Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes

Minutes of 6/13/2024

June 20th, 2024

Town of Carroll Zoning
Meeting Minutes
June 13, 2024
6:30 PM
“These minutes of the Town of Carroll Zoning Board have been recorded by its secretary. Though believed to be accurate and correct, they are subject to additions, deletions, and corrections by the Zoning 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 Members Present: Karen Moran, Bill Briggemen, Anita Greer, John Greer
Public Present: Fire Chief Jeff Duncan, Jim Howard, Brad Rousseau
Minutes Taken By: Steffanie Apostle
Item 1: The meeting was called to order by Karen Moran at 6:29pm
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
Item 3: Attendance Taken; Quorum Met
Karen Moran is Vice Chair filling in for Andy Smith who was unavailable tonight
John Greer Selectboard Representative
Anita Greer Zoning Board
Bill Briggeman Zoning Board
Item 4: Approval of Meeting Minutes April 18, 2024 (No May Meeting)
Motion to approve April 18th Zoning Board minutes by Bill Briggeman and seconded by Anita Greer
Item 5: Mark & Heather Wingate – Variance Approval for Garage Front Setback
Karen Moran explained we had an application for a Variance to Section 403.02. Karen Moran let the applicant know that there is usually a board of (5) members and they only had (3) members at the meeting which does constitute a quorum but if they vote on the application without a full board, they will need a unanimous decision; whether its 3 board members or 5 you need 3 votes. Karen Moran asked Jim Howard who built the home and was representing if he wanted to proceed or wait
Jim Howard asked to proceed
Karen Moran asked Jim Howard to give an overview of the application
Jim Howard asked where we wanted him to begin
Karen Moran said we have the checklist and all the fees have been paid. As far as the setback adjustment please start with that
Jim Howard said it does not significantly impact the surrounding area or community along with preserving green space.
Anita Greer said that it wasn’t completely clear what exactly he was talking about on the application meaning the specifics of the property and what he was asking for. Anita said she could see the maps and asked if this was already built.
Jim Howard said yes it was. When it came to light for him was during construction. The designer of the septic system did not take into consideration there is bathrooms over here that you have to get the fluid from over there around and out. Jim Howard had an as-built done and that was when he discovered the setback.
Anita Greer asked Jim Howard if he was the builder
Jim Howard said yes, he was the builder. Jim Howard then said he had to figure out how he got to this. Jim Howard then presented the plan he did the layout on building the house. What happened was we had a setback but he didn’t have this distance here correct. The only changes that were made in the foundation was he decided to put a stairwell in.
Anita Greer asked Jim Howard when he says “he” who is he talking about and Jim Howard said the designer.
Jim Howard referred back to his drawings and said if you put the scale on it this distance is wrong and that’s where it got messed up. Jim Howard said that was only 15 feet. Jim Howard said when he does a layout on the computer, he did 32’ here and 42’ over to the corner. He presented his computer drawing which was small so it wasn’t easy to read.
Karen Moran asked when were are all of these designs and footage requirements or setback done; when did you realize you had encroached
Jim Howard said when he did the as-built and then he was trying to figure out how the hell this had happened and he knew why. The designer had the wrong measurement he had the wrong measurements
Karen Moran asked him when they were compiled
Jim Howard said a year ago. They went in and did the main house foundation then they put the foundation drains in and then got their foundation inspection. He made sure everything was correct and sealed and everything like that. Then they got permission to back fill and then they built 3 frost walls for the garage. Jim Howard presented the plan that he used to do the garage because above the garage there is a pier. Jim Howard located the pier and put the correct measurement in of 19’. Jim Howard said he wasn’t even thinking of the setback at that point he was just getting the foundation in. It didn’t even occur to him because he was just pulling tape trying to find this spot (the pier) because a lot of weight sits there in that house.
Anita Greer asked him if this was where the road is, this is where the problem is right here,
Jim Howard said yes that is correct. Another thing that is strange about this is look where the road is, it is off to the side so this distance from the road is quite far, its offset and not down the middle of the right away.
