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

01/31/08 ZBA Minutes

February 7th, 2008

Carroll Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes January 31, 2008



“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, Paul Bussiere, John Goodney, Pam Walsh

Members of the Public present: Edith Tucker, Dan Tucker, Walter Elander, Erik McMurray, Matt Dieterich, Bonnie Moroney, Dana Bisbee, Charles Adams, Mike Brunetti, Pauline Viens, Arthur Viens, Sue McQueeney, Owen McQueeney, Jeff Duncan

Meeting called to order at 7:05 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance.

The minutes for January 10, were reviewed. Leslie Bergum made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Pam Walsh seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Karpf opened the meeting to continue deliberations on the Area Variance for height requested by BW Resort Management Co. and BW Land Co., LLC, for their proposed Story/Sales Center. Chairman Karpf, on advice from Town Counsel, said an email Board Members received from Attorney Bisbee should be disregarded as the applicant has chosen to continue the deliberations and not to re-open a public hearing.

The Chairman noted that Fire Chief Jeff Duncan was in attendance. As he could not be at the previous meeting, the Board may ask questions of him. Pam Walsh asked about the 33’ height limit, as it had been told earlier it was due to the ability of the fire ladder to reach the top of the roof. Chief Duncan responded that dependent on the pitch, when a ladder is put at the proper angle, it uses about 2’, and the longest ladder the department has is 35’. He stated that he would have no issue with the way this building is designed and that to his knowledge there is no point on the roof line higher than 32’. When the issue of measurement from the ground to the eave arose, Chief Duncan suggested that rather than having him measure it on the plan, it would be best to ask the designers, who were in attendance. Chairman Karpf allowed this and was told the height from ground level to the eave is 24’. Mrs. Karpf went on to ask about the porch roof on the front of the building, and Chief Duncan replied that it depends on the way the pitch goes, but assumes the roof will not be in the way as it is designed. At this point, Chief Duncan was toned out for an emergency but stated if there are specific questions, he would be happy to answer them at a later time.

Chairman Karpf said discussion would continue among the Board and stated that if anyone wished to approve or disapprove, to also state their reasons. As none were forthcoming, Mrs. Karpf referred to the plans and had several comments. One was that there is already a building on the lot, that being the Sports Center. She noted the placement of the building on the property and reiterated that criteria must be met. It is her opinion that the lot must have uniqueness about it and she does not see any here, as in restrictions or wetlands, it appears there is no area they cannot use including the fact that there is a lot line adjustment pending, where the building is slightly over the property line on one side. Mrs. Karpf also said she still cannot find that there would be a hardship if this is not approved. She also continues to question the need for the wasted space in the basement and the attic and wonders why the basement, which is actually at ground level, cannot be used as the first floor.

Chairman Karpf stated that she felt they should deny the application and Paul Bussiere asked about further discussion. He said in his opinion, the land is in a restricted area as he believes the pitch is already above 33’ even for just one floor and keeping the footprint—they cannot maintain 11,000 square feet and two stories. For the square footage they need they must go out or go up, and they cannot go out, the property is not large enough. He also pointed out that the land falls away from the walk-in basement and further, that it is a “rule of thumb” that a story is 10 feet (responding to that it has been called a 4-story building). He said that the basement is where the mechanical and electrical systems are located, as well as perhaps servers or other technology installations. Mr. Bussiere stated that he believes the 100 year flood plain restricts usage, as that is why the elevation of the basement had to be raised. In answer to the questions of using the building more efficiently regarding unused space in the basement and attic, Mr. Bussiere expressed that he believes saying they must have useable space in those areas is putting too many restrictions on and could be applied even to anyone building a house. In this case, it is because of the roof pitch, and the attic space should not and cannot be used.

Leslie Bergum spoke regarding special provisions, 503.4, which pertains to no minimum setbacks, no maximum of lot coverage and no maximum lot width in terms of what have been called constraints on the lot and her interpretation of what this means. Mr. Bussiere explained that there are requirements regarding parking spaces, at which point Mrs. Karpf said this is not unique to Bretton Woods and in her opinion, it is not a constraint. Mr. Bussiere pointed out this affects the size of the actual building site, so in this case, it would be a restriction as there would either be no 11,000 sq. ft. building or no parking spots.

Chairman Karpf said she was still not convinced that the proposed design is the only way to get the space needed for the reasons that had been stated throughout both parts of the meeting. Mr. Bussiere reiterated the roof pitch at 9:12, (partly for snow) so-called New England style, would make it difficult to reduce the height substantially, even if they were to leave out a story. John Goodney added that design is also very important to fit in with their future plans--they cannot put in a warehouse-type building to give them the space they need, and have it fit in aesthetically with everything else they plan to do.

Mrs. Walsh said that the town has an ordinance for whatever reason and anything not within the town ordinance must get a variance. It is her opinion that with all the property they own and based on all the information received, that they can do what they need to without going over the height limit. Mr. Bussiere said that other buildings in Bretton Woods had been granted height variances and named the golf center and the AMC building. Chairman Karpf said she had researched these and found that they are set back from the roads, so they don’t give the appearance of being so high. Mrs. Bergum reminded that each building is a separate case which Mr. Bussiere said he is aware, but used these only as examples. Mr. Goodney pointed out this is to be built by a building that is 52’. Discussion of the reasoning for giving the variances on the other buildings took place, and Chairman Karpf said she believes the distance from the roads made them unique.

At this point, Joan Karpf made a motion to deny the Variance for the following reasons:
(numbered as on the application)

2. The granting of this variance 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.

3a. 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 has 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.

4. By granting this variance substantial justice would not be done because: The applicant has not proven hardship nor have they proven they can’t 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.

5. 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 Route 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.

Paul Bussiere asked for clarification if this is the motion and Chairman Karpf advised it is and with the reasons.

For further clarification, Mr. Bussiere stated that from this he understood that the first criteria passed, but that points 2, 3a, 3b, 4 and 5 failed, which Chairman Karpf said was correct, and that she had stated her reasons.

Pam Walsh seconded the motion. The vote was 3 in favor with 2 opposed and Chairman Karpf declared the variance denied. She advised the applicants they would receive the decision in writing and that they had 30 days to appeal if they so wished.

The Chairman then advised that Town Counsel, Bernie Waugh, has offered to give a workshop on municipal law update. The date was not confirmed, but believed to be February 18 or 28. Notice will be given.

There being no further business, Leslie Bergum made a motion to adjourn and Pam Walsh seconded. The vote was 3 in favor with 2 abstentions. The motion passed.

The meeting was declared ended at 8:05 p.m.

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024