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 3/16/2017

March 28th, 2017

Carroll Planning Board

Public Hearing Minutes

March 16, 2017

5:30 PM





“These minutes of the Town of Carroll Planning Board have been recorded by its Secretary. Though believed to be accurate and correct they are subject to additions,deletions and corrections by the Planning Board at its next meeting when the Board votes its final approval of the minutes. They are being made available at this time to conform to the requirements of New Hampshire RSAS 91-A: 2.

Members Present: Chairman Ken Mills, Richard Krapf, Bonnie Moroney, Selectman’s Representative Brian Mycko and Karen Saffian

Members of the Public: 5:30 PM arrivals: Dr. Andrew Chen (Owner Twin Mountain Plaza), Gardner Kellogg (Surveyor), Chris Allen 6:00 PM arrivals: Town Counsel, Jae Whitelaw, Jason & Mary Sullivan, Greg Hogan, Joe & Lisa Trainor, Counsel for the Trainor’s, Jason Bielagus, Anita Greer, Tom Smith, Len Wood, Tyler Phillips, Holly Sullivan, Genesis Sullivan, Mike Sullivan, Sean MacDonegal, Sean & Elaine Miemiec, Mike (New owner of the Profile Motel), the O’Leary’s, Fire Chief Jeremey Oleson and Evan Karpf

Minutes taken by: Rena Vecchio, Secretary

Pledge of Allegiance: 5:30 PM

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Brian Mycko made a motion to: accept the minutes as written. Richard Krapf seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR TWIN MOUNTAIN PLAZA

The Site Plan Application for Twin Mountain Plaza, Map 207, Lot 033-000-009, 603 Route 3 South was announced. The purpose of the Site Plan was to renovate and fix the existing building for rental businesses.
The Chair asked the secretary if all fees were paid, the abutters had been notified and if the newspaper ad was for a Public Hearing. The answer was yes to all three.
The Chair then told the board that they would go to page 2 of 5 in the application and they would go thru the Submission Requirements. Gardner Kellogg offered to go thru the list with the board.
(X) Completed, (N/A) Not Applicable, (W) Waiver Required
• 4 paper prints of the map (X)
• Identify title (X)
• Name and address of applicant/agent developer (X)
• Name, number and signed seal of surveyor/engineer (X)
• Date of plan (X)
• Scale (X)
• North arrow (X)
• Property lines with bearings, distances, monuments (X)
• Total acreage (X)
• Names of all abutters (X)
• Existing structures, roads, landscaping, and other man-made features(indicate what will be retained, altered or removed) (X)
• Location of all buildings on abutting properties within 50 feet of property, etc. (X)
• Location of existing and proposed grades, etc. (X)
• Existing and proposed drainage systems and structures (X)
• Storm drainage plan, including where necessary; plans for the retention and slow release of storm water including the location, elevation and site of all catch basins, dry wells, drainage ditches, swales, culverts, retention basins, and storm sewers. Plans for snow removal and sortage should be indicated. Engineering calculations by a Professional Engineer should be provided. Direction of flow should be indicated with arrows.
(N/A was noted but changed to an X as it previously existed)
• Natural features such as streams, marshes, lakes, or ponds, types of vegetation, and ledge outcrops (indicate what will be retained, altered or removed (N/A noted as none in the area)
• 100 year flood plan elevation line and location of any wetlands (N/A not in flood plain)
• For on-site sewage disposal, a soils map and NH Water Supply and Pollution Control Division Permit (X)
• Size and proposed location of water supply and sewage facilities and provisions for future expansion (N/A they have town water and leach field is under the parking area)
• If on-site water or sewer facilities are planned, show distance from proposed facilities to all existing facilities on a site or abutting properties to a distance of 200 feet. (N/A nothing planned)
• Proposed provisions for fire protection (N/A noted but will change to X-this will become a condition if application is approved)
• Architectural drawings showing the shape, size, height and other exterior details of proposed structures or expansion of existing buildings (N/A noted as not changing)
• Location, type and size of all proposed landscaping and screening (N/A noted as not changing)
• Exterior lighting plan (X)
• Proposed signs including advertising and signs (X)
• Proposed streets, driveways, etc. (X)
• Location and dimensions of loading spaces and facilities associated with the structures or uses of the site (X)
• Circulation plan of the interior of the lot for vehicular ad pedestrian circulation,, also showing means of access and egress, proposed changes to existing public streets, sidewalks, and curbs, including any traffic control devices or signs necessary (N/A noted but changed to X as it is shown)
• Detailed construction drawings including, but not limited to typical sections of pavements, walks, steps, curbing and drainage structures by a Professional Engineer (N/A noted as nothing is new, all the same)
• Vicinity sketch at 1” = 400’ showing the location of the size in relation to the surrounding public street ststem and the zoning districts and boundaries for the site (X)
• A soils classification map, together with descriptive information for each type of soil (required for on-site sewage disposal only) (X)
• Provisions for solid waste disposal and collection (X)
• The location of all existing and proposed deed restrictions easements, covenants, etc. (X)
• The location of visual and noise reduction barriers, if any (N/A)
• Copies of all applicable State approvals and permits (N/A already in place)
• Review by the Carroll Fire Chief and Road Agent (X-but had nothing available from either in writing-will be a condition if application is approved)
• Any other additional information specifically requested by the PLBD (X-there were no questions from the board)

