CHICHESTER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
JUNE 29, 2005
Case #179 Cameron Hebert appealing the administrative decision of the Planning Board’s denial of a buildable lot owned by Thomas Noonan & Richard Noonan, Jr. Map 3 lot 36 located off Route 4.
Members Present: Edward Meehan, Jeff Jordan, Stephen MacCleery, Mark McIntosh, David Dobson.
Applicant Cameron Hebert as well as abutters Richard Noonan, Thomas Noonan and Wayne Lafleur were present.
Mr. Hebert wishes to purchase this piece of property and put a house on it. There is currently no road frontage on Route 4 just a deeded 50’ right-of-way. The lot has enough acreage to support a house (10 acres). He is not looking to subdivide this piece of property. He was denied permission from the Planning Board for a buildable lot because of no road frontage.
Steve pointed out that to seek an administrative appeal from the Planning Board they would have had to make an error in interpreting the zoning which it looks like they did not. He feels that the applicant should be requesting an area variance and would not object if Mr. Hebert would like to amend his application. Mr. Hebert came prepared to answer the five part variance questions just in case he was allowed to amend his application. The board agreed to allow Mr. Hebert to change his application from an administrative appeal to an area variance request.
Even though this piece of property falls within the setback for commercial use, if it is being used as residential it must meet today’s zoning. If the soil type is residential the lot would require 200’ of road frontage, if rural/agricultural it would require 300’ of road frontage.
Mr. Hebert has seen the Building Inspector and the Planning Board, town council and is now before the BOA to plead his case. A letter of denial from the Planning Board is on file as well as a letter from our attorney pertaining to this case defending the denial of a building permit because of the lack of road frontage.
Mr. Hebert feels this is a lot of record. He went over the five conditions he feels he has met to receive a variance. Property values would not be diminished, this would not be contrary to the public interest, denial would result in unnecessary hardship, it would do substantial justice, and the use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. (See file)
Abutter Wayne Lafleur commented that the 50’ right-of-way was supposed to go into a cul-de-sac when this subdivision was done back in the ‘70’s. He wanted to know if Mr. Hebert was going to put in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hebert said he was not allowed to according to the deed. Mr. Lafleur stated his deed allows him to use the right-of-way to get to his property. Mr. Hebert agreed with that statement. He would not be able to stop anyone using the right-of-way to get to the back lots of this subdivision. Mr. Lafleur said that this was originally supposed to be a 50’ right-of-way with a cul-de-sac.
The board noted that this subdivision was created on May 10, 1973. It was created and never built upon. Lots were given or sold and never developed. Zoning has not changed pertaining to these lots. The subdivision needs to meet today’s zoning if a road was created.
Mr. Lafleur doesn’t want his property value decreased. Mr. Hebert stated he would be doing them a favor by building a roadway into this lot and that he could not stop anyone from using the right-of-way to get to their property. Mr. Hebert said it was not cost effective to put 2000’ of road to be able to build a house on 10 acres.
The board commented that a building permit can’t be granted until a lot has enough frontage on a town road. Also, a lot of record is a created lot that was in existence before zoning which this lot clearly is not. This is part of a subdivision that was never further developed. Board members were also concerned with safety issues pertaining to police and fire accessibility. The board feels that they need to go by today’s zoning.
Mr. Hebert presented the board with a copy of RSA 674:41 pertaining to a lawsuit with the town of Westmoreland concerning subdivisions. (On file)
The board was curious if these lots were being taxed as buildable lots, the Noonan’s said they were not.
Mr. Hebert wanted to know what his options were. He would like the board to submit RSA 674:41 to town council for his opinion and also meet with the Selectmen on Tuesday night.
It was moved and seconded to adjourn this public hearing and reconvene on July 20, 2005 at 7:00 PM. Vote was 5-0 in favor of motion. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 11:00 PM.
Holly MacCleery, Secretary
Chichester Board of Adjustment