel it has decreased my property value because
of the location and size of the building.
I have brought this issue up to the Board of Selectmen (See Minutes of
Meeting February 18, 2002 & June 3, 2002) but nothing has been done to date
to address the issue.
The above list is just many facts why a Special Exception cannot be
granted, but the main reason a Special Exception cannot be granted for Lot 4.10
is that it does not have 250 feet of frontage on a town approved road. I want to remind the board that the issue
and only issue is lot 4-10, not lots 2 or 3 that have frontage on route 107 and
border lot 4.10. The Special Exception
cannot be granted for this reason and all above listed facts.
When I purchased my land and built my house in 1996, I purposely built
my home 950 feet from the street because I knew that all of the property around
me was residential. I love Kensington
and my family and I had lived in peace until the summer of 2001 when the
Rosencrantz's just simply did what they wanted to with no regard their
neighbors or the zoning laws of this town.
They had been warned four times by the Board of Selectmen and Town
Attorney to stop all activity on this lot and to this date they are still
operating on this lot. This proof of
unethical and illegal business operation is of great concern. What I have been living with is not
speculation of the future, it is proof of how this would devastate my property
value and privacy.
Respectfully,
Christopher P. Chetsas
Public input included Barbara Boudreau
who expressed empathy for the neighbors relative to her property and the impact
of commercial use. David Buxton
explained that the Board of Selectmen had visited the site and reviewed the
proposed expansion with the Rosencrantzs.
Katherine Clark, Board member, said she
had driven by the current grandfathered lot and found the business has expanded
greatly. She suggested the Board
schedule a site visit.
Dan Chaisson moved to continue this
hearing to Sunday morning, September 8th at 9:30 am for a site walk
to the Rosencrantz property, which is also a public hearing, and then continue
to the next Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on October 1, 2002. Paul Kimball seconded the motion with all
voting in favor.
2. Application of Susan Berry, 218 South Road, Kensington, NH, for a variance from provisions of Article 8.3, Section III A, of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Regulations. Applicant is requesting to install an in-ground pool 16.7’ from an abutting property line, current regulation is 25 feet, as other locations are unsuitable due to the configuration of the lot.
Susan Berry presented a plot plan and
explained that the construction of the pool had started before she learned that
she needed a building permit. Her
neighbor had thought it was too close to the lot line and the building
inspector stopped further construction until a survey was done and a permit
approved. The survey revealed that the
leading edge of the pool was only 16.7’ from the lot line. The Selectmen had instructed her that she
needed a variance, as the setback from the lot line was 25’.
Abutter John Costa explained that there
are easements on the property and there has been no regard to his property
line. His property has been encroached
upon with trees having been cut and excavation done. He is opposed to the granting of a variance for a pool, which is
a luxury item, since the structure, including fencing will be closer than the
16.7’.
Joan Skewes read the following from the
Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Regulations:
III. Site Requirements - there shall be observed the following setbacks in the construction of new buildings or in the relocation of existing ones.
A. A building or addition shall not be located nearer than 25 feet from the property lines of any abutter and not nearer than 50 feet from any structure on an abutter's property.
B. There shall be a minimum depth of 25 feet between the nearest right of way and any building.
Definitions:
Building - Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for shelter, housing, or enclosure of persons or animals.
Structure -
anything constructed or erected on or in the ground, or in the water, or an
attachment to something having a fixed location on the ground, such as
buildings, permanent or temporary; signs, carports, porches, swimming pools and other building
features, including communication towers and antennas but not including
sidewalks, fences, driveways, septic systems, boundary markers, field or garden
walls or embankment retaining walls, land drainage, sediment, and erosion control
structures. (Added 3/01)
Set back ‑
means the distance between the nearest portion of a building and a lot or right of way
line whichever is closer.
Paul Kimball stated that since the set backs refer
only to buildings, not structures, there is no violation, since a swimming
pool, while a structure, is not a building. Thus the setbacks do not
apply. K. Clark moved to dismiss the application as it was deemed there
was no violation, seconded by John Ronan with all in favor. Mr. Costa said he plans to appeal the
decision. Susan Berry was instructed
that she still needed to have her building permit approved by the Selectmen,
who could option to wait for the decision on the appeal. She could also proceed with construction if
the permit is approved, but at her own risk.
3.
Consultation – Louisa
Pereira – continuing operation of grandfathered Queen’s Bridge Farm Restaurant
and adding a Day Care Center. She was
not in attendance.
Approval
of June 4, 2002 minutes – Joan Skewes moved to accept the minutes as written,
seconded by Paul Kimball with all in favor.
K. Clark
moved to adjourn at 9:00 pm, seconded by Paul Kimball with all in favor.
Denise Gregson
Administrative Assistant