Brian Mycko made a motion to: approve the Site Plan Application for the Twin Mountain Plaza, Map 207, Lot 033-000-009, 603 Rte 3 South, to renovate and fix the existing building for rental businesses. Richard Krapf seconded.
The Chair said he wanted to amend the motion to read: ……rental businesses with the condition that the Fire Chief hands in a report that the building is in compliance. The Chair asked for a vote and it was in favor with a unanimous vote.

The Chair closed the Public Hearing for the Site Plan for Twin Mountain Plaza.

CONTINUATION FOR A SITE PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF THE BEECH HILL CAMPGROUND 6:00 PM

Chair Ken Mills explained to the board that they would now go back into the Public Hearing for the expansion of Beech Hill Campground and that the applicants had the floor.
Jason Sullivan introduced himself and his wife Mary as the owners of Beech Hill Campground for the past 12 years. He said he wanted to thank the board for their time and effort. Jason said that he and Mary had handed in a lot of information in the past months and to save time he would not go over everything again. He followed with:
• There is over 40 years of history where the property has served as a campground
• Opened in 1973 with 70 sites and a group camping area (there has been and still is a water line to that area)
• They have the original commercial water system that is still in use today and is approved for 209 sites
• Original septic system that was re-inspected in 2003 and approved for 103 water and electric sites as well as 40 tent sites that system alone-at this point they are approved for 200 camp sites with other systems
• 1979 the whole area, 200 acre’s was grandfathered because the Zoning Ordinances were voted in and anything before that time was grandfathered
• The information they handed in to the board had a letter from the Daigle’s, campers during that time, confirming the group area before 1979
• Information was handed in from the Trade name, Registration and Campers Assoc. stating that the campground has 200 acre’s even though not all of it is developed yet.
• The Trainor’s showed a picture with no campsites visible and that photo was taken May 22, 1972, before campground existed, 1973-the other two photos were taken April 18, 1977 and October 30, 1978. The campground is not open during those times of year so nothing would show for a campground- roads are shown
• The PLBD secretary found a Special Exception for the Beech Hill Campground but it is not relevant to this application-it was for a campground across the street still owned by Beech Hill-it is no longer in use
• May 5, 1990 Ed & Linda Bousquin bought Beech Hill-on maps #375 B & #448, Note #2 on the map, stated any campsites and roads not in Lot 1 need to be removed-they never were and they,( the Sullivan’s) have never tried to say differently
• Group area was still being used in 1990 and water line still exists
• There was an easement for Jeff Jones (former owner of Beech Hill) to get to his property, Lot 2
• In 1989 & 1990 Jones went before the board for a Lot Line Adjustment and again in 1990 for another Lot Line Adjustment and the board never said anything to him about removing anything-they could have at either of those times
• April 19, 1997 Ed & Linda Bousquin bought Lot 2 & combined the property again
• Bousquin goes to ZBA & PLBD in good faith telling them he wants to merge and expand the campground by 150 sites- The Nickerson’s, who sold the abutting property of the campground to the Trainor’s, could have appealed the decision to allow them to expand, but they never did-
• September 20, 2001- went to ZBA wanted to expand campground-Caruso asks if any of Lot 2 had been used for campground, Bousquin say yes-Caruso says no issue concerning expansion if campground was used there already-asks how to merge lots- told to fill out Voluntary Merger and go before PLBD
