All towns · jaffrey

ZBA Site Walk Deliberations

Video

front of that see if anybody in the audience wanted to speak to this one way the other
but since there's nobody in that unless you want to say something rob no I don't
the only thing that has the board look up the definition on frontage so you know
well I thought it would be self-explained can answer your question no I have
not mm-hmm look up the definition of frontage a horizontal distance measured
alone in that line dividing a lot from a street to meet the minimum
requirements of appendix A section 3 to Javier rules and regulations to
control subdivisions driveway to interior lots shall not be construed as
furniture for the front lot questions on that definition
identifies the existing line is not compliant is not right I was missing yeah I
know I just I'm wondering how how is this advertised and issues to allow
the reduction of the front setback which we spoke to municipal association and
they were okay with that from the
required 75 feet to 50 feet for two lock subdivision.
So what's in that application is not just a class five road right Rob?
Excuse me? High line is a class five road. So in this case since the
driveway will be shared, the driveway for the deeper lot will not be considered part of
the frontage.
I'll consider what's not be considered part of the frontage which so the definition
for frontage also states. Can you commit to, you have approximately 50 feet each
which doesn't quite work with the driveway right correct so we we would
also be open to to 7525 which keeps the driveway entirely on one lot and and
and keeps that house existing house lot compliant I will be bold transparency
admit that it was my mistake thinking that 125 feet was a minimum frontage and
that's why I split it 50-50 and not kept one lot compliant you get that 25 feet
it's wet there it can be frontage oh so we can still have the shared
driveway when they do the subdivision they would have to deed to deteriorate a lot
okay and the court allows that to two residences are a shared driveway
well one or three okay okay right another residence in there anyway no you've been
sure I don't think so yeah it's and that's in that's in
that's and also in that same section appendix yeah I just want to make
sure everybody satisfied that we we're upset to understand what we're talking
about the United States is asking and so I understand it right now it's just
purely a question of very Indian authorized frontage to divide that
somehow right now it's 50 50 feet yes
So based on layout, that's not quite 50-50.
The intent is for the driveway entrance to belong to the existing house.
Not necessarily.
Like that could be all covered in ease, like both slots could have easements to each other
for the common driveway.
If the board prefers, we split the frontage 50-50, the owners is fine with that.
If the 75-25 is the preference of the board, which keeps the driveway entirely on one lot,
then the owner is also fine with that.
I wrote it as 50-50 again because of an error in my reading of the regulations.
Well, that would keep the one-a-lot conforming.
Yeah.
And one-and-on-on-on-on-just-conforming a lot.
I think I wouldn't leave it towards that.
I can't do anything with that 25 feet anyway.
It's the wetlands right there.
I mean, all the cars are coming up.
Right, right.
Pretty right by side.
All right.
Five criteria.
If we look at criteria one, how do we think he stacks up?
Essentially, it says ZBA should examine whether the variance would A,
all for the essential character of the locality,
will be threatened public health, safety, or well-fixed.
It is not contrary to the public interest.
Yeah, I didn't read the whole thing, but yes.
I do have a question.
particular factor because most unduly in a marked rate to conflict with the basic
zoning objectives of the ordinance when I read the purpose of the ordinance it seems
to be no, it's just an overall view kind of thing, but it says to avoid congestion and to
promote forestry wetlands, natural features, ridgelines, and
so on. I think the wiggle room there is must unduly in a marked degree conflict
with that. I do think that there is, that's something that the board probably at least contemplate
to make a decision on this to what is that or not.
I don't think this project does that. I don't think I'm at most of it.
Must unduly and mark degree conflict with the basic zoning objectives of the ordinance. I think it does
and I don't think it changed the essential character of locality or in any ways threaten the public
health safety of welfare however we set it up whether we go 75 25 or or 50 50
I agree to the the um it's not be possible to develop the back of the property
in further yes and each easement and the size of a lot so right and the way lines and in the nature
of the property so it's it's downtown water and it allows for the development of a
lot all right spirit but it's not visible from the street right the spirit of
the ordinance is observed see criteria one above so I generally assume that if we've
gotten past criteria one criteria two I think is it's going to be a threat no average
no average observer will you know the difference of the pointage yes no substantial
justice well this verbiage but just for the public and perhaps the only guiding
rule is that any loss to the individual if we were to deny the variance and
that's that's my paraphrasing here that is not outweigh by gain to the general public is
an injustice so I don't see that if we were to deny this variance that the public has
any gain at all certainly not a substantial gain I see no impact to the public whatsoever
agree agree the values of surrounding properties are not diminished this various
criteria and has not been the focus of many of any extensive Supreme Court
analysis of date that said and considering with an application with
diminished surrounding property values it is appropriate for the ZBAs to consider
not only expert testimony from realtors and or appraisers but also from residents
neighborhood equally as important board members may consider their own
experience and knowledge of the physical location when it lies in these
