Minutes of Town Board Meetings
- Planning Board
- Board of Adjustment
- Select Board
- Budget Committee
- Building Committee
- Energy Commission
Search Minutes of Town Board Meetings
2006 Board of Adjustment Archives
- Minutes of 08/10/2006
- Minutes of 07/13/2006
- Minutes of 06/08/2006
- Minutes of 4/13/2006
- Minutes of 3/9/2006
- Minutes of 01/12/2006
- Minutes of 01/26/2006
Older Archives
Minutes of 4/13/2006
April 14th, 2006
CARROLL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 13, 2006
Members of the Board present: Paul Bussiere Chairman, Joan Karpf, Ed Martin, John Goodney, Jim Early
Members of the Public present; Richard Gould
Meeting called to order at 7:00 PM
The Board opened the Meeting with the Public Hearing for Richard Gould's Height Variance. Mr. Gould explained that the architect had built the house by Bethlehem's code which is 35 � feet. They have spent 2 � years designing and planning and really can't change it now. The height will not block anyones view and he didn't feel there would be any issues of safety.
Chairman Bussiere opened the floor to the Board for questions to Mr. Gould on how he answered the questions on his application. Joan Karpf brought to the Board�s attention that pages 66 and 67 in the handbook distinguish between a use variance and an area variance. I will read the area variance which is what Mr. Gould is here for:
1- There (would-would not) be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of the granting this variance because�.
2- The granting of this variance (would-would not) be contrary to the public interest because�.
3- Since
a. the following special conditions of the property make an area variance necessary in order to allow the development as designed; and
b. the same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden because
4- By granting this variance substantial justice (would-would not)be done because�.
5- The use contemplated by petitioned as a result of obtaining this variance (would-would not) be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because�.
Number 3 is a little different and Joan would like to redo our application to read like this.
Joan also asked if the fire chief had looked at the plans. Chairman Bussiere said that he had. Chief Duncan said the windows were at 22 feet and he had no problems with the roof structure, and he saw no safety issues.
Chief Bussiere read a letter from abutter Jacqueline A. Smith of Franconia stating she had no problem whatsoever with Mr. Gould building.
Ed. Martin asked Mr. Gould if the footprints of the house were level. Mr. Gould said right now it was not but it will be leveled when they build.
Ed. Martin asked about the criteria on fire protection on the height, that the ladders would only go so far. Chairman Bussiere said he was not here for that but he heard two different versions on it. One was for the safety and the other was so that new construction would not block the view of the existing neighbors. What�s true and not true he wasn�t sure as he was not here when the ordinance was passed but he would believe it to be the safety issue.
Joan Karpf read the five variance criteria:
1: There (would-would not) be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of the granting of this variance;
Chairman Bussiere did not see this affecting the property value because of the size of the lot.
Mr. Early asked what the set backs were.
Mr. Gould showed the plans to the board. His house sits on 109 acres. As the developer he dictates the sites. The Board reviewed the plans. All agreed there would be no diminished values.
2: The granting of this variance (would-would-not) be contrary to the public interest;
All in favor there is no problem with number 2.
3: Since
a. the following special conditions of the property make an area variance necessary in order to allow the development as designed;
All in favor
b. the same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden;
All in favor.
4: By granting this variance substantial justice (would-would not) be done;
All in favor.
5: The use contemplated by petitioner as a result of obtaining this variance (would-would not) be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance;
Joan Karpf wanted to say that she felt contrary to the ordinance, which she thought could be addressed with conditions and her interpretation of the ordinance and why we have the height limitation is the safety and the other is the obstruction of the view. Joan would like to see a condition based on Mr. Gould�s answer to question number 1