Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes

Minutes of 3/14/2024

March 18th, 2024

Town of Carroll Zoning Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
March 14, 2024
6:30 P.M.
“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 RSA 91-A:2.”
Zoning Board of Adjustment Members Present: Andy Smith, Chairperson; Janet Merner; Karen Moran; Aaron Foti; Anita Greer; John Greer, Selectmen’s Representative; Diane Rombalski, Alternate
Public Present: Jules Marquis, Ellen Marquis, Bill Briggeman,
Minutes Taken By: Judy Ramsdell
Item 1: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Smith at 6:32 p.m.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
Item 3: Attendance Taken; Quorum Met
Chairperson Smith said that Corrinne Rippa, the Planning Board secretary, has submitted her resignation, and that there is a job posting to replace her. Jules Marquis, Selectperson, said they do have one applicant.
Item 4: Appointment of Alternate Diane Rombalski
Chairperson Smith said that the Board appoints alternates, and he would like a motion to appoint Diane Rombalski as an alternate. Aaron Foti said she is on her way, and that she is willing to serve as an alternate.
Karen Moran made a motion to appoint Diane Rombalski as an alternate for 2024. Janet Merner seconded the motion. Aaron suggested that we table voting on this until Diane gets here since we know she is coming. We will postpone the vote until Diane gets here, but we do have a motion and a second.
Item 5: Approval of Minutes – December 14, 2023 and February 8, 2024
It was decided to vote on each set of minutes separately.
Karen Moran made a motion that we approve the December 14, 2023 meeting minutes. Janet Merner seconded the motion. No further discussion. Motion passes, 3-0. Aaron Foti abstained as he was not in attendance at that meeting.
Karen Moran made a motion to discuss and approve the February 8, 2024 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Janet Merner to discuss the February 8, 2024 meeting minutes. The issue is that there was not a quorum so technically there was not a real meeting. Karen said this is just basically summarizing that we were here. Aaron said he did not look into the actual rules to see if you don’t have a quorum then do you technically have a meeting? We did meet, but we could not vote. Aaron said he opened the meeting but did not vote to close it. Aaron is suggesting that he and Karen have a two-person vote on it and the minutes can show we are not actually sure, but the minutes we have reflect what happened at the meeting and that is the purpose of minutes. Karen Moran and Aaron Foti voted to approve the minutes. Other members abstained as they were not at the meeting.
Diane Rombalski, John Greer, Anita Greer arrived at 6:35.
Chairperson Smith said we already have a motion and second to approve Diane Rombalski as our alternate for 2024. Diane said that she is all set with that. All in favor of appointing Diane as Alternate for the 2024 calendar year. Motion passes unanimously.
Chairperson Smith stated that tonight we do have quorum, so Diane can sit and join in discussion but is a non-voting member tonight.
Item 6: Jules Marquis Variance Application (tabled from 2/8/24 meeting – no quorum)
Chairperson Smith opened the hearing on the Application for A Variance from the Ammonoosuc Campground, Jules Marquis.
John Greer clarified he is here as the Selectmen’s Rep to the ZBA and Jules is here as a private citizen.
Chairperson Smith went through the checklist to confirm all items were done: We do have a quorum and members sitting here are qualified, secretary’s report with the abutters, notices, and payments having all been approved.
Aaron Foti made copies of the application and maps for all members.
Aaron said in reference to our checklist and if everyone is able to sit for this application, not that he expects anything, but as this is Aaron’s last meeting should our already-appointed alternate take Aaron’s spot if this should continue after this meeting? Andy said he appreciates the thought, but he doesn’t think it is necessary—we still have a quorum to continue. Aaron is a full member of the board tonight. Andy said he feels we should leave it the way it is, and all members agreed.
Jules Marquis said the building is ready to fall down. It is built on an old deck. There is plumbing in the ground. Jules would like to move the building five feet further from the line and make the building 12’ x 16’ rather than 8’ x 12’. He wants to make something that is going to last and will put it on a cement slab. It will look like the woodshed he just built. Should be a benefit to the entire town as far as looks and durability. Ken Mills very much wants it changed. He is one of the abutters who can see it. The house beside them can also see it. There is really no disadvantage to not do it. One of the problems is if the setback is actually 40 feet, then that would put it on the other side of the pool, which is not a good place for them with the plumbing for the pool house. The pool is not pressurized and every elbow you add applies pressure to the system. Jules would like to stay away from moving the pool pipes. Another advantage to the new building is that it is something permanent and will be taxable, a benefit to the town in that aspect. Don’t see any disadvantages to not doing it.
