Online Services

Online Vehicle Registration Renewal Online Property Tax, Water & Sewer payments Online Dog License Renewals Vital Record Request
GIS & Property Database

View of Carroll from Sugarloaf

Minutes of Town Board Meetings

Notice of Decision, BWLand Management,etc.(Story/Sales Ctr.),1/31/08

February 4th, 2008

NOTICE OF DECISION

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWN OF CARROLL, NEW HAMPSHIRE





You are hereby notified that the appeal of
_BW Resort Management/BW Land Co., LLC Ė Story/Sales Center________________
Map 211, Lot 19________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

for an Area Variance for Height_____________________________________________

regarding section __303.2________________________of the zoning ordinance has been
DENIED, for the reasons listed below, by the affirmative vote of at least three members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.


1. Granting would be contrary to the public interest because: There is already a tall 52 foot building on the same lot (The Sports Center). Allowing another tall building within close proximity, which is not common in a rural setting, would create an urban appearance contrary to the public interest.

2 a. Special conditions of the property do not make the area variance necessary because: The application itself does not indicate any special condition of the property. Upon questioning the applicants, they did not relate any wetlands or restrictions of use. It was stated that there are no setbacks required and that there is an additional building on the lot which is allowable in R2 zone. In observing the plans, there appeared to be no restrictions since the applicant reassured the Board that they were able to obtain a lot line adjustment so the 5,000 square foot footprint along with the required parking could fit into the corner of the lot.

b. The same benefit could not be achieved because: The proposed use of the building is a story/sales center. They indicated they need 11,000 square feet of space. However, they also indicated that the building would also be used for resort personnel and ski personnel, space wanted but not necessarily needed for the use intended for the building. The lot is part of a resort complex owned by the applicant in which certainly more wanted space could be available. The application indicates the structure requires 2 stories. The fire chief has indicated that the plans show a 4 story building. In observing the plans, the applicant refers to the ground level floor as the basement. However, the plans reveal that on the North view, the so-called basement level is actually ground level suitable for handicap access. The basement or ground level is 5,000 sq. ft. and was not part of the 11,000 sq. ft. the applicant needed. The attic level, which would also be 5,000 sq. ft. in size could provide a substantial usable space even with consideration of the 9/12 pitch. This space was also not included in the 11,000 sq. ft. of needed space. In review, it would seem feasible that the applicant could achieve close to their needed 11,000 sq. ft. space and remain within the height restriction if they utilized the ground level and attic space more efficiently.

3. By granting this variance substantial justice would not be done because: The applicant has not proven hardship nor have they proven they canít achieve the needed space for the desired use. The general public would lose the scenic and rural qualities it values. To grant the variance for a desired architectural design alone would be unjust.

4. The use contemplated by the petitioner as a result of obtaining this variance would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because: As stated in the purpose of the ordinance: to conserve valuable natural and scenic resources. The Board received two letters from Bretton Woods homeowners presenting their concerns regarding the height variance for which they oppose. Views are an important resource in this tourist town. Again, there is already a 52 foot building on the same lot along Rt. 302 which is a scenic by-way. Another tall building in such close proximity to the road would certainly obstruct a valuable scenic resource and set a precedent for future development in the resort.


____Signed____________________________
Joan N. Karpf, Chairman
Zoning Board of Adjustment


___2/4/08_____________________________
Date