• November 1, 2001- Bousquin goes before PLBD with petition with signatures to see if he can get Res 1 section of campground to be changed to RB-PLBD took the petition and sent to lawyer to see if petition was written properly
• December 6, 2001- PLBD minutes say board asked for petition and sent to lawyer, if properly written then will go to vote as a warrant article
• April 4, 2002- PLBD sends letter stating Beech Hill property grandfather-letter sent and can expand before coming before board
• September 5, 2002-Bousguin goes before board to merge lots and to expand by 150 sites-board approves with setback conditions-also said any future expansion has to go to ZBA for a Special Exception
• September 12, 2002-goes before ZBA, Ouellette tells him the lot is grandfathered-motion made and voted on to send letter to PLBD that property is grandfathered & he does not need to come before the ZBA again
• October 3, 2012-goes before PLBD with changes to minutes of September 5, 2002-the board agreed-he brought copy of campsites on a map and left with the town for the file-Trainor’s and their Counsel continue to use the old minutes and not the new minutes of 9/5/02 (amended 10/03/02)
• Bousquin got subdivision for 209 sites-has been in file since 2003-also all State approvals went to the town & have gone into the file-asked if there was anything else he needed to do-answer no
• Notices were sent for the merger-decisions made but no appeals were ever done-town knew what his plans were and grandfathered Bousquin and them-abutters knew what they were doing and there were no appeals-the map showed the projected sites and still there were no appeals-
• Bousquin went to state and was approved for 309 sites-state is only one that can sub-divide for a campground-subdivision for a campground from the state never expires-got and received approval from state for another septic system and it was put on that parcel-operational procedures also in file from state
• Campers spend approximately $94.00 a day, not just in the campground but surrounding area
• Bousquin continued with the expansion based on what the town told him-No problems with any abutters for 20 years- we went to town before we bought to see if yes they could expand to 309 sites- they were assured by the town that the answer was yes, town even gave them copy of subdivision-they then took that information to the bank for a loan based on that information & SBA for loan
• Campers use all of the area not just their site
• They bought property and got the loans based on the information from the town-now feel town should be estopped
• October we came to town office to see what we had to do and they assured us that we only had to come in for a Site Plan
• We, the Sullivan’s believe the town should be estopped from giving them approval-that property has continually been used as a campground-for the board to go against the decision of both boards in 2002 would be unjust
Jason Sullivan asked the board if they had any questions:
• Karen Saffian-since you have owned the campground has the back section or Res 1 zone, been used for camping (in 1990 map it would Lot 2)
• Jason S-yes over half of the campground is in that section
• Jae Whitelaw- is there a 1990 plan without all the annotations on it and if so could we please place it so everyone can see it
• Jason Bielagus (Counsel for Trainor’s)- yes and hung the copy on the chalkboard
• Mary Sullivan- when we bought the campground in 2006 there were no lots 1, 2 or 3, it was all just the campground, one lot, one deed-campers use the entire 45 acres as a dog walk, playground, horseshoe pits, walking trails, etc
• Ken-not aware that there are 2 lots-history has been: 3 lots to 2 lots to LLA to LLA, so still 2 lots-
• Jason S. says no, one lot due to merger in 2002-1 lot but 2 zones, Res 1 & RB-Bousquin merged the 2 lots to do the expansion-relied on ZBA & PLBD’S decisions of being grandfathered-Mary shows the tax bill for 1 lot
• Jae says look at Site Plan Sullivans submitted