Aaron asked if any inspections have been done on the pipes Jules wants to continue to use? Yes, they are in good shape- checked every fall and spring when they close and open the pool. All the pavement and cement would be dug up, and if they can’t get approval it would be very expensive. Really want to do it right and make it a benefit for everybody. When was this pool house constructed? They think it was constructed in 1998. The pool was redone by Dennis 29 years ago. Aaron is asking these questions to see if there has been a variance in the past for this. If the pool was moved, how does it affect the setbacks? If the original pool was built before 1976, it would be grandfathered. The pool was moved over away from the road into the campground. The last one was a very small pool so they just built right beside it and they covered the other one up. There was variance for the side setback for the pool in 1998, and is a part of the application. Aaron said it is a 40-foot setback according to 403.4 Residential – Business Commercial.
Aaron: Looking at 302 across on the map – what actually is the front? The front setback would be based on the road frontage that a parcel is required to have. While it is in the same direction as the front, it is not road front so he is wondering if there is an interpretation we can make here if are we looking at a front setback or side setback? Jules said from the main campground it is the back—the campground is completely on the other side of the pool. From the house, it would be a side setback. The office used to be the brown house to the right of Busy Bee was where they would come in. When it sold to Dennis and Nancy, they subdivided and that became their residence then the white house the Marquis are living in was moved over and that could cause confusion on that setback. Alan did a site visit and he wondered exactly what we were looking at. The definition in our zoning plan of frontage is the width of a lot measured along its common boundary with the street line—this not a common boundary and would not fall into the perfect definition of frontage. No definition for rearage. Setback is the required distance from the street right-of-way, side lot line, and rear lot line with which primary and accessory buildings and uses are prohibited. The frontage for the pool lot is off of Route 3 past the pizza pub. The house and pool are on the same lot. Aaron said we could interpret that the front setback is along Route 3. No definition for side setback, just frontage and setback.
Andy said that they have applied for a side setback of 30 feet according to the zoning. Jules said he did not know what the actual setback requirement was. He was told it was 30 feet, but when he talked with Andy, he thought it might be 40 feet. A variance is required, whether it be 30 feet or 40 feet. Jules said if he doesn’t get the setback, he will have to repair what is there and will not be the quality of building he would like to see.
He is moving it 5 feet further so the actual distance from property line will be 20 feet Aaron said if it is 20 feet, and we all agree we are talking about a side setback there is no variance needed. It says it is currently 12 feet from the property line. It is currently 12 feet so moving 5 feet more would bring it to 17 feet. Aaron said if we are all in agreement, we are talking about a side setback the variance from 1998 becomes a lot more relevant. Andy suggested he go for the variance, so he has it if he needs it. Jules says he would hate it if he didn’t have enough room to work in that area. Aaron suggested we proceed with the assumption that it is going to be less than 20 feet.
No further public comments or questions
Chairperson Smith read a letter into the record dated 1/19/24 from Ken Mills on behalf of the abutter, Two Veterans LLC.
Public comment closed at 7:06 p.m.
Deliberation:
Do we know when the subdivision happened? Jules said when Dennis bought in, 1995ish. Jules and Ellen bought it in 2015. It was subdivided before they got the variance so that is why they needed the variance. Aaron said it is the finding of the unique things that separates the property as far as #5 goes.
Chair Smith read from the application for a variance: “A variance is requested from article 403, section 4 of the zoning ordinance to permit: The replacement of existing pool house. We wish to move the pool house location away from property line approximately 5”. We would increase size from 8’x12’ to 12’x16’. The pool house is currently 12’ from property line. Because of existing underground piping, we cannot rebuild 30” from property line.”
Facts in support of granting the variance:
1. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:
The applicant has responded: “We are moving away from property line 5’.
The current structure is in need of replacement.
Curb appeal will increase tremendously.”
