Minutes—20 September 2006.
Present: M. Mansouri,
J. Galloway-Leclerc, L. Britton, L. Carignan (alt) B. Webb (alt), L.Weber
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING MINUTES WILL BE REVIEWED ON 18 October
2006.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. The first public hearing was deferred as the
applicants had not yet arrived.
Public Hearing #2—Meadowsend Timberland
Variance Ms. Mansouri recused
herself, as she had been involved in the sale of land to Mr. Fitzpatrick. Ms. Galloway-Leclerc assumed the role of
Chair. Mr. Carignan and Mr. Webb were
appointed as voting members. Virginia
Foote, of Lawrence and Associates represented Meadowsend Timberland, Inc. and
presented the proposal as follows: Meadowsend
owns 137 +/- acres in the Walpole Timberland District. The Walpole Town
line is a boundary of this property. Mr.
and Mrs. Fitzpatrick own an abutting parcel of land of 20 +/- acres on the
Alstead side of the town line. Their property has road frontage on Proctor Road in
Alstead and a home already in existence.
Meadowsend is proposing to subdivide a 2.8 +/- acre parcel abutting the
Fitzpatrick property to be purchased by the Fitzpatricks. The Fitzpatricks want this particular
property for recreational purposes and views. The subdivision requires a
variance because the lot created will have no road frontage in the Town of Walpole. The Planning Board will not issue a
subdivision permit without the variance.
It is agreed by all that the lot will be a non-buildable lot.
Mr. Sawyer stated
there was some disagreement on the Planning Board as to whether a variance was
needed, but the parties had all agreed to go ahead with the variance
request. Ms. Mansouri stated her reading
of RSA 674:53 that both the Walpole and Alstead Planning Boards will have to
consider any annexation of the property.
Mr. Webb expressed his concern that we can say this lot is
non-buildable, but what if a future owner wants to build there. Ms. Weber asked if he would be satisfied if
we specify as an express condition of the variance that the lot will not be
buildable. Mr. Webb said he would
withdraw that objection and asked where the application before the Planning
Board was in the approval process. Ms.
Foote replied that there had been an informal presentation to the Planning
Board, but no action could be taken without the variance. Ms. Galloway-Leclerc noted that the Planning
Board minutes also confirmed this will be a non-buildable lot. Mr. Sawyer noted that the lot will be taxed
as an independent Walpole
lot.
Ms. Weber moved that
we grant the variance to create a lot with no road frontage to be conveyed to
the Fitzpatricks, with the express condition that the lot is a non-buildable
lot. Mr. Carignan seconded the motion. Ms. Galloway-Leclerc presented the five
variance criteria.
No diminution in value of surrounding
properties. Mr. Webb stated that
this resulted only in a change in ownership of the property, therefore there
would be no effect on the value of surrounding properties. All agreed this criterion had been met.
Benefit to Public Interest. Ms. Weber reiterated there would be no change
in use. Ms. Galloway-Leclerc said it
would be in the public interest to ensure the property would not be developed.
Mr. Webb agreed. All agreed this
criterion had been met.
Denial would result in unnecessary hardship
to the owner. Ms Weber said that if
these two properties were entirely within the Town of Walpole, all that would be needed was a
simple boundary line adjustment between abutting landowners, which could be
handled by the Planning Board as a minor application, and no variance would be
required. The location of the property
on the town line is a special circumstance which creates the hardship. All agreed this criterion had been met.
Granting the variance would ensure substantial
justice. Ms. Weber said the same
argument that applied to the last criterion applied to this criterion as
well. All agreed this criterion had been
met.
Not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Britton said he agreed this was not
contrary to the spirit of the ordinance as long as nothing was built on the
lot. All agreed this criterion had been
met. All voted in favor of granting the
variance. Ms. Galloway-Leclerc informed
Ms. Foote that a letter would be sent.