Chairman Mills asked Town Counsel Jae Whitelaw to please move forth from this point. The board and public need clarification on everything and if you take over as such at this point then we only have to do this once. He said he is not sure what is relevant and what is not. Jae said each side has the opportunity to present what they feel are important facts, what was where, when. So let the parties do that and let questions be asked. Right now the Sullivan’s are doing that, then the public and the Trainor’s can once again ask questions and make their case.
Jae explains to the board and public:
• 1979 is important-Zoning Ordinances were adopted-campgrounds were no longer a given, had to be a Special Exception for RB and a Variance for Res1-so whatever was on the ground in 1979 gets to stay
• Zoning Ordinance says you cannot expand a non-conforming use unless approve by the ZBA (ZO, page 18, Section 306.a)
• 1989 –at this point still 2 lots- Jones went to PLBD for lot configuration (LLA)-condition was all buildings and sites outside of Lot 2 had to be removed-PLBD also said by any lots outside of Lot 2 to be removed that anything inside of Lot 2 now, was legal-otherwise they would have been listed to be removed
• 1990-Jones went before PLBD for another Lot Line Adjustment (LLA)-Lot 2 now becomes Lot 1-note on plan states any lots outside Lot 1 had to be removed-so anything now inside Lot 1 is legal
• 1990-Bousquin buys campground from Jones, Lot 1 only, Jones still owns Lot 2-in Jae’s opinion, the non-conforming use that had existed, with campsites on Lot 2, was lost-it was owned separately from the campground
• 1997-Bousquin buys Lot 2 from Jones-for 7 years Lot 2 has not been a campground-not a lawful use per land use law
• 2001-2002-Bousquin goes to ZBA wants to expand & merge, 1 campsite straddles Lots 1 & 2-ZBA member Caruso says non-conforming use so no Variance required-then goes to PLBD to see if he can do an amendment to the zoning taking out Res 1 and change to RB-April 2002 PLBD secretary asks Chair to send letter to Bousquin re grandfathered & can expand-Chair says to write letter & he will sign, sent out April 4, 2002-no minutes stating application before the board, no sign of notices, no sign of public hearing, no minutes on any of this-where is reason for grandfathered
• Bousquin goes to ZBA, wants to expand-ZBA moves and makes a decision that lot is grandfathered-tells him to go to PLBD with plot plan/map, ZBA will send PLBD letter that he is grandfathered-again no sign of application before the board, notices, minutes, etc.

