Town of Kensington

Zoning Board or Adjustment Minutes

September 6, 2005 Public Hearing/Meeting

Approved October 4, 2005

 

Roll call: Chairman Richard Parker, Joan Skewes, Eric Peterson, John Ronan and alternates, John Andreasse and Michael Schwotzer

 

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm.

             

1) Log Cabin Trust, Raymond and Beverly George, 149 Drinkwater Road, M15, L13.  The applicants are requesting an Area Variance to Chapter II, Article 8.3.B.2.  The applicants would like to create two additional lots on their 15 acre parcel with less than the required 200 feet of frontage.  Chairman, Richard Parker recused and alternate M. Schwotzer sat in his place.  Beverly and Raymond presented their case, explaining that they have a 30’ (thirty foot) deeded right-of-way to approximately fifteen acres since roughly 1960.  They would like to create two additional house lots.  Mrs. George stated the Fire Chief had looked at the right-of-way but hasn’t gotten back to her.  Joan Skewes expressed safety concerns.

      Public input:  Betty Willoughby, an abutter, commented that she felt approving the variance and allowing two additional non-conforming lots would set a precedent. 

      The worksheet was reviewed:  #1 passed, #2 failed as the Board ruled that granting the variance would not be of benefit to the public interest due to setting a precedent, #3 failed as the Board ruled there would not be unnecessary hardship since the best use was already established, #4 failed as substantial justice would not be done because the proposal is unfavorable to neighboring properties, and #5 failed as the Board ruled the use proposed would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance as it clearly goes against the regulations by creating three non-conforming lots.  Eric Peterson moved to deny the application of Log Cabin Trust from Article 8.3.B.2 and requirements of subdivision, seconded by John Ronan with all in favor.

 

2) James B and Jayne E Gould, 271 N. Haverhill Road, M13, L7-1.  The applicants are requesting an Area Variance to Chapter II, Article 8.3.B.2 to subdivide and create a lot with less than the required 200 feet of frontage. Eric Peterson recused and alternate M. Schwotzer sat in his place.  Chairman Parker rejoined the Board.  Attorney John Daly of Pierce Atwood, representing the Goulds, presented the case.  James and Jayne Gould were present as well.  Chairman Parker explained that as owner of Parker Survey, he had worked on the property and title in the 1980s, however he has had no contact with these owners or project and did not feel he needed to recuse.  There were no objections. 

      Attorney Daly explained that there was no easy way to divide the frontage due to existing buildings, thus they were restricted to fifty feet of frontage.  Chairman Parker addressed the change in plans since the application was submitted, but Board members agreed it did not change the variance request.  Attorney Daly addressed the criteria individually, and stressed that the proposed improvements were in keeping with Article 1 of Chapter 1.

      Public input:  Eric Peterson, an abutter, expressed concerns with the driveway running along his entire lot line with vehicles back and forth as well as seeing the home and utility poles which he felt would diminish the value of his property.  Attorney Daly stated there would be no utility poles and Mrs. Gould disagreed with the home being visible due to height differences in the terrain.  Chairman Parker expressed concerns with the steep driveway narrowing to only 25 to 30 feet, stating he didn’t feel there would be much room if it was cut to grade and could result in erosion problems that could impact the abutter.  Peter Merrill, an abutter, pointed out the issue of wetlands in the rear of the property, driveway access to Route 108 which is difficult due to poor line of sight, and public safety citing a traffic accident that occurred in April of 2005.  Mrs. Gould refuted this stating the driver had said he was not paying attention.  Penelope Peterson, an abutter, replied that the Goulds had asked them to move a truck which made them uncomfortable in pulling out onto the road.  Paul Kimball, a resident, stressed that the required frontage is needed to provide the spacing and allowing variances of this dimension encourages density which is contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.  Attorney Daly reiterated that precedent value is not binding on the Board as each case is unique.

      The worksheet was reviewed:  #1 failed with Board members disagreeing with Attorney Daly’s presentation citing the testimony of abutters and the opinion of the Board, #2 failed as the Board ruled that granting the variance would not be of benefit to the public interest due to setting a precedence for a non-conforming lot and would be contrary to the public interest, #3 failed as the Board ruled there would not be unnecessary hardship as there were other means for use of the property including the possibility of an in-law apartment, #4 failed as substantial justice would not be done because the proposal would be an injustice to neighboring properties, and #5 failed as the Board ruled the use proposed would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance as it specifically goes against the regulations.  John Andreasse moved to deny the application for variance as it failed to meet the five criteria, seconded by M. Schwotzer with all in favor.

 

3) Charles Fanaras, 89 Amesbury Road, Map 11, Lot 11A.  The applicant is requesting an Area Variance to Chapter II, Article 8.3, C.1 to build a garage less than the required 25’ from abutting property.  Eric Peterson rejoined the Board.  Mr. Fanaras presented his application and Sean Nadeau, an abutter at 2 Hoosac Road, explained that he did not have an issue with the granting of a variance, but with the placement of the garage.  Mr. Fanaras agreed to work with Mr. Nadeau to investigate an alternate placement and provide a plan with detailed measurements.  John Andreasse moved to continue this application to the next meeting of October 4, 2005 due to lack of information and request the applicant obtain the necessary measurements, seconded by John Ronan with all in favor.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

Review of Process and Procedures per the July/August 2005 New Hampshire Town and City – not discussed

 

Approval of June 7, 2005 minutes - John Andreasse moved to accept the minutes of June 7, 2005 as written, seconded by John Ronan with all in favor.

 

Adjournment – John Ronan, who is resigning, having served at his last Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting moved to adjourn at 9:20 pm, seconded by John Andreasse with all in favor.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Denise Gregson

Administrative Assistant