Karen Moran asked him how this encroachment came to light
Jim Howard said it happened when he located the pier and poured the foundation. When it came to light was when he went before the State to get the septic system approval. He didn’t change anything on the septic except the location of the tank because in the original plan it was over here and according to the State of New Hampshire as long as you don’t alter the septic system and change elevation you can move the tank around but you have to have your plans amended and when he had plans amended, he did an as built and that was when he discovered it
Karen Moran asked if there was a reason he didn’t come to the Board before he started all the construction
Jim Howard said the house was built
Karen Moran said you’re telling us it was when the foundation was poured
Jim Howard clarified that when the foundation was poured is when it had happened but he did not know it had happened until this past December when he did his as built
Anita Greer clarified that it was after all the construction when he went to do his as-built
Jim Howard then presented to the Board members the original drawing and the as-built drawing so the Board could see
Jim Howard then said after the as-built was done and this was discovered it became an issue with the bank. The bank stopped funding the project and the house is still slightly unfinished
Anita Greer told Jim Howard this was the type of information that should have been on the application under necessary hardship and that Jim Howards answers should have been more specific; they were too general
Jim Howard explained this was the first time he has done anything like this
Anita Greer said that the information helps a lot to have the actual reasons in the application as it is a public record
John Greer asked if financial reasons are a reason to grant a variance
Karen Moran said typically they are not
Jim Howard showed the road and the other house and they are as close to the road as this house is. Jim Howard also explained the way the garage was facing that cars going in and out of it are not disrupting traffic
Jim Howard showed some pictures he had taken and Karen Moran said she had drove by it this morning and Bill Briggeman said he had driven by that afternoon
Anita Greer clarified what Jim Howard had said that the fact the garage is closer wouldn’t affect the traffic on the road or access to the pulling out or pulling in
Jim Howard showed some pictures
Karen Moran asked to review the application and the 5 questions as far as granting a variance which is 804.4 and she asked Jim to help explain more of what was in the application to see if we could go further
Karen Moran Read question 1 with Jim Howards answer.
1.) Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interests because:
• It does not significantly impact the surrounding area or community along with preserving green space
Karen Moran asked if Jim Howard wanted to expand on that anymore
Jim Howard said it doesn’t make the whole neighborhood look bad and when you’re driving down the road you don’t notice it because the road is offset. Jim Howard also said it looked good the way it was even though it was by accident
Anita Greer asked Jim Howard how he would respond to an objection by an abutter who objected because they felt it would set a precedence that would be bad because the house was already built because now anyone can build a house that didn’t meet code and then just come afterwards for the variance
Jim Howard said the prevailing conditions is what happened. Even the guy from the State designed this had it encroaching and had the wrong measurements. It was just a simple mistake it wasn’t anything grievous or planned on or trying to get away with anything. It was just one of those things that happened because of his design that paperwork and working off of it.
Karen Moran told Anita that was a good lead in to a letter that Karen was given that night from lliana Farina sent in to the Zoning Board through the secretary and then she read the letter
Dear Town, I have been a homeowner and land owner in Twin Mountain for 45 years. After speaking to Steffanie Apostle regarding the issue, I am in total opposition for allowing a variance to the set back. The Town of Carroll makes no mention that this structure has already been built. The property owners make no mention of this either. Reviewing the application provides a false sense of naivety too. The laws are there to protect everyone in the community. According to Steffanie, this type of variance has never been granted. By doing so, the Town would be setting a terrible precedence. This would allow anyone to construct an illegal or non-conforming structure without consequence. These types of structures should be removed. Whether by mistake or innocence, the owner, builder, town or surveyor should be obligated to correct it. Thank you, Iliana Farina and Family
Karen Moran then read out loud the response from Steffanie Apostle she sent to Lliana
Hi Anthony,
I received your letter and printed it to be read at tonight’s meeting. I just want to clarify that I never said the Town has never granted this type a variance request, it was that I have never done a variance request as I am new and this is my first one. I wanted to provide you with accurate information and offer you an opportunity to amend your statement if you chose.