Jae says that the ZBA has limited authority. They can grant Special Exceptions, Variances and Equitable Dimensional Waivers. They do not have the authority to say if something is legal. So decision that they made is not binding with this board. It is not binding because of no application & notice of public hearing for public to speak & no chance for any appeals. The PLBD is the same. They can see Site Plans, Subdivisions and Mergers. They do not have the right to grant anything being grandfathered without an application and public hearing. That is why she does not feel the decision by each board is binding now for this board.
So, you (the Sullivan’s) can appeal and use the municipal estoppels because you and the previous owners took the decision of both boards at that time to move forward with the campground.
Jae says to now go back to the Zoning Ordinances, page 18, Section 306, Non-Conforming Uses and Non-Conforming Buildings, & 306.a. She reads from that, “Any building or use existing on the effective date of this Ordinance, which does not conform, to the requirements of this Ordinance shall be continued indefinitely, but it shall not be:
a. Expanded, unless approved by the Board of Adjustment, which shall find such expansion or extension, does not create a greater nuisance or detriment.”
Jae says now go to your definitions (always go to everything in your ordinance) and reads, “Special Exception-A use of a building or lot which may be permitted under this ordinance only upon application to the Board of Adjustment and subject to the approval of that Board, and only in cases where the words “Special Exception” in this Ordinance pertain.” Very plain, it has to say Special Exception and 306.a does not.
So what do you do with the language:
1. Leave out the part of the ZBA
2. No expansion
3. Throw out 306.a
You have to look at what was the purpose of the ordinance. Jae says she believes the board wanted control over expansions, not “no on expansions.” Zoning Ordinance is “quiet” so you go to common law & find out how to expand through cases. PLBD needs to decide what was where and when in order to move forward. In her mind, that is 1990. Very complicated with all of the factors, boards and decisions made. Board needs to decide:
• What was where, when
• What was legal after
• What is legal to expand
Jae asks if there are any questions:
• Mary Sullivan-we are taxed on all the sites in the campground, so if some are illegal why are we being taxed?
• Jae-unfortunately the board has no say over that and it has no bearing here as unfair as that seems
• Joe Trainor-being taxed on land not land use
• Mary S-sites are taxed for electric, water-each individual site and what it offers-not one commercial lot
• Ken-taxes are Selectmen not PLBD-doesn’t want to get bogged down on this
• Jae-that is something the Sullivan’s can use if they go the route of estopple
• Mrs. O’Leary (member of public)-can someone explain municipal estopple
• Jason S. gets the okay to read from NHMA, NH Town & City (July/August 2008), Understanding the Concepts of Municipal Estopple
“Municipal Estopple is a legal doctrine employed by the courts to assure that citizens are treated fairly in their dealings with municipalities. I a person proves that a matter was taken up with the municipality:
1. Through an elected official or a municipal employee with the actual authority to represent the municipality on the matter;
2. Who either withholds important facts or makes a statement to a person which proves to be false, with the intention that the person rely upon the information provided; and
3. The person is ignorant of the truth, reasonably relies upon the information, and suffers damage as a result of the reliance, the courts will not allow the municipality to act in a manner contrary to that representation. That is, the municipality will be “estopped” or “prevented” from taking action to reach some other result with the person. (Thomas vs. Hooksett)”
The entire paper will be attached to the hard copy of minutes in the town office.
The Chair asks what do we do now? Is this something we have to deal with or not? Jae says there are different ways to look at it but the general rule is the PLBD’s job is to deal with land use issues. Estopple is appealing after the PLBD has made a decision.

Mary and Jason said that the deed has a right of way and a water line that was used the whole time for the campground. It was never stopped.

Anita Greer asks if one of the options for the board is to turn this application over to the ZBA. Jae said that would happen if the PLBD found that the campground had no right to expand. Tyler Phillips wanted to know why wouldn’t the boards have told the owners to go for variance? Jae states there was never an application before the boards. Jason S. states that there was an application for the merger and notices were sent out. There is a copy in the town file. Copies were made for the board.
The chair asks for a recess of 15 minutes as the board has been sitting before applications since 5:30.

Meeting came out of recess at 5:50.

The Chair says we left off at the application for a merger. He then opened the PH to the public:
• Jason B- wants to clarify a few things that Jason S. had said
• Jason S. keeps calling what they want to do to the campground as modernization yet the newspaper ad and abutter notice said expansion of campground-the site plan says expansion
• Says all the permits and approvals that Jason S. talked about have nothing to do with the town-state permits & approvals only-easements too
• Does ZO allow expansion-only thru Special Exception or Variance
• Grandfathered what does that mean? Means some use that lawfully existed before the ZO in 1969
• 1990 they were told that Lot 1 was okay but anything outside of that was an illegal use
• There is a board process-application, notice, public hearing, determination and decision-neither boards did that
• No agreement with abutters-(Jason S. says there was an agreement as such with the passage of PLBD action 10/03/02-Jae goes on to say that when the PLBD made their decision in October 2002 to allow merger with no conditions, that the board basically said that anything that was there in those lots at that time were now legal, because you cannot continue an unlawful use. So whether the board then realized or not, in her opinion everything in that lot was now legal. 2002)
• Len Wood was at the meeting (09/05/02) and it was decided that the setbacks for existing campsites be 5’ from line and any new sites 20’. At no other time was he notified of anything else or about an expansion.
• Karen said if campsites that were encroaching on Nickerson’s property in 2002 (refer back to minutes of 09/05/2002) but those campsites do not show up on the 1990 map, then they had to have been put in between 1990 and 2002.
• Jason S. reads part of 09/05/2002 minutes (will be attached to the hard copy of the minutes in the town office)
• September 5, 2002 application for a Lot Line Adjustment but was a merger.
• Jason B says to summarize the Sullivan’s are looking to expand so they have to go before the ZBA according to the ZO-1990 did LLA and PLBD said anything outside of Lot 1 had to go-things were never removed

