Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes

Minutes of 3/12/2020

March 19th, 2020

TOWN OF CARROLL ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
92 SCHOOL STREET
TWIN MOUNTAIN, N.H. 03595
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 12, 2020
7:00 P.M.



Members Present: Chairman Aaron Foti, Janet Nelson, Dianne Hogan, Alternate Member Sandy Pothier

Public Present: Melissa Burke, James Phillips, Jack Catalano, Lois Pesman, Attorney Simon Brown

Minutes taken by: Sara Marvin

Pledge of Allegiance

Approval of Minutes
Janet Nelson made a motion to approve the minutes of March 6, 2020. Chair Foti seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The minutes were approved as presented.

Special Exception Application-James Phillips/Melissa Burke, Boulder Mountain View, Map 418 Lot 001-000-000. Applicant proposes to operate a campground. Property is zoned Residential Business (RB).

Chair Foti asked the applicants to present their application. Mr. Phillips gave a brief history of the activity at his property to date. In September of 2019 the Planning Board approved the Site Plan application of Mr. Phillips and Ms. Burke to demolish 10 existing cabins and replace them with 9 park model RV’s and 1, two story carriage-house. Mr. Phillips and Ms. Burke also went before the Town of Carroll Zoning Board requesting a Variance for setbacks. The Variance was approved as presented. Mr. Phillips said the issue has to do with having a park model. Mr. Phillips said that according to RSA 216-I, if you have two or more park models you have to be considered a campground. In essence everything will be the same. They are not changing the way in which the park models will be used. They are seeking to make the designation official.

Chair Foti asked what section of RSA 216 Mr. Phillips was referring to. The section referred to was NH RSA 216-I:VII. “Recreational campground or camping park” means a parcel of land on which two or more campsites are occupied or are intended for temporary occupancy for recreational dwelling purposes only, and not for permanent year-round residency, excluding recreation camps as defined in RSA 485-A:23.
Ms. Burke continued with a review of the application and its criteria to be met in order to meet the requirements of a Special Exception:
Criteria 1: The proposed use shall not adversely affect the capacity of existing or planned community facilities. Ms. Phillips read her response from the application. She said there were none existing, none planned and no impact.
Criteria 2: The purposed use shall not adversely affect the character of the area affected. Ms. Phillips said they were doing what they were approved to do. There is a campground across the street. Motels and apartments exist and it’s a tourist area so there is no impact there.
Criteria 3: The purposed use shall not adversely affect the traffic on roads and highways in the immediate vicinity. Ms. Phillips said it would be no different than where they were today on Harmony Hill.

Mr. Phillips indicated there was no other information to add to the application. Chair Foti asked if the application would be accepted as complete. In addition to the application Chair Foti reviewed the additional information requirements to be reviewed before the Board can approve the request.

1. Required Plan. A plan for the proposed development of a site for a Special Exception shall be submitted with the application. It was agreed that the site plan approved by the Planning Board in September, 2019 would be used to accompany the Special Exception Application.
2. Expiration. A permit for a Special Exception shall be deemed to authorize only one particular use and shall expire if the use shall cease for more than one year for any reason. Chair Foti said he did not see that there were multiple uses.
3. Existing Violations. No permit shall be issued for a Special Exception for a property where there is an existing violation. He saw no conflicts.

Chair Foti asked if there were questions. Janet Nelson asked about the summary sheet of square footages of each unit current and proposed that was presented with the Site Plan application in 2019. What are the actual square footages of the cabins? Mr. Phillips asked what was meant by proposed. He said the park models had to be 399 square feet or under. He said there were only 5 right now. He said they all need to be under 400 square feet in order to be considered park models. Ms. Burke offered certifications that came with each cabin with VIN numbers. All but the carriage house would be 398 square feet.

Chair Foti said that while he appreciated the certifications from the manufacturer, they are not a government body. NH State law does define exactly how the measurements are to be taken so he would like to see what the actuals are, not what the manufacturer states. It is important to the conversation because the law is pretty explicit.

Measurements are taken by exterior. Chair Foti clarified that Mr. Phillips’ intent is to qualify the structures as recreational trailers. Mr. Phillips said that was correct. Chair Foti said that would certainly win the heat of the 400’. Chair Foti asked if there had been modifications since the proposed square footages. Mr. Phillips indicated Cathy Conway had developed the diagram currently being reviewed listing the proposed square footages. He said he wasn’t sure where she had gotten those numbers. Each one is the same, either 398 or 399 square feet. Mr. Phillips said they were removing windows and putting screens in all structures in order to meet the square footage requirement. The porch has floorboards with windows. Anything enclosed by windows is included in square footage. That’s the reason for the installation of screens instead of windows.

