Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Real Estate
This 5 page Document was uploaded by an elite notetaker on Tuesday December 22, 2015. The Document belongs to a course at a university taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 7 views.
Reviews for Zoning-Board-of-Adjustment--Concord-New-Hampshire
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 12/22/15
Zoning Board of Adjustment - City of Concord NH http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/codeadmin/minutes/ZoningMinute... ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - JANUARY 6, 2010 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES Board members present included Chairman Christopher Carley, David Parker, Robert Harrison Jr., Nicholas Wallner, and Steve Norton. Also present Zoning Administrator Craig Walker and Rose Fife, Clerk of the Board. 43-09 Tina Baril: Applicant wishes to legitimize an expanded front porch and stairs constructed without prior approvals or permits and requests variances to Article 28-2-4(h), Table of Dimensional Regulations, to permit a 6’ x 12’ porch with attached stairs with no front setback and a side setback of 6’ +/- from the northerly property line, where front setbacks of 15’ and side setbacks of 10’ are required, all for property at 16 Perkins Court in a UT Urban Transitional District. Tina Baril testified. She replaced her dilapidated porch. The stairs had been battered by plow trucks. She replaced it, but made it longer to have it face towards the new driveway she just put in. The deck now goes behind the telephone pole. The new deck has been there since April. Carley asked how it came to be built without a permit. (She felt she was replacing an old deck and didn’t know she needed one.) Carley asked what the old deck looked like. (The steps went out into the street and it came beyond the telephone pole.) Walker submitted photographs. Ms. Baril stated that the new deck is an improvement. There are others that exist with a deck and porch extending into the right-of-way. The new deck comes down behind the telephone pole so that the plow trucks won’t hit it. In favor: none. In opposition: none. Chairman Carley paraphrased a letter that was submitted from an abutter. She was concerned with the proximity of the deck to the street with concerns of fire trucks coming down the street. DECISION: Harrison stated that the deck was located behind the telephone pole and fire trucks are a non-issue. A motion to approve the request was made by Parker, seconded by Harrison and passed by a 4-1 vote with Norton in the minority. Parker commented that getting Building Permits is a very important thing to do. 01-10 Douglas A. Bechtel: Applicant request a variance to Article 28-2-4(k), Table of Accessory Uses, to permit an “accessory” dwelling unit as part of an owner occupied single family dwelling when such use is not a designated permitted use for property located at 2 Peaceful Lane in an RO Residential Open-Space District. 1 of 5 2/14/11 10:02 PM Zoning Board of Adjustment - City of Concord NH http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/codeadmin/minutes/ZoningMinute... Douglas Bechtel who lives at 2 Peaceful Lane testified. Also available to testify was Mr. Bechtel’s wife Josana Palm and his mother-in-law Marcia Palm. When they purchased the property it looked like the old owner had a kitchenette in the home. At the moment, his mother-in-law had to move in with them in November and is sleeping in the den area. They would like to give her her own space. The house has one address, one set of utilities. They have no children so there is plenty of room. They would like to put up some cupboards and counter tops and make a small kitchenette for her. This will allow for her to have some privacy and independence. He submitted some photographs. They did get a Building Permit to finish upstairs space into a bedroom and bathroom for her but would like to now give her her own kitchen area too. Harrison asked if it were a City accepted Street. (Yes, off of Elm Street.) Walker wrote up the request so that the second dwelling unit was accessory to and subordinate to an owner occupied dwelling. It should not be owned by a non-resident and rented out as two units. Walker stated that this condition that is tied to the property and not to the circumstance of the owner. In favor: Sam Sanzone, 22 Peaceful Lane, doesn’t believe Peaceful Lane is a City maintained street. (Walker concurred.) He’s been in the residence. This would not detract but add to the neighborhood. In opposition: none. Comments from Code Administration: Walker stated that he spoke with Code Administrator Michael Santa regarding this request. Mike explained that there was a difference between an accessory dwelling and a two family home. There is not a strict regulation of fire separation and there is usually a connector door in an accessory dwelling as well as shared utilities. DECISION: A motion to approve the request was made by Norton, seconded by Parker and passed by a unanimous vote. 02-10 Richard Knight, Jr.: Applicant wishes to subdivide a tract of land, merged as adjacent non-conforming lots in common ownership, and create 1 lot having an area of 10,045 s.f. with 99.64 feet of frontage on Bean Street and a second lot having an area of 9,954 s.f. with 99.64 feet of frontage on Mitchell Street and requests the following: 1) Lot A, Bean Street (map/block/lot P022B-1-7): a. Variance to Article 28-4-1(h), Table of Dimensional Regulations, to permit a lot size of 10,045 SF with 99.64’ of frontage where a lot size of12,500 SF and frontage of 100’ is required, b. Variance to Article 28-4-1(h), Table of Dimensional Regulations, to create a 6’ rear setback for an existing garage where a 25’ setback is required, c. Variance to Article 28-8-3, Non-conforming Lots, to grant non-conforming lot status to a substandard lot and allow future development or expansion of 2 of 5 2/14/11 10:02 PM Zoning Board of Adjustment - City of Concord NH http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/codeadmin/minutes/ZoningMinute... permitted uses. 2) Lot B, Mitchell Street (map/block/lot P022B/1/4): a. Variance to Article 28-4-1(h), Table of Dimensional Regulations, to permit a lot size of 9,954 SF with 99.64’ of frontage where a lot size of12,500 SF and frontage of 100’ is required, b. Variance to Article 28-8-3, Non-conforming Lots, to grant non-conforming lot status to a substandard lot and allow future development or expansion of permitted uses. All for a tract of land inclusive of 9 Bean Street and map/block/lot P022B/1/4 in an RS Residential Neighborhood District. Richard Knight Jr. testified. Attorney Richard Uchida of Orr and Reno also testified. Mr. Knight stated that he purchased 9 Bean Street and is renovating the home with his son. He would like to subdivide the lot and build a house on the Mitchell Street parcel. Attorney Uchida explained the site plans. There is an old shed slab on the vacant lot which fronts Mitchell Street. The lot is in an RS zone. In 2001 the Ordinance was amended and these two lots were merged by Ordinance requirement. He thinks the lots were merged in 1977 due to the lot size requirements of the old Ordinance that it did not meet. Neither lot has sufficient frontage or square footage. He feels that the use is reasonable as there are similar uses all around the neighborhood. He would like to put a single family home on the property or sell it to be used for a single family lot. The neighborhood has single family homes throughout. The lot sizes are similar. This lot was created in 1923. The lots from the original subdivision of Mr. Eastman were 25 feet by 100 feet for 2,500 s.f. lots. Four lots had to be purchased in order to have a buildable lot back then. Some folks picked up extra lots to make their lots larger. Most lots have a shed or a garage that encroach on the setback. The abutter to this property, 63 Snow Street, has a garage within the setback. There are 3 properties in the area that are similar to this one where it fronts on 2 streets. He gave particular notes on those properties. Bean Street has a house. The Mitchell Street side is all wooded. The previous owner created a rhododendron bush separation wall. This property has always been treated and maintained as a separate lot. The Ordinance blocks them from honoring the original intent. They feel that they have satisfied the requirement for dimensional relief. Norton asked when the Ordinance changed to require that the lots merge. (Uchida believes that it was in 1977.) Harrison asked if they have tried to approach abutters to the north to purchase some land to make up the difference in frontage and square footage. (Those abutters have a couple of buildings out there on their property and they are using all of the property. They would have to come back to the Board for additional variances for that property with setback issues that this would create.) Walker stated that the first Ordinance was adopted in 1930. The minimum lot size back then was 5,000 s.f. Prior to 1967 the Ordinance changed to require 8,000 s.f. for a buildable lot in the subject area. In 1967 the lot size changed to 12,500 s.f. and that’s when they became non-conforming. In 3 of 5 2/14/11 10:02 PM Zoning Board of Adjustment - City of Concord NH http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/codeadmin/minutes/ZoningMinute... 1977 the RC district required 12,500 s.f. with 100 feet of frontage. Although a merger clause was added in 1977 it only applied to non-conforming lots with contiguous frontage. In 1985 a clause was added that non-conforming lots in contiguous ownership would merge. Carley asked if it were taxed as one lot. (Mr. Knight stated that they receive 2 tax bills and have 2 deeds for the lots.) In favor: none. In opposition: none. Comments from Code Administration: Walker stated that he looked back at similar situations that the Board has addressed over the years. Walker referenced one case in the neighborhood for 72 Snow Street to create a lot with 80 feet of frontage and 8,000 SF of area that the board denied in 2004. Walker also supplied the board with maps of the neighborhood on which he marked out lots that were of conforming or greater area, lots that were similar configuration spanning two parallel streets and lots that were equal to or larger than the existing merged lot. Rebuttal by Richard Uchida. He feels that this property is unique and although there may be other properties that have a similar configuration with frontage on two different streets he feels that there are only 3 properties that are similar in size to the subject property. DECISION: Parker asked where the hardship was. They bought the property and received 2 tax bills but that is not uncommon with merged lots. It was bought as a single property and they were aware of that when they bought it. Norton did not find the property unique. There are many more that are similar. Carley wrestled with the hardship question, but this lot is part of a 1923 development and a pattern that they want to reestablish and he feels is consistent with what is there already. Carley stated he felt ambivalence towards the merger clause. Carley was inclined to grant as this does no damage to the neighborhood. It is consistent with what is there now. Norton stated that he felt that the original intent was to merge these two lots. Parker felt that zoning laws do change and there are some lots there that are bigger. Wallner supports the request as he feels it will be in character with the neighborhood. A motion to approve the request was made by Wallner and failed for lack of a second. A motion to deny the request was made by Parker, seconded by Harrison and passed by 3-2 vote with Carley and Wallner in the minority. A motion to approve the December 2009 Minutes was made by Wallner, seconded by Parker, and pass by a 4-0 vote. Norton was not at the December meeting and therefore did not vote. A TRUE RECORD ATTEST, Rose M. Fife , Clerk Zoning Board of Adjustment 4 of 5 2/14/11 10:02 PM Zoning Board of Adjustment - City of Concord NH http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/codeadmin/minutes/ZoningMinute... 5 of 5 2/14/11 10:02 PM
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'