Public Hearing #1—LaFayette Variance Request—454
County Road Ms. Mansouri resumed
the Chair, Mr. Webb was appointed as a voting member, and Mr. Carignan resumed
his role as an alternate member. The
Board members have received two packets of information on this project—three
maps from Mr. LaFayettte, and a letter from Mrs. Mack, whose property abuts the
LaFayettes’ rear boundary, a letter from
Attorney Kenyon to the LaFayettes
dated 29 June 2006 on behalf of Mrs. Mack, and a photocopy of a survey prepared
for Mrs. Mack. Mr. Fred Poisson from Charlestown presented the
case for Mr. and Mrs. Lafayette. The LaFayettes are requesting
a variance of approximately 3 feet from the setback requirements either in the
front or the rear of the property so they can replace the existing 14 x 70 foot
mobile home with a manufactured 28 x 56 foot three bedroom house. Mr. Poisson said the LaFayettes had received a building permit in
April, and started foundation work. In
June, they received a cease and desist order from the Selectmen, as a neighbor
had complained about violation of the setbacks.
Mr. Poisson explained that on the site plan drawn for the LaFayettes, the
foundation is 17.2 feet from the rear boundary . If the foundation is moved forward, the
corner will be within 62.9 feet of the center line of the highway. In either case, there will be a violation of
the setback requirement of about three feet.
The LaFayettes
would prefer a variance for the rear boundary as that is where the foundation
is currently sited. There is an
existing, state-approved septic system.
Water is currently obtained from an existing well on Mrs. Mack’s
property. Use of this well will be
discontinued and a new drilled well, already in existence, will be hooked up as
part of the installation of the new structure. The LaFayettes
will not dispute the location of the back boundary at this time.
Mr. Webb asked if
the leach field is already functional. Mr.
Poisson said it was put in 6-8 years ago. Mr. Webb asked about the new
well. It is not in use, but was put in approximately
the same time as the septic system. Mr.
Britton asked if there was any mention in the LaFayettes’ deed of rights to the old well. There is none. Mr. Britton asked how long the LaFayettes had owned the
property. Mr. LaFayette said since 1996,
and the new well and septic system were installed in 1997. A copy of the septic approval #CA1997000931
was shown to the board, along with a copy of the map recorded at the county
office when the property was subdivided in 1977. Smith and Allen construction of Charlestown installed the
septic system. Mr. Poisson said the old
trailer will be removed and transported to his property in Charlestown.
About 20 percent of the foundation is in place. Ms. Weber asked about the shed on the
property. Mr. LaFayette says it will be
moved to a spot within the setbacks. He
said he was willing to give up the ten feet of disputed land. Mr. Britton asked if all property belonging
to the LaFayettes
would be removed from the disputed land.
Mr. LaFayette said all he still needed to do is pull the water pump from
the well. Mr. Britton asked if the LaFayettes would give up
all rights to the old well. Mr.
Lafayette said he would, and would hook up the new well. Mr. Jerry Galloway asked the distance from
the new artesian well from the septic tank.
Mr. Lafayette said it was more than 75 feet.
Mr. Peter Graves, an
abutting landowner, spoke for Mrs. Mack, whose property abuts the rear
line. He said that Mrs. Mack had been
there since 1967. Her husband, John
Graves, built her house on the hill.
They set up the original trailer on the LaFayette’s property for his mother, and gave
her one third of an acre of land where the trailer was sited and two thirds of
an acre on the other side of the road.
The informal agreement was that the land would come back to John Graves
when his mother died. John Graves died
before his mother, and when she died, the property went to her son Ned Graves
and then from him to the LaFayettes. The original trailer was 10 x 40 feet and a
line was drawn around it to mark the property line. Mr. LaFayette has been notified many times to
stop using the Macks’ well. He has cut
trees on their property. Matters came to
a head when the Macks got an attorney because they were thrown off their own
land by Mr. LaFayette. They are
requesting that the LaFayettes
not be allowed to build within the 20 foot setback from the Macks’ land.
Ms. Cindy Westover,
also an abutter, said she did not see how, on such a small lot, there could be
adequate distance between the drilled well, the septic tank, the leach field, and
Mrs. Mack’s well. All these distances
need to be marked out on an application for a building permit. She would recommend the Board make a site
visit. Mr. Britton asked if Mr.
LaFayette would entertain a site visit.