criteria but be cautious and relying solely on the experience and knowledge
if it contravenes evidence of professional experts since markets
on this board I'm not going to ask him for his professional opinion on
these but it's I said this to you guys many times before but it's always my
experience most of the time that whenever my name does something positive to
his property I feel like my property I just have gone up and so as long as
this is a good project it's not a double wide going on the back of the lot
I see no reason about us that spoke against at the initial meeting
no no yeah Andy Weber actually did come in today to ask because
he wasn't a butter but he would he just asked about where the wetland was so
he had no issues at all so I mean I think I don't think there's going to be a
diminution of value I don't know how the rest of the board feels about that just
for clarity of the record I don't recall any specific testimony one way or the other
about the property values at the initial hearing no they were not I'm just
this is my own personal opinion that works no I just try to remember if anybody's
anything last time over here no so how do we feel with the diminution of
value is there going to be any of this project moves forward no diminution about it
no okay all right so that brings us to a little literal enforcement of the
provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship
unnecessary hardship means that only special conditions of the property and the
distinctive hit from the properties in the area again I would say that this is a very
uniquely shaped
lot there are constraints wetlands constraints with just the shape of the
lot Highland Ave I think he meets the fifth criteria in terms of the
uniqueness of that profit and it's a reasonable use suggestions I would agree that
the geography of the lot would constitute special condition the wetlands on either
side of the driveway are notable
I think that would probably qualify for a special condition.
Any other comments, any disagreements?
Then why don't I close the public portion of this hearing and we can go into deliberations.
Through the five criteria, agree that it's met.
Just move on to finding of facts.
Is there anything else anybody wants to discuss?
Findings a fact?
The applicant proposes to subdivide.
How is it?
Is there any thoughts on the requested action and the suggested action division that's come up in conversation discussion like?
Right now, the actual application is 50-50.
Do we say something along the lines of 75-25 to make sure?
We have to make that a condition of that.
We can make that a condition.
But, yeah, we'll see how the board feels.
Okay.
Okay.
I use the fact and then that's a good suggestion.
Okay, so just the, the applicant proposes to subdivide two and a half acre lot on a hundred and a half.
Request the variance from the required frontage with two lots.
The existing lot has 1205 frontage.
The requirement is 75 feet.
Is it have 125 or 100?
It has 120.
It has 100.
It has 100.
It has 100.
It has 100.
I'm sorry, 100 is present and 75 is required.
The applicant has a variance to allow a subdivision to two lots with forming an interior lot that will share the existing driveway.
It's not interior lot.
Well, if it's...
Just say a lot with a little of lot with shared driveway.
It's based on our site walk today.
A portion.
A significant portion of the frontage is a wetland, addition of a separate driveway difficult.
The applicant provided rough boundaries for the two proposed lots, exhibiting that access is possible to the proposed second lock.
Okay. And I'm just, I would add, it's 238, lock 100, zone residential, two and a half acres plus or minus.
town water and sewer.
Yep, on town water and sewer. It meets all setbacks, and it does meet all five criteria.
It's like you can ask my name. I'm sorry.
I'll get what I miss on the...
Okay.
All right.
So how do we want to conditionalize this if you want to go with it?
75 feet and then a 25 foot.
That would be my difference.
I'm one too.
All right.
Oh, well, you only only have one on.
Go ahead.
If I can interject, could...
To stop me from having to come back to you, if I do a precise survey of that property
and find that it has 99.5 feet of frontage, could you word it such that we have 75 feet of frontage
for one lot and the remainder of the frontage for the second lot?
I'm just worried if the notice says 25 feet for the second lot, and I come up a couple
tenths of a foot short with that, just because the deed is plus and minus, the intent would
would follow through and what if we just say to make the the conformy lot
75 peter frontage and then whatever happens that you don't come back and see us
that we're saying I'm sure I'll be back soon
your motion hopefully with another project now condition of the motion yeah just
sure sound better than I just 75 feet of frontage with the remainder on this to be
that we accept the application for the application for the variance based
on the testimony given and demonstrated in the site walk to allow the applicant to
subdivide MEP 238 lot 100 with the existing lot to be reduced to 75-foot
frontage and the balance of the existing frontage to be applied to the requested and to be
determined by certain
Second.
All right.
We have a motion to approve.
I see your request 2612 with a condition that 75 foot of frontage goes for the front lot.
And they remain to be determined by survey.
Is there any further discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Motion carries.
Thank you very much.
Well, I have to read this table before you go.
I know you know this, but it's just rehearing requests for RSA.
RSA 677-2 within 30 days after any order or decision of the ZBA, any decision of the
local legislative body town meeting or border appeals in regard to this zoning.
A rehearing request may be made by the selectmen, any part of the action of proceedings,
or any person directly affected.
So 30 days and you're good to go, at least on the, yeah.
All right.
Well, thank you.
All right.
Have a good night.
Is there anybody who would like to continue this meeting?
No.
Can I get a motion to do.
I just do.
Oh.
attempt to modify