Thank You
Steffanie Apostle

Karen Moran asked Steffanie Apostle if they amended their statement
Steffanie Apostle said no they did not
Karen Moran said that she was also surprised to drive down the road and see the structure built as well because when they get requests for variances its for the plan its not for a structure that is already there and her first thought was now what do we do.
Jim Howard said our equitable waiver of dimension requirements non-conforming was not discovered until after the structure was substantially completed or after the vacant lot violation had been transferred. This is a possibility that could happen and is even in the ordinances. If he did not know that he had to say the structure is there, he knew that at this meeting it was going to be presented so he could explain how he got to this point and how it came to be. It wasn’t anything egregious or anything like that.
Jim Howard then asked Steffanie Apostle if she had researched this and had it ever been granted
Steffanie Apostle said she was the new one and she had never been through a variance so she didn’t know
Jim Howard said he had been to several in Guilford New Hampshire that have been granted so this is something that does happen a lot so this may be something that is new to her.
Bill Briggeman asked if there was a building permit issued by the Town
Jim Howard said yes and that he already had the occupancy permit
Bill Briggeman asked when the building permit was issued
Jim Howard said about a year ago
Bill Briggeman asked if it was signed off on
Karen Moran said she had a copy of it
Anita Greer said they sign off on the building permits according to the plan. Then Anita Greer asked what drawing was submitted for the building permit
Jim Howard said the septic plan which was wrong at the time. The one they have now is the accurate one and it shows the building bigger
Anita Greer asked if the one used for the building permit show the garage back 30 feet or 27?
Jim Howard said it shows it back 30 feet but the distance from the house is shorter
Anita Greer said that didn’t affect the variance
Jim Howard said that it doesn’t affect the variance but he had the wrong measurements so it ended up giving him the wrong measurements
Bill Briggeman asked when a different building was built was there a new permit issued
Jim Howard said it wasn’t different it was actually the same
Bill Briggeman asked for clarification as Jim Howard had said the building was bigger
Jim Howard said its larger on the plan because there was a bad measurement. It’s the same building. These two look the same but it has a bad measurement that wouldn’t close.
Anita Greer said that doesn’t affect the distance here
Jim Howard said it does because this foundation got in and then the garage was poured so if you go back and look at this distance here it reflects the 14 feet.
Bill Briggeman said so what you actually did was adjust the construction so it would work
Jim Howard said yes not knowing he was infringing. When you dig a foundation you do the main foundation first, you establish it and then you add the garage because it’s just a frost wall. If you look at them side by side this distance is longer from here than it is here. The house is in the exact same place that he drew it. This main house was put in exactly as it is on the plan and it’s the same as this plan but what happened was this was the accurate measurement and if we all had the accurate measurement the house would have been pushed back 5 feet because instead of having 14.4 it would have been 19.4. If you put them on top of each other it is exactly the same. The main house never moved, its exactly where it is on this plan
Karen Moran asked Jim Howard to go back to the beginning because she was finally catching up and she doesn’t usually look at architectural drawings/construction drawings. Karen Moran wanted to know why the garage was shoved 4-5 feet toward the road
Jim Howard said they didn’t shove the garage, that was the correct measurement. Jim Howard also said a lot of times what he is looking for is the septic system and making sure he can get a fluid from here to here. The distance between the septic system and the house is the same on both drawings. If he moved the septic system then he had to start from scratch. The garage didn’t actually get bigger it was the original plans that they got the building permit with had wrong measurements. He didn’t realize when they were pouring the garage that they were encroaching the setback
Karen Moran referred back to the building permit where it said the supposed setback was 50 feet
Jim Howard used the scale and measured from the road. The Variance they are asking for is from the property line to the edge of the garage
Anita asked what an area on the drawing was and Jim Howard said it was a green area
Anita Greer asked if that was part of the property
Jim Howard said it wasn’t
Anita Greer said you have an extra area
Jim Howard said yes that most roads have a right of way at 50 feet wide and then you put the road in and then there is a green area and everybody’s property setback. If you look at all of these properties on this side of the road they are only a few feet off of the pavement but the properties on this side are a lot further back like almost 3 times as much
Anita Greer said that would have been a good thing to put in the application. Even though your only 27 feet from the property line your almost 50 feet from the road
Karen Moran said she would hesitate to suggest that until she can find the definition of from where the setback should be.
