DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
TOWN OFFICES –
The regular monthly meeting of the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment was held at the above time, date and place with Chairman John Trottier presiding. The following members were present:
John Trottier, Chairman
John Herlihy, Vice Chairman
Alison R. Vallieres, Secretary
Gertrude Dulude
David Nault
Scott Ives, Alternate
Ron Slocum, Alternate
John Van, Alternate
Harvey Provencher, Building
Inspector
The
Chairman verified with the Secretary that the meeting notice had been posted in
a timely fashion in three public places throughout the Town and published in
the Concord Monitor for one day.
Election
of Officers:
John
Herlihy made a motion to nominate John Trottier for Chairman of the Dunbarton
Zoning Board of Adjustment. David Nault
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
David
Nault made a motion to nominate John Herlihy for Vice Chairman of the Dunbarton
Zoning Board of Adjustment. John Van
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
John
Trottier made a motion to nominate Alison Vallieres for Secretary of the
Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment.
John Herlihy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Approval
of Previous Month’s Minutes,
John Herlihy made a motion to approve the previous month’s
minutes of
Belinda Laurie and Erma Hodgman appeared before the
Board. Belinda Laurie stated that she
spent a lot of time at her grandparents home because her grandfather was very
sick and needed her help. She stated she
wanted to run a second-hand store for the people in the Town so they could buy
items reasonable. She would be selling
second hand furniture, clothing, dishes, toys, baby furniture, plus she has a
large library of second hand books. My
mother will be selling craft items which she has made. She stated she had been in this business for
several years. She stated she presently
lives in
The Board discussed as to whether or not the
application would fall under the Home Occupation within the Dunbarton Zoning
Ordinance. After discussion, it was the
consensus of the Board that this application would be considered a Special
Exception as she had applied for.
At this point, John Trottier, Chairman, stated that
the Board needed to know “the lay of the land” and requested they provide a physical survey plan
showing location of the existing home, garage, septic system and well along
with any parking area for the proposed business. In addition they should address the
requirement for a bathroom.
Chairman Trottier stated the Board needs this
information in order to made a decision.
The Board is very careful in granting Special Exceptions and have been
requesting this type of information from all other applicants.
Belinda Laurie stated that the existing garage was a
large two stall garage and there was a good sized parking lot for cars. She stated they would not be obstructing
anyone’s view. She stated the house was
right beside the powerline.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been
notified by certified mail:
The Board stated they had determined that this was
not a Home Occupation but would be a Craft/Second Hand Store.
At this point, John Trottier asked Belinda Laurie if
she understood Mrs. Frost’s concerns. He
stated they would need to know about any outdoor storage of merchandise. Also do you plan to screen it. He noted this would have to go to the
Planning Board if approved for a Site Plan Review. This is obviously a little more than a Home
Occupation.
Chuck Frost – Asked if there would be any signs
placed there.
The Board noted any signs would have to conform to
the Sign Ordinance.
Nancy Frost -
Asked if the Special Exception were granted, would it go to a new owner. The new owner would be able to have a larger
business similar to the problems we had at Arbutus Farm. She stated she was worried that it will go on
to some future problem with a new owner coming in.
The Board assured Mrs. Frost that if the Special
Exception were granted, it was an Enforcement Issue and it would not be allowed
to grow any bigger and get out of control.
Don Prior – Present.
Stated that he lives at
The Board asked the applicants if they were clear as
to what information the Board will require before making a decision on this
request. The Board noted that Harvey
Provencher, the Building Inspector, would be at the Town Office on Thursday evenings
if they had any questions.
MOTION:
David Nault made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment continue the Public Hearing until the applicants provides information requested by the Board regarding the Request for a Special Exception to Article 9, Section D.3 of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance from Belinda Laurie/Erma Hodgman (G4-2-1) to allow them to have a second hand/craft store at property on 50 Grapevine Road in the Medium Density District in Dunbarton, NH. John Trottier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 9, SECTION D.3 OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM JAMES/KIMBERLEY A. BOWEN (E5-3-11) TO ALLOW THEM TO USE A FENCED IN AREA OF PROPERTY FOR A DOG TRAINING BUSINESS AT THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 240 ROBERT ROGERS ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Kimberley Bowen appeared before the Board with her request. (attached information) She stated she would be running the business
from April/May until October/November depending on weather conditions. Her proposed hours would be Monday through
Friday 10 – 8 pm and Saturday and Sunday from 11 – 8 pm with all dogs leaving
the premises no later than 8:30 pm. She
would have 4-6 students in each class.
