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 05/10/2007

May 17th, 2007

Carroll Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes May 10, 2007



“These minutes of The Town of Carroll Board of Adjustment have been recorded by its Secretary. Though believed to be accurate and correct they are subject to additions, deletions, and corrections by The Board of Adjustment 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 RSA 91-A:2”

Members of the Board present: Joan Karpf, Leslie Bergum, John Goodney, Bonnie Moroney, Linda Dowling

Members of the Public present: Todd McClenathan, Barbara McClenathan, Sabrina Rines, William Rines, Richard Piper, Kevin French, Roberta McGee, Eleanor Brauns, Herb McGee, Leo C. Jellison, Theresa Jellison, Thomas Walker, Edith Tucker, Dan Tucker, Thomas Giles, Walter Elander, Matt Dieterich, Jeff Duncan, Allen Strasser, Bill Wright, Bill Dowling, Rena Vecchio, Rev. & Mrs. Gault, Eleanor Mason

Meeting called to order at 7:05 PM.

John Goodney made a motion to accept the minutes of April 17, 2007, as written. Leslie Bergum seconded, and the motion was passed with three members voting. Bonnie Moroney and Linda Dowling both abstained, as they had not attended the meeting.

Chairman Karpf noted that the Public Hearing for William Rines was scheduled to be first on the agenda, but because of the complexities involved, he had agreed to allow the Public Hearing for BW Resort Management to be held first.

Chairman Karpf announced that BW Resort Management had applied for an Area Variance, specifically a height variance, for the addition proposed for the Mt. Washington Hotel. The application would be presented and the floor would be open for questions from the board and the public. Each of the criteria for the granting of the variance would be reviewed, and then the Public Hearing would be closed. The board would then deliberate, and decide whether to grant the variance.

Walter Elander, representative from Horizon Engineering for Celebration Associates, presented the request for variance for building height for the hotel addition, and introduced Matt Dieterich, Development Manager of the Mt. Washington Resort, who would give details about the addition. Mr. Dieterich said there are currently gaps in occupancy on weekdays and during the off season. The goal is to increase the experience for conference attendees and spouses by adding a spa and increased conference space. Currently there is a lack of space for groups of 40-120 attendees, and this would fill that gap. The addition will provide conference space at walk in level, and the spa will be below. All will be on the east end of the building. Each story will add 20,000 sq. ft. In accordance with town ordinance, measuring from the highest point of ground level, the addition will need a variance for the 14 ft. that is higher than the 33 ft. allowed. That portion that exceeds the 33 ft. is all roof and the top of the pagoda – no occupancy by people. It was stated that the existing hotel height is 87 ft. plus the towers

Mr. Elander detailed the location of the hotel and addition on the east end, and stated the veranda views would remain. He addressed concerns about the view shed for abutters with over a dozen photos from sites on all sides of the hotel. In many cases the much higher hotel was barely visible, and because the addition is behind the hotel, it would not be visible at all. The photo taken from the scenic vista pull off on Route 302 indicated that a corner of the addition would be seen, but not the 14 ft. of the variance.

Chairman Karpf asked if board members had questions regarding the criteria for granting the variance. Bonnie Moroney asked about access at ground level for fire trucks, and was told their will be a loading dock for access and an existing access road that will be maintained year round. Fire Chief Jeff Duncan stated his concerns regarding access and egress for fire equipment, and that the drawings indicate the grading would allow access to the roof with the height being about 32 ft. It was stated again that there will be no people in the variance area, and that the addition will be sprinklered. Chief Duncan asked about railings on the veranda area, and it was stated there will be 42” molded fiberglass railings. Mr. Dieterich said current ordinance code does not address Chief Duncan’s concerns; it states maximum height of a building is measured at the point of highest ground level only. In the case of this addition, Mr. Elander said the grading doesn’t slope down quickly, so fire equipment will have access around the addition.

Chairman Karpf asked if there will be any architectural plan changes, and was told there will be no changes to heights or grades, and any architectural changes would small and in keeping with the character of the existing hotel.

Chairman Karpf closed the Public Hearing, and asked if the board wished to deliberate now or wait until next month. Ms. Moroney moved to deliberate, John Goodney seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously. The board proceeded to review the five criteria for granting the variance.

#1. Regarding whether the proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values. Leslie Bergum said she felt the applicant had done a thorough presentation regarding abutters’ concerns about viewsheds, and that their properties would not be diminished. Chairman Karpf agreed, and a vote on accepting the first criteria was passed.

#2. Regarding whether granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. Safety, noise, and traffic were discussed, and as long as no one is on the roof, there are no safety issues. There would be no harm to the public interest. A vote on accepting the second criteria was passed.

#3. Regarding whether denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner. It was stated the addition is consistent with the current architectural design, matches the existing structure. Denial would create hardship with plans to stay in character with the hotel. A vote on accepting the third criteria was passed.

#4. Regarding whether granting the variance would do substantial justice. The board reiterated statements from # 3, and agreed that there would be no injustice to anyone if the variance were granted. A vote on accepting the fourth criteria was passed.