Jim Howard said the setback is from the property and he scaled it out. The garage from the street is 50’ on the as built so actually the building permit is correct. He is using the as built
John Greer said this might go to the Selectboard
Karen Moran said she didn’t want to jump too far ahead
John Greer said he was just throwing that out there. I’m just reading this paragraph here; Section 803 enforcement and penalties; If any violation of this Ordinance occurs, the Board of Selectmen shall institute, in the name of the Town of Carroll, any appropriate action, injunction or other proceeding to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such violation.
Karen Moran asked to get back to the application itself before we got to the end or what may be the end. Karen Moran went back to the application for question 2 and Jim Howards answer
2.) If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because
• Granting the setback variance can be in the public interest when carefully considered in the context of the specific circumstances and the setback is not realized to the eye. Overall, granting a setback variance can help achieve substantial justice by considering the broader context, individual circumstances, and equitable treatment of property owners, while also promoting positive outcomes for the community as a whole
Karen Moran asked Jim Howard to make that more specific as Anita had said earlier this really needs to be focused on this property
Jim Howard said there were limited lines on the application to use, but the context of the situation and how this came about. There was nothing deviant about this, it just kind of happened because of the way the plans are. Its just one of those things and from a surveying point of view these dimensions on the lot don’t add up, they don’t close. Practically all these lots are in that because of the old way they used to do surveying and do lots; that’s where you have the first recording lot takes precedence over the second and so on and so forth because mistakes were made
Bill Briggeman said it seems to him what they really need is less regard for the number of lines on the page and much more specific information about the kinds of things you have been explaining here. We need to have what you mean by broader context, individual circumstances, equitable treatment. All of that needs to be spelled out very clear and the number of lines shouldn’t be a limitation
Jim Howard said this was why he was here explaining to them. He would have put more in there if he could but he was trying to get to the point as it was the first time he has done this. The people living there are the nicest people. This didn’t rear its ugly head until last December and then the bank got involved and stopped funding. There is a lot of money owed on the house right now. There are a lot of bills and unpaid vendors. The original reason that they put setbacks is because they didn’t want houses or garages too close to the street. Some streets are wider than others and in this situation the street is actually offset more than we are encroaching on the setback. If you look at the side line of the street that is a circumstance, we can work to appease anyone. Even the original plans showed the street off to the side.
Karen Moran said Jim Howard was correct when he said the setbacks go from the property line not the street center
Karen read question 3 off of the application with Jim Howards answer and asked him to expand on it
3.) Granting the Variance would do substantial justice because:
• Variances can promote equity by ensuring property owners have equal opportunities to use their land within reasonable bounds
Jim Howard said yes, they are not trying to be unreasonable about it and their front yard of their house to the pavement is way back; its 50’ to the garage and then add another 20’ to the house. The main house is really set back. They need to use their garage for storage.
John Greer said he thinks we should study this
Karen Moran asked him to clarify what this is
John Greer 804.4 Variances
Karen Moran said that was what this application addresses
John Greer said there is a whole map of how we can handle it
Jim Howard said its an established building lot and they just want to be able to use it. This is going to create a hardship if we don’t get this variance. The bank is going to go right down through the line. They’ve already been on hold for months. Vendors are on hold and trying to finish up the house inside and out. That would be equitable, they could use their house. They are not infringing on anybody else by doing this. I understand when a person says it shouldn’t have happened. I agree it shouldn’t have happened but you can see why it happened because of bad measurements.
Karen Moran went to question 4
4.) If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because:
• The proposed setback variance may still be in harmony with the character and scale of the surrounding properties. The new structure or use can complement the existing neighborhood, maintaining or even enhancing property values
Karen Moran also stated that Jim Howard had been explaining quite a bit why that is true. The setback is not going to harm the other neighbors.