Jason B. asks if anyone has any questions from the board. There was none. Now the public:
• Lisa Trainor said she just wanted to go over some of the things. When Bousquin went to the meetings he took part in the discussions. He knew that Lot 1 was the campground and that nothing in Lot 2 was allowed. He committed fraud. Also board needs to realize that municipal estoppel is very difficult. The Sullivan’s are talking about estoppel that took place from when Bousquin bought the property in 1990 and when the Sullivan’s bought it in 2006.
• Tom Smith said he camped there when he was a teenager, and he does not remember anything up there at all.
• Mary Sullivan said that if you were to walk out to the group area, unless someone had pitched a tent. you would not know it was a campground. There is nothing there but a water faucet. It is an open space in the woods. Len Wood said he in 1988-89 camped there a lot with his family and doesn’t remember anything in the Lot 2 area.
• Jae said the Sullivan’s have said that the campground in the entire area because of the trails and playing in the woods. . But the issue is that you are increasing campsites which increases the use.
• Jason S. says that use is changing since it started. People no longer only using tents but now trailers and RV’s, with electric and water. If you don’t change you can’t stay in business.
• This is where the common law comes in said Jae.
• Tyler Phillips said Site Plan says to expand to 30 sites. But are you converting tent sites to RV sites. Ken says expansion is to the north west of the campground. New sites would have electric, water and septic. So they are 30 hook-ups. So they could all be RV sites or there could be trailers, motor homes, pop-ups or tents. But they offer those 3 things that other plain sites do not offer. Tyler asked if the septic approvals include the group area and the answer was yes.
• Lisa Trainor says to review tapes different than minutes. Also go see the property. Ken says he doesn’t think they can. People work, getting everyone together at one time, all the legal issues involved. Just don’t feel it would matter one way or the other. Board agreed.
• Bonnie-Am I understanding that the board is setting an example now. All decisions made previously may or may not hold up? Every board is made of volunteers and they do the best they can. Jae said this is my take. Because both boards moved in 2002 to allow a merger and to set setbacks, that everything on the ground in late 2002 is a legal non-conforming use. The letters grandfathering no longer matter because of the lawful non-conforming use in October. Have to interpret the ZO and decide if they need to go to ZBA or use the common law. Have to decide where you want to start.
• Jason B-hands out print-out of what he had said
• Jae said non-conforming use means it is lawful. Still have to get permission to expand.
• Jae asks Jason B-would you say that common law doesn’t apply here if the board goes that way? Jason said if we go to court the first thing they will do is look at board and ZO. They say no expansion under Section 306 and then the list below. Courts look at Section 306.a and the courts do as little editing as possible. Jae and Jason debate issue. Ken says but our ordinance does not match up with the definition of Special Exception so the board needs to figure out which way they want to go.
• Karen asks Mr. & Mrs. Trainor how expansion is going to affect them so negatively. Joe Trainor said my bedroom window and my deck all look out towards that expansion. When we bought the property, where they now want to expand, was all woods. Now it will be filled with RV’s and what they want to do is illegal. They have already started clearing the lots last fall. Campground looks right into my life. Jae not pertinent to this issue now of a non-conforming use. It is pertinent to a Site Plan.
• Lisa Trainor asks why were they asked that question and no other abutter. They are all going to be affected by air quality, dogs, fire risks, etc. Karen said she did not know any of the other abutter names.
• Ken says we need to determine the non-conforming lawful or unlawful. We will then go to the Site Plan.
• Evan Karpf asks if board can meet with legal counsel. Jae says if they want to.