#5. Regarding whether the use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. The basic reason for the additional height is to put the peaks on to match the hotel. Chairman Karpf said she felt it works with the spirit of the ordinance. A vote on accepting the fifth criteria was passed.

Chairman Karpf stated all criteria have been met with no conditions added. Ms. Moroney moved to approve the application for Area Variance. Mr. Goodney seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Mr. Elander asked if he would receive written notification, and was told he would. The secretary will type up the criteria and reasons, and indicate approval.

Chairman Karpf began the Public Hearing for a Use & Area Variance regarding excavation. There are 4 applications because there are 4 lots involved. Owners of the lots are William & Sabrina Rines (Map 206 Lot 10 and Map 206 Lot 20), The Twin Mountain Baptist Church (Map 205 Lot 1), Eleanor Mason (Map 205 Lot 2). This will be discussed as a whole, but approvals are necessary for each application. Chairman Karpf stated that upon advice of town counsel, the town will require a bond, and this would be discussed later in the proceedings.

Kevin French, land surveyor representing Piper, Inc. and the owners began the presentation. The proposed excavation will involve the steep bank 30-40 ft. behind the owners’ buildings, and bring the grade down, leveling out back yards. The reason for the variance is excavation is not allowed in R-1 or R-B zoning, and because of the setbacks from boundary lines. Mr. French stated that since the material would be used exclusively for a NH Department of Transportation project in Bartlett, state statute does not require them to go through the locally permitting process. It was the choice of the owners and contractor to seek the variance. The project encompasses 85,000 sq. ft. which includes access through the Rines property. 20,000 cu. yds. of material will be taken from this site – not to exceed the specific site excavation amount. They will leave the site with a 2:1 slope. There will be an access road built from Mr. Rines’ driveway on Rte. 3. When questioned, Mr. Rines stated they could possibly use another access 200 feet south that has been approved by the state. Both entrances are private driveways. Ms. Bergum questioned the specific area to be excavated, as the original document they received was marked “not for submission.” Mr. French stated the area to be excavated is approximately 1.7 acres, the pit area as shown on Map EX-1.

Chairman Karpf brought up the subject of visual barriers during the project and the fact that trees had already been cut. Mr. Rines said many of the trees close to homes had been cut for safety reasons, and that a visual barrier (screening) could not be put above the houses.

Ms. Bergum asked about the duration of the project, and was told that it was an 18-month calendar project. This is a weather related project, with no work taking place during winter months due to frozen ground. Mr. Goodney asked about restoration, and Mr. Piper stated this was included in the DOT permit. Loam will be put back, 3-6 inches, and the property seeded. When questioned as to why the pit agreement for Lot 10 did not read the same as the others, Mr. Piper stated that the working face would be left operational and the rest seeded. There could possibly be more excavation for a different project.

Mr. Piper stated working hours would be 7 am-5:30 pm, but most days they would stop at 3:30 pm. They do not work Saturdays unless they absolutely have to. The state regulates hours on holiday weekends so as to not disrupt traffic, determines need for flagmen, and also monitors erosion control. Chairman Karpf asked for the name of the engineer, and it is Jack Smith.

Chairman Karpf questioned the other applicants about their concerns given the fact that excavation will take place 25-30 ft. from their homes. Both Eleanor Mason and the Gaults have no concerns about the dust, noise, or possible structural damage to their homes, and are looking forward to the additional light and a larger flat back yard.

When the board expressed concerns about the amount of dust that could be raised, and the possibility of contacting Mr. Smith, Mr. Piper stated that they are not excavating fine sand, so the dust should not be excessive. He also stated he hoped not to involve Mr. Smith, that his people should be contacted with any problems.

Chief Duncan reported he has no Fire Department concerns with the project.

Herb McGee, an abutter, said he was not happy that this project has come up. He has concerns with the dust that will be coming onto his property. His experience with excavation on the Lot 10 property the last time was not good, and he was told by the state that the pit would be closed when the Rte. 302 project was finished. He’d like to know what happened. He commented that there was tree cutting going on again, and Mr. Rines said he has filed the proper paperwork.

Chuck Jellison, not an abutter but a close neighbor, said he is not opposed to the project, but is concerned, mainly about dust, noise, and future digging. The last project up there sent dust in his direction, and probably will this time too. It was noted that MacDonald took 100,000 cu. yds. of material out for the Rte. 302 project, while this will only involve 20,000 cu. yds. Mr. Jellison stated that he’s not “the community”, he’s one person with concerns. Given the fact that MacDonald excavated for Rte. 302, now Bartlett project, Mr. Jellison wonders what’s next.

Chairman Karpf stated that even though this is highway excavation with an agreement with the state, the town has the right to add conditions above the minimum required by the state. It was noted that no business on Rte. 3 was at the meeting. Rena Vecchio, as a selectman representative for the town, an abutter, expressed some of the same concerns previously mentioned, but did not oppose the variance. It was also stated that once warmer weather starts, the town offices are closed up and air conditioning is turned on.

When discussing the area variance needed for boundary line setback, Mr. Piper said there would be no blasting, it was gravel removal, and structural damage is remote.