Karen Moran went on to question 5, which is the one that usually concerns people because that criteria has to do with the actual lot itself. So, if there was some physical condition of the lot then a variance would be granted because you can’t do anything differently with the land itself. That’s not the case here.
5A.) Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because
i) No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because
• Without a setback variance, property owners may face significant financial burdens, such as being unable to utilize their land as intended. This could lead to lost opportunities for investment causing financial strain and hardship
ii) The proposed use is a reasonable one because
• Each property and situation is unique and a strict adherence to setback regulations may not always be necessary. Granting this variance acknowledges the specific circumstances of the property owners and allows for a more tailored use of it
5B) Explain how, if the criteria in subparagraph (A) are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefor necessary to enable a reasonable use of it
• Denying variances without considering these individual situations could unfairly burden these property owners and exacerbate their hardship. Without the ability to obtain a setback variance property owners may see a decrease in the value of their land due to limitations. This loss of value can have long term consequences for the owner’s financial wellbeing and overall quality of life.
Karen Moran asked if Jim Howard wanted to speak to it anymore before she opened it to the public
Jim Howard said yes without the setback the property owners are going to face a significant burden such as being unable to use their land as intended. Then lost opportunities for income and investments and it will cause a financial strain and hardship because if the bank shuts it down and doesn’t continue funding it, He doesn’t know what happens. Does it force them to sell the house; what do they do?
Karen Moran said this is going to sound harsh and she apologized before she even said it but the financial risk is not a consideration for the variance. Karen said she understood the predicament they are in but it’s not criteria that allows for a variance.
Jim Howard said it would be a burden on the homeowners
Karen Moran agreed that it would be a burden on the homeowners but a financial burden on the homeowners is not criteria to allow them to grant the variance.
Jim Howard asked if a financial burden is a hardship
Karen Moran said it certainly can be for the person in it
Jim Howard said that’s the hardship that’s the real reason. The financial burden is what they are facing right now. They are just trying to finish up the house so you can tax them
Karen Moran apologized again before she read the conditions; For the purposes of this subparagraph unnecessary hardship means that owing to special physical conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area no fair or substantial relationship exists between the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property and the proposed use is a reasonable one. Karen Moran said it goes on; if the criteria in that paragraph are not established an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if and only if owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area the property can not be reasonably used with in strict conformance with the ordinance. Karen Moran said that’s where the physical properties of the lot itself would cause that.
Jim Howard said he couldn’t say if there was. If the plans were correct right off the bat this wouldn’t have happened. It just would not have happened.
Karen Moran asked if he had anything else to ask before she opened it to the public
Jim Howard said the other thing was the loss of value on the property. They want to pay their fair share of taxes and this would inhibit that.
Bill Briggeman said one of the problems is the lack of specificity that we started with. He understands the complexity of what he is trying to convey. Somehow that hadn’t been conveyed in this variance request.
Jim Howard said he was trying to convey it now. If you grant this variance the house does look like its complying. To the naked eye it isn’t anything egregious. They maintained the setback from the street they originally proposed. This was new to Jim Howard. He thinks it would help the Town considerably to grant this. Its also a learning process for anyone to review the plans, even the State of New Hampshire didn’t see this. They do this and I see it all the time that they miss stuff. People miss, it happens all the time. This particular one this is what happened.
Karen Moran asked if there was anything Chief Duncan wanted to add
Chief Duncan asked if we contacted the aggrieved? The only ones this ultimately impacts are his neighbors
Karen Moran said we only got this email tonight
Chief Duncan asked if that was a neighbor
Karen Moran said that it was from the Farina family
Jim Howard said they don’t even have a house
Karen said she is from Newton Massachusetts but that she was a property owner here
John Greer said if he understands the letter correctly, they are worried about setting a precedence.
