September 5, 2002
FINAL
MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETING
VOTING
BOARD: Don Kraemer, Silas Little,
Nate Chamberlin and Don Fonda.
CALL TO ORDER: By Don Kraemer at 7:31 p.m.
Before
approving the minutes, D. Kraemer read a letter from Richard Messina in which
he stated that the minutes of the July hearing incorrectly represented
statements made by abutter Ms. Stark, Ms. Stark spoke with D. Kraemer by phone
and said that she couldn’t remember what was said at the hearing. D. Kraemer
asked if the tape recording was still available and the recording secretary
said that it was. Mr. Messina asked for a copy of the tape recording. S. Little
said that Mr. Messina would have to request a copy in writing to the
Selectmen.
S. Little then said that he felt that although Ms. Stark’s position on the
issue under discussion was
informative, it was not dispositive of
the board’s decision. The other board members agreed.
MOTION: Made by D. Kraemer, seconded by N.
Chamberlin to approve the 7/18/02 minutes as
written. Voted
affirmative.
Public Hearing
Case #2002-8 BARSANTI
Petition
of Kirk and Linda Barsanti for property located at 45 Mountain View Road, Map
6, Lot 13-L, in the Rural Residential and Agricultural District, wherein an
application for an Equitable Waiver from Dimensional Requirements from Article
IV, Section 4 is sought under RSA 674:33-a for the purpose of erecting a garage
on an existing foundation which is 33
feet from the lot line.
S
Little stated that there were only four ZBA members present and explained that
three votes in the affirmative would be needed to grant the request. He gave
the applicants the option of continuing their request to October when perhaps a
full board could be assembled . The applicants chose to go ahead with the
hearing. S. Little read the Notice of Hearing, named 6 abutters, said that all 6 had been sent certified letters and that
there were
returned receipts for 4 of them.
Linda
Barzanti handed out packets consisting of: The applicants’ argument; copy of
state statute 674:33-a;
copy
of deed showing foreclosure of property and conveyance to Peterborough Savings
Bank on 3/29/01;
copy
of real estate listing sheet showing the word “foundation” on the line for
garage/barn; a map of the property showing the approximate location of the
foundation; copy of New Hampshire Practice Series, section 22.03,
discussion of Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirements; copy of Anderson – American
Law of Zoning, discussion of Variance to rectify builder’s error; picture
of what the garage might look like.
She
also presented four color photos showing the foundation in relation to the
road. She said that she and her husband would like to build a two-car carriage
style garage on the 24’ x 28’ foundation which has been there since at least
1991. The foundation is 33’ from the edge of the road at one corner and 35’ or
more at the other
corner.
S.
Little stated that he is not sure that this statute addresses this because
there is no structure. There is a
poured
concrete foundation, not a building. Not satisfied that it is a structure in
relation to this statute. The
purpose
of the Equitable Waiver statute is to address a situation where someone has
invested a substantial
amount
of money in putting up a complete building, and then finds out later that an
innocent or honest mistake was made in siting the building. N. Chamberlin
stated that he considers a foundation to be a
structure.
Ms.
Barzanti read through all of her arguments. The depth of the foundation is 30”.
According to quotes received by the Barzanti’s, it will cost $20,000 to erect a
garage on the foundation in question. To excavate
this foundation, pour a new one and
build a garage, the cost would be $28,000.
Bill
and Marilyn Ezell, the nearest abutters to the structure, live next door to the
west and have a clear view of the foundation. Mr. Ezell said that they have had
to look at that foundation for 15 or 16 years and it would
certainly
improve their view if there was a structure on the foundation. Marilyn Ezell
added that regarding the
merits
of this particular case, it seems that there are only positives associated with
building a garage there – no
Page 2
Temple
ZBA
9/5/02
negatives.
Honey
Hastings, abutter to the east, said that she can’t see the foundation from her
home and probably won’t
be able to see the garage but she has
no objection to the request.
S.
Little suggested some conditions that could be imposed if the board felt
inclined to grant the request. Ms.
Barzanti
asked why there would need to be conditions. S. Little said that he had serious
questions as to whether this request qualifies under this statute. He said that
it’s a lot easier to deal with an equitable waiver
when
you’re looking at a structure that’s completed. Since the board is not dealing
with something that’s
finished,
he can see granting this request only with the expressed conditions, otherwise
the board has no
control over what the applicant might
build there.
MOTION: Motion made by S, Little to grant the request
for an Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirements provided that the garage
that is constructed is as shown in the sketch with no door
openings in the wall that is
parallel to Mountain View Road; that there is no improved space on the
second floor and that the
existing vegetation along Mountain View Road be retained. Motion
seconded by N. Chamberlin.
Voted affirmative.
Request
for Rehearing MESSINA
D. Kraemer
read a letter dated 8/12/02 from Atty Hantz on behalf of Richard Messina
requesting a rehearing
of the issues
remanded pursuant to Superior Court Order concerning Temple Cabins Property on
Route 101
that
were originally heard at a public hearing held July 18, 2002.
S. Little read
the four page Request for Rehearing. The board felt that there were broad
allegations made in
the first four
paragraphs, with no facts to support them. In sections 5 – 8 the same arguments
were made as
were made on
July 18th. They didn’t feel that they would be any more
knowledgeable if they granted a
rehearing,
than they were on July 18th. They felt that they have a difference
of opinion with Mr. Messina
about
the factual issues discussed.
MOTION: Motion to deny the rehearing by S. Little.
Motion seconded by N. Chamberlin. Voted affirmative.
Mr. Messina wanted
the record to show that he formally requested a copy of the tapes from the July
18, 2002
hearing under
the right-to-know laws, and hoped that the tapes would not be destroyed. Again,
S. Little
explained
that he would need to make the request to the Selectmen.
Meeting
adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Diane Nilsson,
Recording Secretary
Posted: 9/9/02