February 7, 2002
FINAL MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETING
Board
members present: Don Kraemer, Will Phillips, Colleen Martin, Silas Little, Nat
Chamberlin
Call
to order by Don Kraemer at 7:30 p.m.
Motion
made by D. Kraemer to accept minutes of 1/3/02. C. Martin seconded. Voted
affirmative.
Public Hearings
7:35
p.m. Case 2002-2. Public Hearing concerning an application for
special exception presented by Richard Messina. C. Martin read the application.
Richard Messina described his intent to weatherize the porches of 8
cottages. He is applying under Article
7 section 1-3 for non-conforming structures.
His intent is to help create additional warmth for the cottage, changing
screens to windows and adding insulation for energy conservation. W. Phillips asked how this changed the use
of the building. Richard Messina
referred to Article 7, Non-conforming uses, structures and lots, section 1-3 as
follows:
3-1
Setbacks must meet the minimum requirements: Richard said this does not
apply.
3-2
Expansion of use will not render the property less adequate: Richard felt it made the non-conforming
area more adequate.
3-3
Expansion of use will not require an expansion of the non-conforming area: Richard
said not applicable.
3-4
Expansion will not adversely affect the neighborhood: Richard felt the
neighborhood would not notice.
3-5
Expansion must be related to existing use and cannot increase the degree of
non-conformity: Richard felt there
would be no change in non-conformity.
3-6
Expansion must conform with Planning Board Site Plan Review: Richard wasn’t
sure about this.
3-7
ZBA may apply other restrictions necessary to protect the peace and
enjoyment of the neighborhood: Richard said he would accept as needed.
Richard
Messina also referred to Article 1 Section 1 and felt there was no
problem. W. Phillips asked if cottage
community was improper wording and actually this is a transient, seasonal,
facility? Steve Anderson asked if
Richard Messina had proof of seasonal use vs. year-round use? Steve believed septic approval was not
received and Planning Board site plan review had not been done. W. Phillips asked for records to clarify
whether the board ever approved any year-round vs. seasonal use of the cabins. Bob Frazier believed the Zoning Board of
Adjustment (ZBA) only approved cabin #6 for year-round use. The board agreed that appeared to be
correct. Bob Frazier thought procedure
was to submit a building permit and appeal the decision if permit was
denied. Richard Messina has never
submitted a building permit request.
The Board of Selectmen said all work on the cabins to date is illegal. A cease and desist order is pending a
decision from the court. Steve
Anderson said the Dept. of Environmental Services needed to approve the septic
design and according to RSA 676- paragraph 3, he believes work must stop until
the court decision. Steve Anderson
believed cottages 2 thru 6 are rented year-round. Mrs. Stark asked if lot line adjustment discrepancies were ever
settled. 9/1/00 was to be the
settlement date and have cabin 8 septic removed. No agreement items have been
done to date and no fence has been installed as agreed. Donald Anderson asked how the lot line is
described. Mrs. Stark said part of
cabin 8 is on their property as well as a drain pipe. Steve Anderson said no commercial approval was ever granted. Bob Frazier said his commercial use is
grandfathered for seasonal use only. He
also re-iterated that no building permit was applied for. W. Phillips said the ZBA could proceed and
not waste time waiting for a denied permit.
W. Phillips asked if only transient, seasonal use was allowed, what is
the expanded use which Richard Messina was applying for? Is Messina actually applying for year-round
use? Richard Messina said his cabins
are climate controlled. W. Phillips
re-iterated “what is the use you are expanding?” Richard Messina said he is
expanding the use of the cottage as seasonal.
Bob Frazier believed the 1974 insulation to these cabins was
illegal. W. Phillips thought cabins 1
thru 4 could have been legal to insulate in 1974. He believed alteration to the structure was the intent, not
changing the use of the building. Steve
Anderson said the winterization had already been done with plastic.. W.
Phillips said enforcement of cease and desist was not up to ZBA. He said the
application was not appropriate as presented. N. Chamberlin asked if W.
Phillips considered this remodeling.. W. Phillips said that was a closer
description to the intent but not the application request. W. Phillips moved to dismiss the application
based on no evidence for a change of use and no denied application for building
permit was submitted. C. Martin
seconded. Voted unanimous affirmative.