Richard Krapf made a motion to: recess the meeting for 15 minutes. Brian Mycko seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting reconvened at hearing 9:10 PM and Ken closed the public hearing. We are back with 4 months of information. Right now we need to figure out where to start. I would like to start with Richard.
• Richard says he would like to start the “what was where, when” in 1990. Brunovsky bought one lot. When he bought that lot he lost the non-conforming use. He then bought Lot 2 in 1997. Had he bought both together I would feel differently. (Based on the minutes)
• Karen said she believes they should start with 2002. Both lots belonged to Bousquin and he merged the lots in 2002. The PLBD allowed the merger including all sites there at that time. (Based on minutes)
• Richard said based on the minutes and timeline1990 Jones owned 3 lots. Then sold to Burnovsky Lot 1.
• Karen said she would agree if there were no more issues with the boards. He went to PLBD for LLA in 1989 & 1990. So that is where everything was allowed and that included what was there. Then Bousquin went again to the PLBD and ZBA and their actions made everything lawful from 2002. (Based on minutes)
• Brian said he agreed with Karen. When they allowed the merger they excepted the entire campground as it was at that time
Ken asked where the board was:
• Richard was for 1990
• Brian, Bonnie & Karen were for 2002
So the board agreed that they would start at 2002 as the campground being what it was, was decided to be a legal non-conforming use.
Next Ken said the board needed to address the ZO, page 18, Section 306.a. The ZO is whether it is pertinent to what they are doing because there is conflict with the definitions.
• Richard believes you should read all. (Hard copy attached in office) Board needs to determine meaning:
a. Expanded, unless approved by the board of Adjustment, which shall find such expansion or extension, does not create a greater nuisance or detriment.
Jae says board has three choices; leave it as it stands, remove some wording or get rid of (a.) altogether.
• Brian says get rid of (a.) because of the definition, it doesn’t make any sense.
• Consensus of Board is to get rid of Section 306 a.
Jae said the board now needed to move on to the common law criteria:
a. Is the expansion a natural activity (i.e. flows from the current use)
Board—all the information says yes
b. Closely related to the way the property was used at the time the use became non-conforming
Board—they are continuing the same use-continuation of non-conforming use
c. Is not a substantial expansion (even if it is all just more campground-is it substantial)
Board—30 sites-Fire Chief ok with this but will need fire pool if expand more than that-dimensions of the property, size of use now, how will 30 sites impact-Richard said no, not substantial because they have 140 sites now so 30 is not substantial—board says not substantial
d. May not render the premises or property proportionally less adequate (not too big physically)
Board—not too big-decided this above- not too big
e. Does it reflect the nature and purpose of the original use
Board—1979 became a non-conforming use-still a non-conforming use-yes
f. Is it a different way of continuing the original use or is it a different use
Board—started tent use but now trailers and RV’s-but still a campground- same
g. Will it have a substantially different impact on the neighborhood
Board—Karen wants to reopen public hearing. Rest of board says no, have had enough information in 4 months.ken said Karen meant no affront to anyone. Neighborhood is all surrounding area. Karen said it is a small town where a lot of businesses are mixed in with homes. It is tourist area with motels, businesses and homes all together. She says no. Richard says he believes it does. Brian says he does not feel it is substantial. He lives nowhere near a campground and he can spell campfires most of the summers. You are in the White Mountains. So, in a macro sense,it is not substantial. Richard asks the Sullivan’s why put in sites there. Sullivan’s say because it goes along the existing road. They want to put in trees too because campers do not like looking at other campers. Board—no.

Ken says he is not waiving any attorney/client privilege. He said the board needs to be very clear on identifying what we are deciding, what our decisions are based on and what you considered and rejected if that’s the case. It all needs to be on the record.

Ken Mills made a motion: that based on the Zoning Ordinance, Beech Hill Campground, Map 207, Lot 2, is a non-conforming use and they have the right to expand as proposed under common law. Bonnie Moroney seconded and the motion passed with 4 Ayes and Richard Krapf voted Nay.

Brian Mycko made a motion to: continue the Public Hearing till April 6, 2017 for the Site Plan Application. Karen Saffian seconded and the motion passed with 4 Ayes and Richard Krapf voting Nay.

The Chair said that all new information had to be in by Monday, March 27th.

Bonnie Moroney made a motion to: adjourn the meeting. Karen Saffian seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting ended at 10:30 PM.

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024