Jim Howard said that this would not set a precedence. I am not asking for anybody to be able to do this in the future. Its something that maybe the building inspector could be looking for when he goes out there. It went over his head too. How many times did he go out and look at it and sign it. He was out there twice for just the foundation. He was out there for the main foundation and he came back before Jim backfilled the garage
John Greer said he thought that was a good argument
Chief Duncan said that the inspector is working off of the plans that were submitted that were incorrect
Jim Howard said if it was really egregious, he would have seen it and said what is going on here
Chief Duncan asked if this is the first step of the process or the last step. Chief Duncan said without knowing what is going on, to him this board should be the last step of the process. Chief asked if they had approached the neighbor to do a land swap, is there a way to move or get the variance with the neighbor.
Karen Moran said Mr. Howard was correct, its from the street not the side
Chief Duncan said then it would be the Town, he thought it was the left side of the garage
Jim Howard said the main house is exactly where it was laid out on the original plans but the designer had bad numbers, he had bad numbers on a plan.
Chief Duncan said its actually the front setback that is off
Jim Howard said correct. It is the side of the garage, it isn’t where the garage comes up and cars come out. When the people leave the garage, they go to the side property and then come down along the property line. You won’t see cars parked in front of the garage from the street
Anita Greer said she was thinking about the language pointed out with how we handle things that have already been built and has a problem and that’s really just for dimensional requirements. I wonder if we need to explore other options, do we have flexibility with the hardship issue
Karen Moran said she would prefer to run this by legal because we all agree it is outside of the setback. If an equitable waiver were to be granted it’s for dimensional violation; you built the garage 10 feet wider.
Karen Moran asked the 2 other board members if on the face of it do you think that the variance should be granted or not. Then she asked them to hold a minute so she could talk to the public
Brad Rousseau said he was an abutter and he is not sure if he is for or against this yet. He asked if he could make a couple comments. He said it seems like this is an honest mistake
Jim Howard said yes it was he didn’t even realize it happened until this past December when he did an as built
Brad Rousseau said given that it is an honest mistake and he didn’t really think it changed the character of the neighborhood at all and what happened with the road is typical and the guy who was driving the excavator didn’t go down the centerline and went a little off and this compounded into the fact the dimensions taken from the road or centerline or vice versa. Brad’s question to the board is normally variances are granted before the fact so now we are touching on a really difficult subject which is granting the variance after the fact so he would concur with Karen Moran that the legal team should review that because Lliana has a point do we want to grant variances now. Brad Rousseau next question was for the builder Jim Howard and Brad said he thinks if the builder knew he would have just moved the house back 5 feet and so we are only talking about 3.5’ encroachment on the setback so he thinks it was an honest mistake, but if it were 10’ that would be egregious. Brad is sort of asking the board how they kind of deal with it. This doesn’t happen very often but variances are granted after the fact. The hardship here it would seem for an after the fact variance. The homeowner who Brad was hoping was going to be here because its such a big deal to them; this is a big deal if there is a financial hardship. They have to do one of three things 1) sell the house 2) Jack hammer the foundation 3) or get the variance. Brad is a seasonal homeowner on the street and would really like to meet these homeowners. Brad’s only other question was what took so long since you discovered this was an issue
Bill Briggeman said that was actually his next question
Jim Howard said to be totally honest he didn’t know what to do. When we were verifying the plan was correct and when they did the as built, they had to get a surveyor to survey it. The designer was not licensed so they had to get it verified first and the minute it was verified he came down to see her (Steffanie Apostle) and applied
Bill Briggeman asked when that was
Jim Howard said about a month and a half ago. This obviously has happened before otherwise we wouldn’t be here. It wasn’t discovered until after the structure was substantially completed.
Brad Rousseau said if you look at the lay of the land, he thought that if they knew what they were up against they would have moved the house back 5 feet. Again, if it is such a financial hardship for the owners, I am wondering why they are not here. Does the home have a CO (Certificate of Occupancy)
Jim Howard said yes it does
Brad Rousseau said he was wondering how much is left to do that the bank needs to distribute. If they have a CO, they are almost done maybe its trim work
Jim Howard said they had been working on it since the last draw
Brad Rousseau said they could find a bank to finance this
Karen Moran said bridge loans are wonderful things
Brad Rousseau said especially if you are going for a variance and mitigating it. He does not know lliana but she makes a good point to not support it but Brad is not against the honest mistake.