8:30
p.m. Case 2002-3. Appeal from
administrative decision presented by Richard Messina. Article IV, Section 17, and part III, Section 8. S. Little believed the Selectmen’s decision
not to enforce, was not appealable to the ZBA.
W. Phillips wanted to check the rules.
He thought the appeal was based on interpretation of the ordinance
therefore the ZBA could hear it.
Richard Messina read the ordinance and stated that Wheeland’s was only
approved for car repair not car sales and had 9 signs not 2. He believed 2 signs only was the intent of
the ordinance. He thought proposed
zoning changes were an admission of interpretation deficiencies. He wanted a
ZBA interpretation of the ordinance and an interpretation regarding a car sales
facility within the 100 foot setback. Richard Messina presented photographs of
the signs in question. He discussed
Planning Board and ZBA decisions for auto repair only, not sales. He said the Selectmen defined the sales as
by individual people not by Wheeland’s.
Richard presented a photo of a truck he believed was being sold by
Wheeland’s. He also believed some signs
had never been approved by the ZBA.
Discussion followed on interpretation of the sign ordinance and the
number of signs allowed as well as stake signs. Richard Messina was also counting a sign across the street. W. Phillips pointed out this could not be
included. The State inspection sign was
allowed. The actual dispute is the
signs on the buildings only. Neil Head
asked for the definition of a sign and asked what is a banner on the building
vs. free standing signs? Bob Frazier
thanked Richard Messina for suggestions to fine tune the zoning ordinances over
the years. Bob Frazier described the
Selectmen’s decision, no ordinance exists to prevent selling a car beside the
road. They believed the State inspection and AAA signs was permitted. He also believed the Planning Board had
jurisdiction over signs on buildings.
N. Chamberlin said there were no signs mentioned on the drawing
presented by Steve Anderson. Bob
Frazier said they asked Steve Anderson to remove one sign, he removed the
letter board letters. Steve Anderson
said only 20 location have AAA signs and he believed it was a public benefit
for travelers. Steve Anderson’s site
plan review only waived 2 copies of mylars, bond posting and building
height. He said his site plan review
showed the signs in the pictures presented by Richard Messina. S. Little believed that if they were
approved by the Planning Board previously the decision could not be challenged
now. A 30-day period for appeal had
passed many years ago. Discussion
followed on what signs were on the building when the business opened. Steve offered to remove whatever signs were
offensive. He was offering voluntary
action to reduce the area of conflict, this was not required by the ZBA. Discussion followed on whether vehicles
being sold were on Steve Anderson’s property.
He said it is State property, within State setbacks. No agreements exist that Steve gets any
money if a car within the setback is sold.
Neil Head described cars being sold across the highway. W. Phillips closed the hearing.
9:30
p.m. Case 2002-4. Appeal from
administrative decision. Richard
Messina presented his argument. He said
the Rt. 101 sign at Lock Away Storage complies to zoning but was questioning
the signs on buildings. 9/87 the ZBA
approved storage bays only, not outside storage, so he believes it is an
expansion of use - not permitted. Steve
Anderson said Donald Anderson was never notified of an “expansion of use”
problem. S. Little said the Selectmen
are not required to notify him. The
notice of the meeting did not contain the notice of outside storage. Richard Messina and Donald Anderson waived
the adequacy of the notice. Richard
reserves the right to appeal decisions on merit. Donald Anderson said he was allowed 25,000 sq. ft. but only built
6,000. All vehicles are registered and
within setbacks. The board reviewed a
decision from 10/1/87. All outside storage is within the fence. The fence is approx. 12,000 sq. ft. Richard Messina said setback was not the
issue, outside storage was the issue.
Steve Anderson felt this entire procedure is retaliatory due to
neighborhood disputes. Hypothetical
issues were discussed. S. Little asked
if outside storage has always been there.
Donald said yes. W. Phillips
closed hearing.
10:05
p.m. Discussion and deliberation followed on each of the cases presented. See attached notice of decision.
10:35
p.m. Motion made by D. Kraemer, seconded by C. Martin to adjourn meeting.
Minutes
submitted by Sherry Fiske