• el
  • pt

    September 5, 2024



    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


    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


    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




    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, 2024.

    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, 2024

    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