Jim Howard said he could see if it was for 10 feet than you should be put down for it, its just a few feet that you can’t notice with the eye
Bill Briggemen asked to come back to the timeline. December you discovered the problem. You got the surveyors results in March but the application isn’t dated until May 10. That’s 2 months
Jim Howard asked if it was March and referred to the plans but there was not date. They did find a date of March 19th. Jim Howard said he was living in Florida at the time he came back on the 21st.
Bill Briggeman asked if he then talked to the owners about the problem
Jim Howard said yes
Bill Briggeman said on May 10 it was submitted and then you came back and about 3 weeks later applied for the variance.
Jim Howard said he came down as soon as we said we need a variance and the bank said you need to get a variance to continue that’s when he came down and saw her (Steffanie Apostle) and asked about what they had to do and what the procedure was. She gave me all the information that he took home and had to research all the people around him and come up with why it should be granted so that was the timeline
Anita Greer said she was looking at this thinking they need to get some information from legal on what our options are because she didn’t see one right now that we could grant them relief.
Jim Howard asked what is the legal ramification that you are concerned about? They are not trying to change the setback. He agrees the setback is 30’, Guilford is 35’, Laconia is only like 10’.
Anita Greer said she was very sympathetic but we are confined by the ordinance by State law and she would like to know what their options are because she didn’t know what they are.
Karen Moran also said she didn’t know what our options were either. The only ordinance that she would possibly have legal look at is the equitable waiver 804.7 because right now she wasn’t sure the application complies with the variance requirements. We haven’t taken a vote and as she stated in the beginning, they all have to agree to agree or agree to defer
Jim Howard said he didn’t understand because each question was asked, he answered. So what is up in the air so he knows what it is
Karen Moran said the real catch is 804.5B the Variance regarding the hardship has to be with the land itself. So, if you started to do the foundation and came across an enormous piece of granite here in the granite state that you would have to move
Jim Howard said they were trying to conform after the fact and in the Town ordinances the non-conforming was discovered after the fact
Karen Moran – Correct, but that’s typically for dimensional requirements
Jim Howard asked if it said that
Karen Moran said it does say that. Karen Moran said they were trying to help him out believe it or not
Anita Greer said she hasn’t looked at the case law regarding that section to see if you fit into it. Legal should be able to assist us
Karen Moran agreed
Anita Greer said where if they can that is where it would go and we could do it if it was within that section.
Karen Moran said that is the section of the ordinance that is a road block for people. It either conforms to that or it doesn’t, and she didn’t write them but that’s the hardship. She feels bad and understands the spot they are in but that doesn’t allow for the ordinance to say yes that’s a reason to grant the variance. So, for tonight’s purpose she would postpone until they hear from legal to see if they can use an equitable exception to grant it or not.
Bill Briggeman said he thought that was the right thing to do and have a more informed position
Karen Moran said she has never gone through existing structure variance request. They have probably happened in the past but she doesn’t know when.
Brad Rosseau said that they do happen but not in Twin Mountain NH
Jim Howard said he knew of 2 on his street where he lived and he didn’t complain because it wasn’t egregious, it was one of those things, it happens.
Anita Greer said she believed he made his case well that it was an error
Jim Howard said he was just trying to get this resolved for the people
Karen Moran asked Steffanie Apostle if she knew how long it would take to get an opinion from the attorney
Steffanie Apostle said she didn’t think it would be too long but she has not had dealings with the attorney. She didn’t think it was immediate there was a little bit of a turnaround time
Anita Greer said the lawyers would need to do their research also
Jim Howard said this situation is only new to us, it’s not new to many towns in New Hampshire. By granting this you are not setting a precedence. You’re not just saying ok anybody that just screws up or has a bad measurement to let it go
Karen Moran said she understood but wanted to make sure for the Town of Carroll that what they get to at the end of the day is correct. She just wants to be sure they are applying the right section of the ordinance in a way that we can because it talks about dimensions not the setback so the legal question would be, can we actually use that section for this kind of retroactive variance. She is hoping for a response fairly quickly from legal
Jim Howard asked when the next meeting would be
Karen Moran said we usually meet once a month but we could schedule one sooner than that if we think we will have the attorney’s opinion. Maybe 2 weeks. Karen preferred to defer voting on this right now because they are unsure.
