Town of Carroll, New Hampshire

• Town Services
• Town Meeting Minutes
• Planning Board/ZBA
• Applications & Forms
• Town Clerk/Tax Collector
• Map
• Home

Minutes of Town Board Meetings

• Planning Board
• Board of Adjustment
• Select Board
• Budget Committee
• Building Committee
• Energy Commission

Minutes of 01/26/2006

January 1st, 2006

Carroll Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2006



Board members present: Paul Bussiere, Nancy Mitiguy, Ed Martin, Jim Early, Joan Karpf, Russ Friedman

Members of the public present: John Burt, William Wright, Edith Tucker, Roberta McGee, Doug Bews

Meeting called at 7:05 PM

Chairman Bussiere stated that this was a deliberative meeting for the Jay Ouellette application for special exception for a used car lot on the John Burt property. He
referred to letters from Building Inspector Stan Borkowski as to whether the property was in violation of the Zoning Ordinances. His letter of 1/24/06 was not clear to Chairman Bussiere and he requested a second statement. Mr. Borkowski’s letter of 1/25/06 stated that he has not issued a notice of violation. Edith Tucker asked what violation was he referring to, and Chairman Bussiere stated Section 407.5 Property Maintenance Standards. He stated again that this was a deliberative session with no public comment allowed. He also stated that Jim Early would take part in the discussion but would not vote because he had not attended the Public Hearing.

Joan Karpf asked if the application was for Jay or for Jay and John? Isn’t the application supposed to be on the property? Both names are on the application, it really is John Burt’s application for special exception, and Jay’s license is an annex to the application.

A discussion of how many cars should be displayed brought comments from Russ Friedman, Paul Bussiere, and Ed Martin that 50 was too many, that it would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Nancy Mitiguy listed some of her concerns:
The buffer of deciduous trees on the north side is mostly on neighboring property, not on the property in question. Placing a sign in the existing sign framework would obstruct the view for cars entering and exiting. Her depth measurements are different than those on the application. She feels this exception would adversely affect the neighborhood and set a precedent for business in a mostly residential area. There are safety issues, such as the barn does not appear stable. She would like it to be removed completely before thinking of approving the special exception.

Joan Karpf said she’d done a lot of reading on the issue of special exceptions. If this were a flat piece of land with nothing on it, then we must approve, then deal with the conditions that would make it blend in with the area. Her feeling is it’s not a plain piece of land, it has safety concerns and is an eyesore to abutters. If the buildings were torn down, and that problem solved, then she’d vote for special exception.

Paul stated that if an application meets the 3 conditions we must approve. Based on Stan’s letter, we can’t not approve because of a violation of Section 407.5. Ed Martin talked about the first letter from Stan where he said he’d not issued a notice of violation yet. This sounded like he was leaning in the direction of violation, but has not done anything yet. Paul said that’s why he asked for clarification from Stan. The second letter clearly stated that he is not issuing a notice of violation. It comes down to the issue of does the special exception adversely affect the character of the neighborhood.

Joan stated that at the original hearing, abutters considered the property to be an eyesore and this would add to the problem. The owner has stated that he does not intend to improve the existing property. Russ asked if we say no, does it get any better? No …amp;quot; the owner has stated this. If we approve, can we put a condition in that he improve the property? This may be an incentive.

Paul asked if the board wanted to take a vote on whether they would approve the exception with conditions. Nancy stated she wanted to know the conditions first. There were questions about enforcement of board conditions and if Stan has to agree to our conditions before a vote. The Zoning Board of Adjustment cannot enforce the ordinances. The Code Enforcement Officer (Stan) does, and someone can go to the Board of Selectmen if they feel this is not being done. Stan does not have to agree to our conditions.

The following conditions were stipulated.

Prior to cars being displayed:

Repair or raze the barn and all debris removed.
On the main building, repair or remove loose flashing on the roofline, repair drip edge, loose and missing shingles and clapboards and remove broken glass.
Repair or remove anything loose or hanging that could be hazardous or a potential threat to safety.
Property maintenance standards in Section 407.5 of the Zoning Ordinance must be met in their entirety.
Proof of Insurance for commercial use must be supplied to the town.
There must be a solid buffer 6 ft. high on the north side where vehicles are displayed.

General Conditions for Operation:

The number of vehicles (cars, passenger or cargo vans, SUV’s, light duty trucks) on display shall not exceed 25.
Hours of operation shall be 8 AM …amp;quot; 5 PM, six days per week, including delivery of vehicles.
Vehicles will be displayed only in the area marked 2 on the map received 09/19/2005.
Fire lanes will be maintained around buildings.
Lighting will be facing down and shielded, limited to locations 8 and 9 on the 09/19 map, the source not visible off the property.
Signage (1 permanent, 1 temporary) must be approved by the Planning Board and shall not constitute a traffic hazard.
Loading and unloading of vehicles will take place on the property, not on the road.
Landscaping: green space shall be planted and maintained in areas marked 1 on the 09/19 map. Flowers and decorative shrubbery shall be planted and maintained on the front of the lot.

The question was asked: are our conditions reasonable? Wouldn’t anyone going into business want to put their best foot forward? None of the conditions are unreasonable.

Chairman Bussiere asked if the board was ready to vote.

Ed Martin moved to approve the John Burt/Jay Ouellette application for special exception with the stipulated conditions as read (as listed above in the minutes). Russ Friedman seconded the motion, and it was passed by the five board members voting. Chairman Bussiere stated the special exception with the conditions stipulated passes.

Jim Early moved the minutes from the January 12, 2006 meeting be approved as read. Ms. Mitiguy seconded the motion. With the exception of Mr. Friedman and Ms. Karpf, who abstained, the board voted to accept the motion.

Doug Bews came before the board to ask some general questions regarding tax issues and the Town of Carroll Master Plan. Chairman Bussierre pointed out that the board could only give general non-binding responses to his questions at this meeting. Mr. Bews talked about the R-B Zone having commercial business where some owners lived on the property. The Master Plan according to Mr. Bews is to protect the rural quality in Twin Mountain for residents, commercial business and industry. It seems to him we protect the town from commercial business and industry. He came to board for direction on how to go about defining the character of the town. He was told that the Zoning Board does not write ordinances, they only interpret. The Planning Board, Selectmen, and citizens can write ordinances, and Chairman Bussierre pointed out that the Planning Board was working on revisions to the Master Plan.

At 8:50 PM, Ms. Mitiguy made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Early seconded the motion.
All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned.

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024