Mr LaFayette said he has state approval for the siting of the well and
septic system and there is 75 feet from each well to the septic. Dan McPhearson of Charlestown designed the system. Mr. Britton asked if that was a no on the site
visit. Mr. Poisson said he does not see
the need for a site visit, and time was passing for the building season. Mr. Britton asked if a site visit soon would
be a solution. Mr. Webb said he was not
sure how the various elements were relevant.
Was Ms. Westover saying that the state did not adequately consider the
distances when it gave its approval? Mr.
Webb asked asked if the drilled well was in place when the leach field was placed. Mr. LaFayette said it was. Mr. Webb asked the distance from the old well
to the septic. Mr. Poisson said you could
see at least 64 feet from the drawing.
Mr. Sawyer went to find the septic design plan submitted to the town.
Ms. Mansouri asked
if there were further comments from the floor.
Mr. Jerry Galloway said the credibility issue has arisen time and again,
and the Board needs to look at this lot and the one across the road. Peter Graves has a well across the road which
cannot be used because of the debris on the LaFayette lot. Mr. Webb said that a site visit might be of
general interest to the Board, but the requirements are pretty cut and
dried. Mr. Galloway said the Board has
the power to turn down the variance request and needs to verify the
measurements. Ms. Westover asked if the
septic tank would be located under the new installation. Mr. Poisson said no, it would be near the
edge.
Mr. Sawyer returned
and presented the septic design plan on file with the town. The plan, which has the location of all three
wells, was reviewed by the Board. Concern was expressed that as the new
installation is 28 feet wide instead of 14 feet, this may bring the home over
the edge of the septic tank. Ms.
Mansouri said that looking at the plans and proposals, the new width of the
home requires a site visit. Ms. Galloway-Leclerc
moved that the Board make a site visit, Mr. Webb seconded, and all voted in
favor. The site visit will be held on Saturday, 23 September, at 1:00PM on the
LaFayettes’
property, 454 County Road. Mr. LaFayette asked the Board to consider
that Mr. Lawrence staked all this out and he is sure there is no problem. The hearing was recessed until Saturday for
the site visit, and then will be continued until a Special Meeting on Monday, September 25, at 7:30 PM at the Town Hall
for any further testimony and deliberations.
New Business: Walpole Village
School Sign, Westminster Street. Jane Maclachlan and Jody Caskin-Bruzgis
presented a proposal to replace the letters on the existing sign on the side of
the building with new wooden letters.
They presented photographs to show that very little of the sign would be
visible from Route 12 or from neighbors’ houses. The existing sign is approximately 18 feet
long and 2 feet high. There is concern
about taking the sign down because of the bolt holes through the metal
siding. There is also a smaller,
existing Long River Gardens
sign which they will not be changing.
Mr. Britton said there must have already been a variance proceeding for
the original installation. Ms. Weber
said that if the sign was not being changed, there should be no need for a
variance proceeding just to change the lettering. Mr. Webb said he thought this is a
grandfathered situation, and asked if the building was now owned by Walpole Village School. It is.
Mr. Webb moved that we approve the use of the existing sign with new
letters or, if needed, a new sign of the same dimensions in the same manner as
the existing sign. Mr. Britton seconded,
and all voted in favor.
Old Business:
Minutes.
The minutes of the August meeting were approved with the correction
of “Cold Rover” to “Cold River.”.
Gravel Pits.
New evaluation forms were distributed as follows;
Mr.
Carignan and Ms. Galloway-Leclerc—Sawyer
Mr. Britton
and Ms. Mansouri—Cold
River (2) and Woods
Mr.
LaClair and Ms. Weber—Hodgkins (2) and Graves
Tretzler Letter Ms. Mansouri read a letter sent by David C.
and Elsie L. Tretzler dated August 15th, which was received after
the last Board meeting. The letter urged
the Selectboard to take action on the AlpacaDance matter. It was determined that no action could be
taken by this Board at this time. Ms.
Mansouri noted that the Planning Board may be proposing new language to define
“incidental use.” Mr. Webb said it was
too bad that we no longer have a member who sits also on the Planning Board so
we can be kept better informed of their work.
Meeting adjourned at 9:10. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, October
18th, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucy McVitty Weber