Zoning Board of Adjustment

Walpole, NH 03608

Minutes--16 May 2007.

Present: M. Mansouri, J. Galloway Leclerc, L. Carignan, L. Britton, M. T. Lester (alt),

D. Calhoun (alt), B. Webb (alt). Absent: L. Weber.

Recording: J. Galloway Leclerc for Ms. Weber.

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING MINUTES WILL BE REVEIWED ON 20 JUNE 2007.

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. B. Webb and D. Calhoun were appointed for L. Weber and L. Britton.

PUBLIC HEARING: No public hearings.

NEW BUSINESS: Kathy Monahan and Jayson Munn re: sign at 52 Main St. Ms. Monahan and Mr. Munn presented their plan to replace the current sign at 52 Main Street with a new sign designating both their businesses. They did not have a picture to show the board but explained that Ms. Monahan’s women’s boutique is next to Mr. Munn’s flower design business. They propose to replace the existing sign with one the identical size and shape. The sign will be 40.5 inches wide by 67 inches tall and hang from the center pole.

Mr. Webb asked if the original sign needed a variance. Ms. Mansouri said the sign was non-conforming but was grand fathered.

At this point Ms Mansouri said that the board has information on signs that are non-conforming, but there is currently no one place where information on all signs, including conforming signs, is kept. Ms. Mansouri passed out to the board members a form which was proposed by Ms. Weber and which could be filled out with sign information and filed in a specific sign folder. This way the board would have easy access to information on all signs that have come before the board.

Mr. Britton asked if the form was just for the board’s information and if directional signs would be included. Ms. Mansouri stated that the form was just for informational purposes and that directional signs would be included. Ms. Lester asked if an additional form would be needed for directional signs. Ms. Mansouri said that the one form covered directional signs as well.

Mr. Webb made a motion to accept the form and use it from this point forward. Mr. Carignan seconded the motion, and the motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Webb asked if the form would be used for Ms. Monahan and Mr. Munn’s sign. Ms. Mansouri said it would. Ms. Mansouri asked that Ms. Monahan and Mr. Munn fill out the form. She said their sign does not need a variance because it is grandfathered. Mr. Munn asked why discussion on his sign was interrupted to discuss this new form. Ms. Mansouri said she had intended to introduce the form before he began but had misplaced paperwork. She said that Mr. Munn‘s sign is approved as presented. Mr. Britton said that the procedure for getting sign approval has not changed with the new form but that this board and future boards will be able to find information on signs without looking through all the minutes.

Lila and Jedd Pellerin re: converting house and barn on Brewery Road into three apartments. Mr. Pellerin explained that they would like to convert their house into two apartments and convert their barn into one apartment. Ms. Mansouri asked what zone the property is in. Mr. Pellerin replied Residential B. There was discussion about the zone and maps were consulted. The property is in Residential B zone. Ms. Mansouri read from the zoning regulations, Article V. B. Uses Permitted: 1. One single or one two family dwelling per lot, with private garages and accessory buildings. Ms. Mansouri said that the zoning regulations had changed so that a two family dwelling must be on a common foundation.

Mr. Britton asked if the property had enough frontage to be subdivided into two lots. Mr. Pellerin replied that it could not. Mr. Webb asked if the barn could be attached to the house. Mr. Pellerin replied that they could not be attached because they were about 100 feet apart. Ms. Mansouri said that one apartment could be added to the property but not two. Mr. Carignan said that the zoning did not allow three units per lot and it did not allow two units in two separate buildings on one lot. Mr. Pellerin said he will withdraw his application.

David Boudrieau re: property at 24 North River Road. Mr. Bouddrieau explained that his house at 24 North River Road burned down, and he wants to build a garage/workshop/storage building on the foundation that remains. The new building would be 24’ X 38’, which is the same size as the house was, and it would have one 12‘X12‘ overhead door and one man door. The lot has 253 feet of road frontage and 1.540 acres. The original house was built in 1818, and the existing foundation is 35 feet from the center line of North River Road. Mr. Boudrieau would also like to build on the property a new residence that is not directly at the bottom of Hillside Acres but is instead further back from the road and conforming to all the setback requirements. Ms. Mansouri said that rebuilding a house on the same foundation is allowed because the house predates the zoning ordinance and was grandfathered. However, putting a different building on the foundation is a change of use and would require a variance. Mr. Webb said it would be better to put a garage instead of a house there. He asked how long it had been since the house burned. Mr. Boudrieau said the house burned on March 10, 2007. Mr. Webb said it is usually allowed to put a structure back within a year and that Mr. Boudrieau would only need a Change of Use. That could be accomplished with a hearing which requested a Change of Use. Mr. Britton said the change of use is not a big change such as a residence to a business. Mr. Webb moved that the board set a hearing for June 20, 2007 pending receipt of a completed application for a Change of Use of Non-Conforming Use with applicable fees by June 4, 2207. Mr. Carignan seconded, and the motion was approved unanimously.

