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

07-10-08 ZBA Minutes

July 24th, 2008

Carroll Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
July 10, 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, John Goodney
Members of the Public present: Greg Robinson
Meeting called to order at 7:00 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance.
The minutes for May 8th were tabled because Joan Karpf was the only member that was present for that meeting.
The minutes for July 7th Site Walk were approved with corrections. There are also granite maps that show the area as being very wet and photos taken during the walk that are available with the minutes in the office. Leslie Bergum made a motion to accept the July 7th tour/meeting at the Bergeron property Map 407, Lot 030 with corrections as presented. John Goodney seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
The minutes for June 12th were also tabled because Joan Karpf and Leslie Bergum were the only two members that were present at that meeting. Joan did mention a correction to be made. On the second page, third paragraph, the word “not” was omitted by the secretary. So the sentence “Joan Karpf made a motion to deliberate”, should read “Joan Karpf made a motion to not deliberate.”
At 7:15 Greg Robinson approached the board with an Application for a Special Exception. Mr. Robinson owns the Twin Mountain KOA on Rte 115, Map 202, Lot 17. He also purchased another piece of property, Map 202, Lot 23. He would like to expand his campground onto Lot 23. Lot 17 and Lot 23 abutt each other thru a right of way that’s on his property.
He brought with him a sketch for the proposed campground by an engineer from KOA and had colored it in so the board could make out the existing gravel road /right of way. He would use the road to access Lot 23 that would have approximately 8 cottages and 6-9 RV spots. Mr. Robinson said that he wants to keep the lay of the land as it is, and slip the cottages and RV spots in between. He expects to use approximately 2 acres of the 14 acres on Lot 23.
The proposed road to access the new campground would be 12 feet wide for the single lane and 25 feet wide for the two lane. But Mr. Robinson said he can change that to whatever is required.
John Goodney wanted to know where the right of way went, and Mr. Robinson said that it lead to two vacant lots. It was understood that they would only be crossing the right of way and not limiting the other land owners right to their property.
It was decided that the setbacks are to be measured not from the road but from the end of the right of way unless otherwise specified. That is the way Mr. Robinson should measure for the setbacks.
At 7:40 Leslie Bergum made a motion to accept the Application as presented. John Goodney seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Greg Robinson asked when the next meeting would be held and he was told it would be a Public Hearing on August 14th. He was also told that all he needed to bring was what he had with him tonight. He had handed to the secretary during the day the abutters list and a check to prepare for the Public Hearing.
The board then went on to deliberate the Area Variance for the Bergeron Property on Lennon Road, Map 407, Lot 030. John Goodney was not at the June 12th meeting but had come into the office to look over the minutes and maps. He was also at the July 7th Site Walk/Meeting.
The ZBA procedures say that you have 30 days after the close of the Public Meeting to issue a final decision. So tonight the board will issue their decision.
Joan Karpf said she called the Lancaster DOT and talked to Leon Geil. Chairman Karpf explained the Area Variance that had come to the board and found out that Lennon Road is a state road. From there it was Joan’s understanding that the state permit for a driveway should have been applied for before they approached the Zoning Board. The next question asked was whether a board should grant the variance with conditions like getting the DOT permit. Mr. Geil explained the state did not like to work like, that the state likes the permit to be gotten first.
Chairman Karpf said that when she first started looking at the written application she thought it looked very reasonable to want access for their back lot. It now appears that in order to gain access the DOT and/or DES will be involved. But the DOT in Lancaster told the Chair that a plan is really needed for a permit. None was ever given to the board.
Joan Karpf also printed off Granit Maps for the board showing hydric soils. The Bergeron property on Lennon Road sits right on the “poorly drained soil.” The lands being very wet were a concern to the board. They were afraid of the impact to the land and the cost of getting permits involving these lands could be very costly to the Bergerons. Leslie Bergum said not knowing if the lands were wetlands or not, a board may consider its own knowledge of an area and may not be bound by an experts opinion.
John Goodney also asked about access thru New Road, off of Rte. 115, to the back property. No one knows for sure if it’s possible or not, but at this point, New Road ends in a cul-de-sac. He feels that there are just to many issues with the water. You have the abutters that have fears of losing their water rights and access to their well. He feels the Site Walk showed a lot of water for the middle of July.
Next, finding of the facts are listed below:
1. Lennon Road is a State road and therefore would have to get a permit first thru DOT.
2. Granit Maps show hydric soils in the area of the subdivision. The maps and photos of evidence of vegetation in the access area are available in the office.
3. The applicant is looking for frontage access for a driveway not a road.
4. The applicant could put in an access if he put in a road (noted in Planning Board minutes of April 10th).
At this point the board decided to address the Application for the Area Variance submitted by the Bergerons. A copy of the application is attached to the minutes. Listed below are the Statements of Reason for Denial of Area Variance:
1. There would be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of the granting of this variance. Abutters to the property and also to the access area to the potential back lot, had concerns of water quality, quantity and water rights. They also believed that the access area between their lots was wetlands and they were concerned that the affects the impact would increase the problem. The Board made a special site walk to the area in question prior to deliberation. The applicant did not appear at our deliberation meeting so we were unable to address the wetland issue and failed to prove there were no concerns.
2. There is no issue with density.
The Applicant failed to prove hardship
3. a. The Applicant stated that he could not subdivide without the area variance, however, the Planning Board minutes stated he could subdivide if he put in a road. He did not prove that there were no other possible access routes to the potential back lot. On the contrary, he did not show another possible route.
b. The Applicant stated that the location of the access to the potential back lot was the most practical without severe financial burden or tremendous impact to the land, however, there is a major concern that this access may impact wetlands and the Applicant failed to address these concerns. Wetland impact fees may very well be costly.

4. By granting this variance substantial justice would not be done because the 82.32 foot access to the potential back lot may involve wetland, a concern of both the abutters and the Board, but the Applicant did not prove there was no other access.
5. The variance would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance which defines its purpose as conserving natural resources. The 82.32 foot access chosen by the Applicant was a concern of both the abutters and the Board because it appeared to be wetlands. The Applicant did not address the concerns nor did he prove that this was the only access t o the potential back lot.
Joan Karpf made a motion to deny the Application for an Area Variance for the reasons stated . John Goodney seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
The Board thought it would be a good idea to add a line that has a signature of the property owner or land owner on the applications.
At 9:20 Leslie Bergum made a motion to adjourn the meeting. John Goodney seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.

.






.