Janet and Karen agree they are fine with #1. Aaron asked if we can get to an agreement as a board if we are talking about a side or front setback, and the second thing is to evaluate whether or not if this variance is relevant or not. The variance from 1998 is specific to the pool. This variance was used for the reasoning so they could put the pool in. It is not stated what is encompassing of the pool. Andy said it is his opinion it is not frontage. Andy said in his opinion it is correctly requesting a variance for a side setback of 20 feet. Clear definition that this is not frontage. All members agree that this is a side setback.
Andy said he read the variance previously granted with the same question Aaron has brought up--does he need one or is the pool house part of the variance he already has. It does not state the pool house in that variance. It is a separate structure. You are not moving the pool. Andy suggests we proceed with the hearing to make it very clear. Aaron said we can use this as another unique circumstance to support #5. Janet noted that in the minutes when this variance was granted Mr. Fontaine noted that he realized that if he has to build a deck in that location, he would need to seek another variance. Chair Smith noted that this is a good point and is part of the application.
Unanimous acceptance of Item #1.
2. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because:
The applicant has responded: “We are moving away from the property line 5’ as much as is possible. “
Does the Board agree if the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed?
Aaron said the spirit of the ordinance is to protect abutters. Thus, by moving it further away, they are increasing the amount of protection.
Unanimous acceptance of Item #2.
3. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because:
The applicant has responded: Reasons listed in Items #1 and #2.
Moving it further way from the property line, and will increase curb appeal. Questions 1-4 do overlap some. Aaron said you can look at substantial justice as the inverse of substantial injustice. Don’t see any injustices here. We see support from abutters.
Unanimous acceptance of Item #3.
4. If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not
be diminished because:
The applicant responded: “The quality and looks of the pool house will be greatly
increased.
It is pretty certain it will not diminish the value of surrounding properties. We have correspondence from one abutter who is looking forward to the new building. Aaron Foti said the values of surrounding properties would increase or not be affected but certainly not decrease.
Unanimous acceptance of Item #4.
5. Unnecessary Hardship
In respect to #5, Janet asked doesn’t our checklist say that you do one or the other, A or B? Chair Smith said you can do both, but you must do at least one. Janet said Ken went with A, and Janet went with B. Andy said the special conditions that distinguish it from other properties are both A & B. That is the criteria for #5. Is this property unique enough that it deserves special consideration? Janet said it is unique and has special conditions. Janet and Aaron are looking at B. Aaron said that we have several areas of uniqueness. It is unique with its history with the subdivision. Initially, it was not a setback at all—there was no property line at all at one point. Unique in the sense of the type of property—there aren’t campgrounds next door so we shouldn’t be expecting other people to say Jules got a setback for his pool house so I should get a setback for my pool house. Unique in the sense that the properties around it are not campgrounds with pools. There are some in the zone—close to the property but not abutters.
Unanimous acceptance that this application meets criteria 5B. It would be an unnecessary hardship.
Chairperson Smith that the Board has deliberated and has determined that the application meets all five criteria.
Karen Moran makes a motion to approve the variance. The motion was seconded by Aaron Foti. Karen said she appreciates the history. All in favor, unanimous approval of the variance. There is a 30-day appeal period. Jules is free to do what he wants, but in the next 30 days you do it at your own risk because there could be an appeal.

Item 7: Election Results ZBA
Andy welcomed Bill Briggeman to the Board. Bill will be sworn in next week and will be able to sit at the April meeting, which is the second Thursday, April 11th, 6:30 p.m. Andy would like to have a meeting to do our election of officers. Karen Moran will be out of town.
Congratulations to Janet on being re-elected for another three-year term. Would like to extend our gratitude to Aaron for seven years of service. Janet asked Aaron if he would consider being an alternate. Aaron said he would think about it. Andy said that Aaron worked very hard over the last 7 years, and he has put in an inordinate amount of time outside of the meetings as well as at the meetings. It did not go unnoticed, and the Board expressed their gratitude to Aaron.
Item 8: New Business/Other
Item 9: Adjourn
Janet Merner made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:21 p.m. The motion was seconded by Aaron Foti. All in favor. The motion adjourned at 7:21 p.m.