The classes would be agility and fly ball.
John Trottier, Chairman, indicated he was not comfortable with the
plans as presented and would request a more complete site plan showing the field along with other information. Asked how she would control the noise from
4-6 dogs in a class.
K. Bowen stated that the dogs are very focused on their training and do
not tend bark a lot. The only time a dog
would be barking in class is when they are waiting for their turn. She stated she requires the dogs to be working
on their exercises and building up the bond between the dog and owner while
waiting. She presently owns four dogs of
her own.
John Trottier asked if the Board were interested in seeing this type of
training, where could we go.
K. Bowen stated there is a planned weekend on April 26-27 in Dover and
on May 10-11 in Hopkinton. There is a
facility of this type in Wilton, NH.
K. Bowen stated she would ask that students not “work” between my house
and Tom Watts house.
Board asked what was to prevent these dogs from getting out and
visiting other dogs in the neighborhood.
K. Bowen stated the area was fully fenced in and gated. Owners take their dogs out of their vehicles
on a leash and lead them to the fenced in area.
The dogs are not allowed to run loose.
Ron Slocum – Asked where their “duty” area is located.
K. Bowen stated there would be an isolated area just outside of the
fenced in area. This would make cleanup
easier for me. She stated they practice
proper dog etiquette.
Gertrude Dulude – Asked if it wasn’t difficult to tell a dog where to
go and where not to go.
John Trottier – Asked that when you bring back a plan, be sure to show
where the duty area and fenced in area would be.
Harvey Provencher – Stated that six dogs is the maximum number of dogs
you would have at one time?
K. Bowen – Stated that four dogs is ideal but there is the possibility
of having one or two more in a class depending on circumstances. Six is the maximum number of dogs in order
for them to learn.
John Van – Asked where are her own dogs going to be at this time.
K. Bowen – My dogs will be in an area with classical music playing,
etc. Will not be interested in the class
and what is going on.
The Board stated she needs to indicate where the parking will occur and
how many vehicles the area can accommodate.
Harvey Provencher – Asked if all cars will be parking on the property
and not on the road.
It was noted that a Kennel required that there be a 100 foot setback
from bounds instead of 50’. This would
probably fall under the realm of a
Kennel
K.Bowen stated there will be a
4’ high fence. The dogs will be focused
on what is happening in the class.
Board asked about the possibility that they will “bolt”. What if a deer walks through the swamp by
them, etc. A border collie could jump a
six foot fence if they wanted to.
John Trottier – Asked about storage of equipment and lighting. If there is lighting, the Board needs to know
the wattage.
K. Bowen noted the equipment would be stored in the garage in the
winter. There will be no exterior
lighting. Dogs will be leaving by 7 or 8
at night.
Harvey Provencher – Asked what bred of dogs would be attending the
classes.
K. Bowen – Stated that any bred of dogs can attend the classes. Border collies are especially good at
it. A lot of people have a lot of
different breds of dogs and will be attending.
Will be installing a mirror on the driveway for backing out, etc. There is a curve so they need to see,
etc.
John Trottier – Stated that mirrors don’t work because people don’t
know how to use them. Might be better
off cleaning up the line of sight.
K. Bowen – Stated the mirror was just going to be an extra safety
measure.
John Trottier, Chairman – Asked K. Bowen if she was sure of what the
Board would need for information. He
stated the four foot fence is a concern.
K. Bowen – Stated the dogs will be on a leash at all times. The class and training is “never let the dog
fail”.
Abutters were read as follows and it was noted that all were notified
by certified mail:
Tom/Eleanor Watts – Present.
Stated they feel they are in a residential area and a facility oif this
king would have some detrimental effects on property values. This is a major concern plus other concerns. We are also concerned about traffic and
barking dogs.
The Board noted that if an abutter is concerned about detriment to
property values, it would behoove them to address this is some sort of written
statement by an appraiser, etc.
Lynda Lewis – Not Present
Melinda/Jeffery Spill – Present.
Stated he has concerns and offered the following reasons. Stated he is concern about control of the
pet. He has a 2 ½ year old daughter who
plays in the adjoining yard. This could
be a threat to my daughter. Might be
dogs there not in control. As soon as
dogs enter the property, if it is in the driveway there, the owner loses
control of the pet. Once the dog is
free, he is free to roam around, etc.