Anita Greer & Bill Briggeman were in agreement
Jim Howard asked if he needed to resubmit his application or would he be able to explain it
Karen Moran said she didn’t think he would have to re-write it because they would have the minutes from the meeting which will be helpful. They are not trying to cause more work and trouble they just want to make sure for the Town they are doing it in the right way
Anita Greer said with minutes part of it was the document and what factors they take into consideration for making the decision so the minutes help
Karen Moran said this is not the resolution they wanted but it was continuing which is a good thing
Jim Howard asked if he would be notified
Karen Moran said we will send the info to legal and can tentatively set for 2 weeks from today for the next meeting as long as it didn’t coincide with something already scheduled and planned on that for 6:30 for 2 weeks from today and if we don’t hear from the attorney we will reschedule
Jim Howard left his phone number
Item 6: Review Selectboard Minutes – Discuss warrant article status and review definitions
Karen Moran asked if there was any discussion in regards to the Selectboard minutes
The board was unsure why this was on the agenda
Steffanie Apostle said the Selectboard had discussed warrant articles 2 and 7 which was building permits and short-term rentals and they are going to be resubmitted for 2025 and go through Legal
Karen Moran said the 2 articles being reviewed by legal will be on the 2025 warrant. This year we have what we have, the changes to the zoning ordinances that passed without issues are where they are
Item 7: New Business / Other
Chief Jeff Duncan brought up the cell towers. In order for the cell towers the emergency responders have to classify it as critical infrastructure. Chief did not know he would consider it as critical. From listening to them the other night it is not going to improve much of the service they already have. Chief would not use the word critical he would use the word beneficial. One of the criteria they have to meet is it needs to be critical for responders. Why it’s not considered critical is because the responders have First Net and their cell phones automatically gain priority on the towers. The new tower may get down to Zealand parking lot but they aren’t going to have connectivity all the way through Twin. They also have in their other vehicle cell-fi and an antenna and wherever that vehicle is will allow them to have cell service. So, what’s coming off that tower isn’t necessarily critical to us. They are still able to use the towers at the Hotel. Chief said it’s not critical to us but to all the homeowners
Karen Moran asked if it was critical to the Police Department
Chief Jeff Duncan said they have the same service as them. One of the things with first net is if you go out there and it is a busy day and you’re talking on your phone its going to boot you off your phone so the responders can use it. The other issue and Chief didn’t know how or where to research it is; one thing the Tower people said was they were not going to reach Bethlehem and Chief didn’t know if they know Bethlehem is across the street and Chris Elms asked the question because there is a process started this year for a cell tower at the ski area. He didn’t know how or where that stands and because of Town jurisdictions that would never come across this board. Probably be in our best interest if we got everyone on the same page. If they put a cell tower in Bethlehem and we put a cell tower in that will give us 4 towers in the span of a mile. Chief wasn’t sure if there was an opportunity to upgrade what is currently in place. There are a lot of questions that need to be asked before we say a cell tower is a good idea. Chief is unsure if the right questions have been asked by the right people
Karen Moran said they did see the email Bill had sent to him, Steffanie Apostle forwarded all the information to them which was really helpful because the cell tower applicant obviously wants to build it and by stating one thing on the application that Bill asked about it was really helpful to get Chief Duncans answer.
Chief Duncan said he is not saying the tower would not be beneficial but would never use the word critical.
Bill Briggeman thanked Chief Duncan for coming
Item 8: Adjourn
Motion to adjourn by Anita Greer and seconded by Bill Briggeman at 7:45

* WINGATE MEETING WAS SCHEDULED FOR 6/20/24 AT 6:30PM. ALL PARTIES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED*