CHICHESTER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOTICE OF DECISION
JULY 20, 2005
Case # 179-Cameron Hebert Map 3 Lot 36 requesting an area variance to receive a building permit on lot that has only a 50’ right-of-way off of Route 4. Lot is currently owned by Thomas & Richard Noonan.
It was moved by Jeff Jordan and seconded by David Dobson to deny the area variance request made by Cameron Hebert for Map 3 Lot 36 to obtain a building permit with only a 50’ right-of-way for the following reasons:
1. There would not be a diminution in value of surrounding properties as a result of the granting of this variance because this would not decrease the surrounding property values, it could possibly increase the surrounding property values since another land owner could come before the BOA and seek a variance.
2. The granting of this variance would be contrary to the public interest because our zoning states you need frontage on a town maintained road. RSA 674:41 III has been clarified that access to the lot means a street upon which the lot has actual frontage. Some members felt the BOA would be setting precedence because there is absolutely no road frontage on this lot. This lot is not unique.
3. a. Since the following special conditions of the property make an area variance necessary in order to allow the development as designed; the special condition is that there is no frontage on a town maintained road.
b. The same benefit cannot be achieved by some other reasonably feasible method that would not impose an undue financial burden because the cost of a road would make this financially prohibitive. The lot is usable as it sits now, for a wood lot. If this were being used as a commercial lot the 50’ right-of-way would be adequate but if you are going to use it residentially you need the proper frontage and acreage for the zone.
4. By granting this variance substantial justice would not be done because it lacks the allowed road frontage. Town zoning clearly requires frontage on a town road and this lot has none. The road was never built when the subdivision was approved years ago.
5. The use contemplated by petitioner as a result of obtaining this variance would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because part of the lot is in the commercial zone and there is potential use for that purpose. Residential use is not allowed without frontage on a town maintained road as stated in RSA 674:41 III.
Vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion to deny.
Edward Meehan, Chairman
Note: The Selectmen, any party to the action or any person directly affected has a right to appeal this decision within 30 days from the date of decision, July 20, 2005. See NHRSA Chapter 677 available at the Selectmen’s office. This notice has been placed on file and made available for public inspection in the records of the ZBA on July 25, 2005. Copies of this notice have been distributed to the applicant, Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, Town Clerk and Building Inspector.