Another reason I don’t feel this particular business is in harmony with
the neighbors is because this is generally a quiet area and the would bring the
number of dogs to a potential of ten total at this property. Just her dogs alone create noise and are
bring strange dogs on the property.
There can be excessive noise and this sets up a chain of events. In addition, I haven’t seen the plan. My lot line goes right behind my house. We are in close proximity. Any noise will travel and will be a definite
concern of mine. Is she interested in
training dogs for competition and would she be having competition on her
property. Would just ask that as much
information as possible be delivered to the next meeting. When is the next meeting going to be. (Board informed him it would be the second
Monday in May)
The Board asked if the applicant could supply the information to the
abuttor (Spill) prior to the next meeting.
Jason/Jody Davies – Not Present
Guy/Dawn Doucet – Not Present
Tony/Christine Pelletier – Not Present
Bradley/Asbury/Donna Flemming – Not Present
Richard/Melissa Kiah – Not Present
Franklin Block/Jeanne Zingrowski – Not Present
Bruce/Nancy Holloway – Not Present
Michael/Jean Leo – Not Present
Amaro Trust, Richard/Janice – Present.
Asked the applicant if this is seasonal and how many times a day she
would be having classes.
K. Bowen stated the classes would be starting in April/May and ending
in October/November. She stated they
would be Monday – Friday 10 am – 8 pm and Saturday and Sunday 11 am – 8 pm with
all students being off the property by 8:30 p.m.
Mr. Amaro stated this would be a seven day a week business then. Being an individual business person, I have a
one year, five year plan, etc. What is
the business plan for this business. How
long are the classes, one hour or fifteen minutes. Are you going to have a class in the morning
and one in the afternoon? What about
cars coming and going.
Mr. Amaro noted that someone had
asked to have a kindergarten in the area and the request was denied because of
traffic and number of cars on Robert Rogers Road. This is especially a concern if the business
is run seven days a week. Don’t know
where all the cars come from now plus people on motorcycles. This is a bad corner. Asked if this were considered a Home
Occupation.
The Board indicated this was a Special Exception.
Eleanor Watts – Stated that Mr. Amaro’s concerns need to be taken into
consideration. If you have a fenced in
yard, how many square feet will that be.
There has got to be some rules and regulations, if we accept this at this point.
Mr. Amaro stated that he was please that we have the opportunity to be
an Enterprener. There are other things
to be taken into consideration in this community. We refer to events. Would like to see a Training Facility. There are a number of considerations that
need to be looked at including the devaluation of property.
Mrs. Amaro – Asked how many other animals are going to be attracted to
your facility. They are going to want to
see what is going on.
James/Lois Hollow – Not Present
Derrick LaBranche – Not Present
Daniel/Johanne Duchesne – Not Present
Paul/Barbara Simoneau - Not
Present
Other members of the public:
Tom Watts – We are getting more and more people in the area down there
and never know whose dog is coming down the road or coming at you. Just across the street, a three year old
little boy got bite on the butt by a dig dog.
There are more and more kids and more dogs. I am totally against this type of thing.
Eleanor Watts – Asked if this meant that K. Bowen could put in a
Kennel.
The Board indicated “No” she would only be allowed to put in what she
was presenting which is Dog Classes only.
There would be no Kennel allowed under this request.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment continue to public hearing for the proposed Request for a Special Exception to Article 9, Section D.3 of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance from James/Kimberley A. Bowen (E5-3-11) to allow them to use a fenced in area of property for a dog training business at their property located at 240 Robert Rogers Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH in order for the applicant to bring in additional information and plans. David Nault seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Informal Discussion
At this point in the meeting Beth LaMarca appeared before the Board
informally to ask the Board’s help. (attached) She stated they would like to
purchase land behind their house from the adjacent neighbor and were looking
for a way to do this. Both lots are
presently non-conforming lots. The
neighbor’s lot has five acres but only 150 foot frontage. Their lot is only one acre. The Board noted the possibility of a Lot Line
Adjustment through the Planning Board.
The Board will do research on how the Pellenz Lot Line Adjustment was
completed.
REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION A. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM DAVID NAULT (B6-1-13) TO ALLOW HIM TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT AT HIS PROPERTY ON 1269 MONTALONA ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
At this point in the meeting, David Nault stepped down from the Board.
Jacques Belanger,
Surveyor, and David Nault appeared before the Board with the plan showing the
proposed accessory apartment. (attached)
David stated he would be putting in a separate septic system for the
accessory apartment. He stated the
accessory apartment would utilize the same well as his home. The accessory apartment would be two bedrooms
which is the minimum size for a septic system.