Jim Vitous of Custom Design re: a sign for Edward Jones at 57 Main Street. Mr. Vitous explained that he was representing the applicant, Edward Jones, whose office in the North Meadow Plaza is moving to 57 Main St. and who would like two new signs. One would be a 22”X48” freestanding, double-sided sign, 36 inches above the ground, with two side posts and a painted redwood panel. Another sign 18”X28” would be attached to the building by the door. Ms. Mansouri asked if the property was in the Commercial District. Mr. Webb asked where 57 Main St. was. Mr. Vitous said the building is in the Commercial District and is at the location of the former Ruggles & Hunt Home business. Mr. Webb said that the setback for a sign in the commercial district is 60 feet from the road, and that can’t be done here because the lot is nonconforming due to its small size. Mr. Carignan asked if there weren’t already signs there from the previous business. Mr. Webb said all the previous signs had to have variances, and new ones would as well. Mr. Britton said that visibility is not good at that corner. Ms. Lester asked if they would need a variance if they put a sign on the building where the previous sign had been. Ms. Mansouri said a variance was still needed for the setback. Mr. Vitous asked how long a variance would take. Ms. Mansouri said that if the board received the application and fees by June 4 there could be a hearing at the June 20, 2007 meeting. Mr. Vitous said he will suggest to his clients that they replace the previous sign exactly. Mr. Webb asked if the Connecticut River Bank next door still had a freestanding sign, and Ms. Lester asked if the bank’s sign would obscure the proposed freestanding sign. Mr. Vitous replied that the elevation of the bank is much higher than that at 57 Main St, so the bank sign would not affect the proposed sign. He said that a freestanding sign is easier to see than a sign on a wall. Ms. Lester said that the previous sign on the wall had always been very easy for her to see. Mr. Webb said that a variance for both the setback (less than 60 feet to road) and for the distance from the bank sign (less than 100 feet) is needed, and if the applicant wanted to proceed, the board could give him an application and set a hearing for next month. Ms. Mansouri said that if the applicants wanted to replace the Ruggles & Hunt sign with one of the same size, shape and location then a variance would likely be granted. She asked if the Ruggles & Hunt sign had been removed. Mr. Vitous said it was gone, and the business was closed. Mr. Webb said that it was allowed to replace a grandfathered sign with another the same size and shape, but the grand fathered status no longer existed because the Ruggles & Hunt sign had been removed. Mr. Britton said that if a sign with a variance is removed then a new variance is needed for a new sign. Ms. Mansouri said that her personal opinion was that the applicants should consider putting a sign only on the building where the previous Ruggles & Hunt sign had been. Ms. Lester said that two variances were needed because of the setback from the road and the distance from the bank sign. Mr. Webb said both could be handled with one application. Mr. Carignan said that a temporary sign such as a sandwich board could be used until the hearing if it is taken in each night. Mr. Vitous asked if a sign on the rear of the building was allowed, and said a banner may be used instead of a sandwich board. Mr. Webb made a motion that the board hold a hearing at the June 20, 2007 meeting provided the application and fees are received by June 4, 2007. Mr. Carignan seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Vitous was given a copy of the sign information form.

OLD BUSINESS: Gravel pits: Ms. Mansouri passed out packets of information on the town’s gravel pits. She and Mr. Webb have combed through the records and filled out EXCAVATION IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION forms as much as possible with the information they found. Mr. Webb asked that the board members take the packets home, read through them, and return to the next meeting with questions and comments. Mr. Carignan asked what the board was looking for. Ms. Mansouri asked the board members to look at the RSA’s governing excavations and gravel pits, compare them with the information she and Mr. Webb were able to locate, and try to determine what things are missing according to the RSA’s.

Denise and Ken Horne, 11 Alstead Center Rd, Drewsville re: shed. Mr. Horne said he had received a letter from the board stating that his 10’X10’ shed needed a variance . He said he appeared before the board last autumn with a proposal for a 12’X20’ shed and was told that he would need a variance if the shed was closer than 65’ to the center of the road. He said 65’ would place the shed either against the wall of the house or in the gully. He said that he believed that if the shed was 100 square feet or less he did not need a building permit or a variance, so he placed a 10’X10’ shed within the 65’ setback. He said that he realized from the board’s letter that he did need a variance and would like to apply for one. Ms. Mansouri said the deadline for receiving the application and fees was June 4. Mr. Webb made a motion that the board set a hearing for June 20, 2007 provided the application and fees were received by June 4, 2007. Mr. Calhoun seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.

Robert Watson re: directional sign for Drewsville Store. Mr. R. Watson told the board he had been to talk to the board about a directional sign he wished to place on his son’s property in Drewsville, Map 25, Lot 12. He said the board had told him what the sign ordinance required and that they needed a letter from the landowner, Mr. Duncan Watson, granting permission for the sign to be placed on his property. Mr. R. Watson said his son had sent the letter, and he did not know what other information the board wanted. Ms. Mansouri said the board needed to know the location, setback and size of the sign as well as the letter from the property owner. She said the board had received a letter from the landowner accompanied only by a copy of the tax map with an “X” marked on the property. Mr. Calhoun read from the March meeting minutes . He said Mr. R. Duncan was asked to provide a diagram of the sign and its location to be put on file. Mr. R. Watson showed the board the design of the proposed sign. Ms. Mansouri said the board had asked to see what the sign looked like and its location with regard to a berm located on the property. Mr. R. Watson said the berm is well within the boundary of his son’s property. Mr. Webb said that Mr. R. Watson has come back to the board with the additional information required. He moved that the board approve the sign as presented with the additional information. Mr. Carignan seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously. Mr. Webb asked if the sign was going to affect any utility poles. Mr. R. Watson said the sign would be at least 20 feet from any utility pole. Mr. R. Watson was given a copy of the sign information form. Ms. Mansouri said she will make a copy of Mr. Watson’s sign diagram.

Annual Spring Planning and Zoning Conference. Mr. Calhoun reported on the conference which he attended on 4/28/2007.

Minutes. Mr. Webb moved that the minutes for the April 18, 2007 meeting be approved as submitted. L. Carignan seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.

There being no further business, the Meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday June 20, 2007 at 7:30 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Jan Galloway Leclerc