Chair Foti asked to confirm that there is no intent to use the spaces alternatively to what the application proposes. That’s a challenge to a Special Exception for something broad like this application. He said he wanted to understand exactly what the goal is. That what the law requires, including municipal laws have to be met. Mr. Phillips said that he understood that even if the park models were 700’ or more, if there were two park models or more by law it has to be a campsite.

Janet Nelson said she was not reading the definition in the same way. The State definition says “Recreational campground or camping park” means a parcel of land on which two or more campsites are occupied. She was not interpreting that this meant that it automatically made it a campsite.

Mr. Phillips said that if he was not mistaken the definition of a campground in order to be compliant is if you have two or more campsites. Chair Foti confirmed that this was correct. The questions are being asked because the Board is trying to determine what the sites are occupied by. We are looking at the definition of Recreational Campground so to stay within that definition we also need to identify what definition each unit will be. The choices are recreational camping cabin and recreational vehicle. Mr. Phillips said the definition he is using is recreational vehicle. Chair Foti said for the definition to fit, the vehicle needs to be portable. He asked Mr. Phillips if they were portable. Mr. Phillips said sure. Chair Foti asked what that choice was based on. Mr. Phillips said it was based on the fact that park model RV’s is part of the definition of what a recreational vehicle is. Chair Foti confirmed that Mr. Phillips was using the definition of Recreational Vehicle. Not a Recreational Camp.

Mr. Phillips said because it’s built to the standards of a Recreational Vehicle. Janet Nelson confirmed the criteria of Recreational Trailer. She also asked to confirm that the 1000 square foot camp site density requirement has been met. Does each site meet the square footage requirement? Janet Nelson read through each section of Chapter 216, addressing each section that was applicable to the application.

There was a question in regard to the change in definition. How will that impact code requirements. Mr. Phillips said they were approved for Park Models. The use is for temporary use for guests. Park Models were approved by the town and in order to have the park models they have to be a campground.

Janet Nelson said questions are asked to ensure that all parties are treated fairly and that the application is understood and due diligence is done. She explained the process of decision making and what resources are used to ensure decisions are made in the best interest of the applicant and the Town. Chair Foti expressed that the Board is here to vote on the application for the Special Exception for the property to become a campground.

Janet Nelson asked if the Board was ready to move forward. Chair Foti said they were still in public session. He invited anyone else in the public to speak if desired. Jack Catalano said he was on the verge of having an excellent neighbor. He spoke in support of the application that Mr. Phillips and Ms. Burke had presented to the Board.

Chair Foti asked if there were any more public comments. There were not. He closed public comments and said the next step was Board deliberation. Janet Nelson said after hearing all the discussion and looking at the Planning Board decision and reviewing all the documents, she was ready to read through the criteria:
Criteria 1: The proposed use shall not adversely affect the capacity of existing or planned community facilities.
Applicant Response: There were none existing, none planned and no impact. Janet Nelson said she agreed with the response.
Criteria 2: The purposed use shall not adversely affect the character of the area affected. Applicant Response: Area is tourist town with campgrounds, motels and apartments. Campgrounds bring revenue into town. Janet Nelson said looking at definitions of campground, of recreational trailer and the density requirement, she did not have a problem with the response to criteria #2.
Criteria 3: The purposed use shall not adversely affect the traffic on roads and highways in the immediate vicinity.
Applicant Response: Site is off main roads, no entry or exit off or onto main road directly from location. Janet said she was assuming the units would not be moved. Mr. Phillips said they can be moved but will not. Janet Nelson said she did not have a problem with the response to criteria 3.

Chair Foti said that an approval by the Zoning Board is saying that you’re allowed to do the generality of what is being approved. It is the job of the Zoning Board to question, can you have the building as long as it meets the requirements of the Special Exception? The Board is voting only on allowing a Special Exception for you to be designated as a campground.

Chair Foti said he was in agreement with the criteria. The Special Exception is an allowed use. It’s an Exception. It’s provided for a reason as long as the requirements can be met. It meets the requirements of the Special Exception.

Janet Nelson made the motion that the Board approve the application as written for the Special Exception for the 5 Harmony Hill property, Boulder Mountain View, Map 418, Lot 001-000-000 based upon proposed site plan dated 7/24/2019. Dianne Hogan seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

Chair Foti asked if there was any other business to be conducted. There was not. He made a motion to adjourn. Dianne Hogan seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.