David Nault stated this proposed Special Exception was the same as the
Auger request which was previously granted.
David stated he
would be building the garage anyway and if the Special Exception were granted,
he would be putting in the accessory apartment in the upstairs. David Nault stated the structure will not
look any different whether or not he puts the accessory apartment in or
not. Presented pictures showing
property. (attached)
Abutters were read
as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Norman/Lynne Lemay
– Not Present
Nancy/William
Hoffman – Not Present
Charles/Linda
Peters – Not Present
Catherine Beleveau
– Not Present
Pandora Martel –
Present. Stated she was concerned about
the wetlands surrounding the property which were in her ownership. Anyone that
comes down can see all the wetland in the area. She also stated there was a right of way
easement on the property to her backland which doesn’t show on the plan. She stated she was also concerned about the
bounds. Stated she was opposed to the
proposed Special Exception.
David Nault –
Present (applicant)
Raymond/Laura
Fields – Not Present
J. E. Belanger
Surveying – Present
John Trottier –
Stated that he felt an accessory apartment was for family members.
David Nault –
Stated that his son, Joshua, had joined the Marine and would be coming home
each year for 30 days and he would be living in the apartment. After that, David stated he would rent it,
not necessarily to a family member.
There won’t be any more people on the lot than is presently because his
son is presently living with him anyway.
Stated he didn’t want to take any “shortcuts” therefore he wanted the
accessory apartment to have its own septic system, etc. In addition, it would have its own
driveway. (driveway permit)
John Trottier –
Asked if David Nault would agree to a stipulation of only allowing a “blood”
relative to live in the accessory apartment.
David stated No, because he didn’t want to make the investment in the
accessory apartment and then only be allowed to rent to a “blood”
relative.
Gertrude Dulude –
Noted that an applicant on Armand’s Way had specified only family, etc.
John Trottier –
Stated that he felt an accessory apartment was incidental to the main use of
the property. This is turning it into
rental property.
Scott Ives – Stated
that this was two distinct dwellings on a small lot.
David Nault –
Stated that in Manchester, lots are much smaller than these.
Ron Slocum – Asked
if we should be treating this as a Multi-Family.
Other members of the public:
Don Prior, 1 Tenney
Hill Road – Stated he would like to make a comment. Stated he has an accessory apartment but feel
it is not really in the spirit of the ordinance. Can squeeze in a septic system here but why
start building like this, etc. Why is
the standard for two bedrooms? Why does
Josh need two bedrooms instead of one?
David Nault – Noted
the industry standard is two bedrooms for a 500 square foot living area. This is the minimum square footage allowed
within the zoning ordinance. It will be
a standard 30’ x 40’ gambrel and will allow for sufficient living space for
someone living there. I want mine to go
by the same standard as the structure up
on the hill (Auger)
Board noted that
before making the final decision, the need the following information:
1.
Applicant will
look into the right of way for Martel’s property
2.
Need to show
wetlands on the plan
3.
Need state
approved septic system
John Trottier
stated he was also concerned about the wetlands in the area.
MOTION:
John Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment continue the public hearing for the Request for a Special Exception to Article 4, Section A. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance from David Nault (B6-1-13) to allow him toe construct an accessory apartment at his property on 1269 Montalona Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH until more information is provided by the applicant. John Herlihy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION A. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM ROGER NAULT AND DAVID NAULT (B6-2-10) TO ALLOW THEM TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT AT THEIR PROPERTY ON 1274 MONTALONA ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Jacques Belanger,
Surveyor, and David Nault appeared before the Board. Jacques stated that this was a larger lot
than the previous lot but they were proposing to do an addition to an existing
garage on the property for an accessory apartment. David Nault stated that he and his brother
owned the property together. He stated
this was his grandfather’s house and had been there 55 years. He would plan to build gambrel behind the
existing garage with an accessory apartment on the second floor.
John Trottier –
Stated that this was already rental property.
He would be creating an accessory apartment on rental property. Stated that the Nault’s didn’t even reside on
the property. This would be two distinct
and separate rental properties. The
accessory apartment would be using the same driveway and the other house.
David Nault –
Stated he would not deny that this is a rental property.
Abutters were read
as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Norman/Lynne Lemay
– Not Present
Nancy/William
Hoffman – Not Present
Charles/Linda
Peters – Not Present
Catherine Beliveau
– Not Present
Pandora Martel –
Present. Stated she was against this
use.
David Nault –
Present
Raymond/Laura
Fields – Not Present
Other members of the public:
Don Prior – Stated
he couldn’t relate as to what has been done in the past. Changes are in the process. It is in the Town’s best interest for the
Board to act as they desire the
ordinance to become instead of the way it presently is.
David Nault –
Stated that you have to act on what is in front of you and not what you would
like it to be.
Questions as to the granting of a Special Exception were answered as follows:
a. No detriment to property values in the vicinity of the proposed development will result on account of: the location or scale of buildings, structures, parking areas or other accessways; the emission of odors, smoke, gas, dust, noise, glare, heat, vibration, or other pollutants; or the unsightly outdoor storage of equipment, vehicles or other materials.
Answer: The building which is proposed is typical of a residential area. The building is to retain its “barn characteristics”, be serviced by an existing artesian well and a new state approved septic system.
b. No hazard will be caused to the public or adjacent property on account of potential fire, explosion or release of toxic materials.
Answer: The proposed use is residential. There would be no hazards on site that aren’t found in the typical home.
c. No creation of a traffic safety hazard or substantial traffic congestion in the vicinity of the proposed development.
Answer: No traffic hazard will be created.
d. No excessive demand on municipal services and facilities, including, but not limited to waste disposal, police and fire protection and schools.
e. No excessive demand on municipal services and facilities, including, but not limited to waste disposal, police and fire protection and schools.
Answer: Again, any demands on the municipal services would be no greater than would be from a typical residence. The proposal is for an accessory apartment, so number of people living here is at a minimum.
f. The proposed use will not result in the degradation of existing surface and groundwater water quality standards, nor will it have adverse effects on the natural functions of wetlands on the site which would result in the loss of significant habitat or flood control protection.
Answer: The proposed apartment will need to be equipped with a state approved septic system. There would not be any degradation of surrounding ground water.
g. In addition to the standards specified above, special exceptions may be subject to appropriate conditions including the following:
(1) Front, side, or rear yards in excess of the minimum requirements of the Ordinance:
Answer: All setbacks can be met.
(2) Screening of the premises from the street or adjacent property by walls, fences, or other devices;
Answer: Existing screening of the surrounding landscape.
Limitations on the size of buildings and other structures more stringent than minimum or maximum requirements of this Ordinance;
Answer: The proposal is to work within the building proposed.
(3) Limitations on the number of occupants and methods and times of operation;
Answer: The proposal is for two bedrooms, which is typically the smallest living unit that is typical, other than in a larger scale project.
Regulation of the design and location of access drives, sidewalks, and other traffic features;
Answer: Drives and accesses are existing.
(4) Location and amount of parking and loading spaces in excess of existing standards;
Answer: Parking would be to a minimum and visible to the road.
(5) Regulation of the number, size and lighting of signs in excess of existing standards.
Answer: No signage and only residential outside lights.
DISCUSSION:
Alison Vallieres –
Stated that her opinion was that the Board is confined to the wording of the
ordinance as it appears in black and white and cannot do any other interpretations
of it. The Board should seriously think
about updating the ordinance to say in writing what we think it should
say. It is difficult to make decisions
based on each individual member’s interpretation of the ordinance. It should be clearly stated as to acreage
requirements, etc. There have been many
accessory apartments granted in the past for whatever reasons.
John Van – Agree
that 100 reasons don’t make a right.
Either attached or on the same lot and incidental or subordinate. I feel it is intended to be a blood relative,
etc. I can’t do it any other way. This is not a rental unit. Not within the spirit of the Ordinance.
John Trottier
stated his biggest problem was this being a rental property. Feels the Board should put a stake in the
sand and go from this point forward and what has happened in the past is
history.
Voting members of
the Board will be as follows:
Gertrude Dulude
Alison Vallieres
John Trottier
John Herlihy
John Van
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request from Roger and David Nault to allow them to construct an accessory apartment at their property on 1274 Montalona Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH with the following conditions:
1. State approved septic system
2. Building to be 30’ x 40’, gambrel style with second floor
3. Plan revisions to indicate two bedroom accessory apartment
4. Accessory apartment will always remain on the same lot as existing wooden frame house and that apartment always be located upstairs and only upstairs.
Alison Vallieres seconded the motion. The motion did not pass with the vote as follows:
For the Motion: Alison Vallieres
John Herlihy
Against the Motion: John Trottier
Gertrude Dulude
John Van
There being no
further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Alison
Vallieres, Secretary