Roberta McGee questioned the starting time of 7 am, thinking it should be 8 am. The ordinance allows for excavation to begin at 7 am. Both Mr. Piper and Mr. Rines said they would do the best they could to cut down on dust, particularly if it’s windy. The noise from truck traffic was mentioned, and it was noted that there is almost round the clock traffic on Rte. 3 now, and the additional traffic from this project would be during working hours.

Mr. Piper stated the following: the work area will be on the Rt. 3 side of the 4 lots involved; there will still be a slope when the project is done; it is a temporary project; the lot 10 site will remain open for possible future excavation. The Rines’ reported they have no current plans to excavate again on this property. The reason the ZBA is involved now, and would be on future projects, is that excavation is not allowed in the R-1 or R-B zone. Lot 10 is in part of each of these zones.

Barbara McClenathan, an abutter, said she agrees with some of the concerns brought up, but doesn’t think they will affect her property. Even though she abuts, she is a distance from the excavation area.

After Mr. Goodney was told by Mr. Rines that the area of excavation was not large enough to be dealing with the NH Department of Environmental Services, Chairman Karpf announced the closing of the Public Hearing. Chairman Karpf asked if the board wished to deliberate now or wait until next month. Ms. Moroney moved to deliberate, Mr. Goodney seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously. The board proceeded to review the five criteria for granting the variances, referencing Article VI of the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 603 Plan Requirement, 604 Standards, and 606 bonding.

#1. Regarding whether the proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values. All four applications presented the same facts. Chairman Karpf read from the Pit Agreement to the conclusion that the project will not be unduly hazardous. This will be a temporary project which will result in more usable areas of each property. There will be a reclamation bond, guaranteeing reclamation be complete within 12 month of the end of the project. Mr. Goodney felt property values would increase when the project is done, and Ms. Dowling said improvement of the applicants’ properties would increase the abutter’s values. The board attached the condition that excavation take place in 18 months specific to the area presented on Rines Pit Excavation Plan Sheet EX-1. A vote on accepting the first criteria of each application was passed.

#2. Regarding whether granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. All four applications presented the same facts. Chairman Karpf stated this project would provide materials for a public road - Rt. 302 in Bartlett. Once assured that most Saturdays would not be work days, and most probably the Monday through Friday workdays would end at 3:30, she was okay with start times of 7 am – 5:30 pm. Chairman Karpf said the pit agreement has no standards for dust control. All members had concerns about dust problems, and one of the conditions attached is to use water trucks when necessary, and if a problem arises, Piper Inc. will be notified. The board was assured that the state has more than adequate standards to cover appropriate signage, traffic control, and dust control. The board feels this would benefit the public interest in improving the public highway. A vote on accepting the second criteria of each application was passed.

#3. Regarding whether denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner. All four applications presented the same facts. The reasons to accept the criteria include the 40-50 ft. bank behind each building, the lack of sunlight, and the small size of each backyard as the properties exist. Chairman Karpf said the key is the unique setting of the property (the huge hill), and improving the topography would not injure the public interest. This is a temporary project to eliminate hardship, not a permanent business. A vote on accepting the third criteria of each application was passed.

#4. Regarding whether granting the variance would do substantial justice. All four applications presented the same facts. The resulting topography enhances the use and value of the resulting lots and the removed material will be used to improve a public state highway. The board felt there would be no permanent injustice to the public. A vote on accepting the fourth criteria of each application was passed.


#5. Regarding whether the use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Chairman Karpf read the ordinance. All four applications presented the same facts. The spirit of the ordinance is to promote health, safety, etc. This project will facilitate public transportation. It is a temporary project that will have a natural setting restored at its finish. A vote on accepting the fifth criteria of each application was passed.

The applicants were all questioned about the close proximity of excavation. The pit agreement will be signed and filed prior to beginning excavation. All necessary state and federal permits will be obtained prior to the start of the project.

Ms. Moroney moved to vote on the project as a whole. Mr. Goodney seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Ms. Moroney moved to grant the use and area variance for each of the four applications as discussed. Mr. Goodney seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Chairman Karpf said that Town Counsel had advised them to request a reclamation bond for the benefit of the town as required by law, and the question for the board was how much should the amount be. Ms. Bergum read Section 606.1 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding determining the value of a bond as required by law. Mr. Piper said that since at the start of the project loam will be removed from the surface, moved to another area, and then replaced at the end, he felt $15,000 would be sufficient to cover reclamation. The entire state project, of which this is a part, has a bond in the amount of $10,583,772.65, and several people questioned the need for additional bonding. Questions of who determines the town bond brought up the possibility of sending this back to the Planning Board and subsequently Provan & Lorber. Mr. Piper said the time delay would virtually take them out of the project. Also, he felt it would be unfair to Mr. Rines to burden him with the engineering costs. Mr. Goodney, after looking at the NH Planning & Land Use Regulations, said he did not think the town had to get the additional bonding. Ms. Dowling made a motion to require a reclamation bond for the benefit of the town in the amount of $15,000. Ms. Moroney seconded, and the motion passed 4-1, Mr. Goodney voting nay.

Bonnie Moroney made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Linda Dowling seconded. All were in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024