Incoming

Outgoing

Brushwood Veterinary Clinic – Based on the application presented and the fact that there were no changes, Mr. Polito made a motion to approve the renewal. Mr. Ashford seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Buildingline Woodworking – Based on the application presented and the fact that there were no changes; Mr. Rockwell made a motion to approve the renewal. Mr. Ashford seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

James Kirsch re: Parking of mobile home on residential lot.

Mr. Kirsch explained that this occurred on Stickney Road. Last year, in September, he had a complaint from a neighbor, indicating that there was a five-wheel motor home that had been parked on a vacant lot all summer. The lot is owned by the person who owned the mobile home. Mr. Kirsch reviewed the ordinances and made the decision that this was not allowed. Mr. Polito agreed that living in a mobile home on a vacant lot it is not allowed under the ordinances without a permit from the Selectmen. Mr. Kirsch explained that the owner asked if he could stay for a couple of more weeks because he was heading back to Florida. Mr. Kirsch agreed. The owner informed him he would be coming back next year. Mr. Kirsch explained that he would have the same decision this year. He now has had two complaints. The owners claim that they are parking the trailer on the vacant lot but are living in the house next door, which they previously owned. The trailer is not closed up. The owner claims he also leaves for periods if time and comes back and forth and that his intention was to stay until October. Mr. Kirsch is looking to the Board to see if they support his position. Mr. Polito stated that the Board could not prejudge, because the owner may wish to appeal Mr. Kirsch’s decision. Mr. Polito advised Mr. Kirsch that he is the Code Enforcement Officer and what is described sounds as if the owner is living in it. There needs to be a collection of facts. There is nothing in the ordinance that says you can’t park a mobile home on your vacant lot, living in it is an entirely different matter. Mr. Kirsch stated that the person who made the complaint is keeping a file of when and how often someone is sleeping in the mobile home. The Board agreed this should be done, but will not give any determination on whether this is a violation at this point.

Mr. Polito read a letter from Lein Komornick, who complained about the real estate signs, located at Bryant Woods and claimed that according to the Town ordinances, real estate signs were only permitted on the lots that were being sold. The Board reviewed and discussed the zoning. They agreed with Ms. Komornick but also noted that condominiums have common land and no "individual" lots. As long as the signs were located on the condominium common land, it was the board’s opinion they were not in violation. Mr. Kirsch explained that there were numerous agents’ signs at a lot of these places. Mr. Polito said Ms. Komornick, or anyone else could call a particular agent and inquire if they had a unit for sale. If a particular agent did not, then it would be within Mr. Kirsch’s purview as the Code Enforcement Agent to ask that they be removed. The Board agreed that even though anyone selling a house would want signs on various corners, directing people to the house for sale, the ordinance is pretty clear that this is not allowed as only a sign may be placed on the property for sale. There is a specific section in the ordinance dealing with real estate signs making it pretty clear that the Townspeople knew what they did and did not want to see in Town.

Mr. Polito reviewed and read the provisions of 677:3. Mr. Polito stated that the Board needed to determine if there was a failure on the Board’s part to adequately explain their decision, or did the Board make a technical error in reaching its decision, or is there new evidence, and if so, is it the case that this evidence was not available to the applicant at the time of the original hearing?

Mr. Zannini Sr., asked that the Board consider the fact that there are not five Board members that were at last months hearing and asked if this could be continued. Mr. Polito asked Mr. Henrickson and Mr. Ashford if they thought they could make an informed decision even though they were not present and did not vote on the actual hearing, but have read the written record of the case. They responded that they could. Mr. Polito checked the RSA’s and determined that the Board could act upon the rehearing request tonight.

The Board members read the Petition for Rehearing.

Mr. Polito believed that Attorney Campbell’s contention was that the Board decision erroneously failed to interpret zoning. Mr. Polito did not see anything in the appeal with regard to an incomplete record or new evidence. Mr. Henrickson thought what was potentially new was the last paragraph pertaining to "vesting". One could argue that this is a new piece of information, but the opportunity to make this case was at the original hearing. Mr. Polito could not say whether this information would have influenced the decision or not. Mr. Henrickson agreed that the failure of the applicant to present this was his problem. Mr. Henrickson indicated that the tax cards were quite clear that the lot had been combined for more than 20 years. Mr. Friel did not believe abandonment was an issue at the hearing and was not sure why it was referred to in the request. Mr. Polito agreed abandonment was not the basis of the denial. Mr. Polito stated that the Board talked about a lot of issues at the hearing, but it came down to an interpretation of zoning and did the building inspector do the right thing.

The Board members read the Petition for Rehearing

There was agreement that there was a complete record for the original hearing for a variance. Mr. Henrickson questioned whether Attorney Campbell’s citing of Boccia vs. City of Portsmouth was new information as it is a new case that was not available to the applicant at the last hearing. Mr. Henrickson stated that Attorney Campbell arguments in citing the Smith vs. Town of Salem would in essence negate the ability of the Town to update its zoning and does not make sense. Mr. Polito stated that the rehearing application contains sections that are very technical regarding case law. The Board had a Variance request before them last month, they have been schooled in the law from the courses they have attended and applied that as well as their experience in reaching a decision, but the claim for a rehearing on technical errors, is not supported in his opinion. There is no new information in the request that couldn’t have been provided at the original hearing or would have made a material difference. The Board discussed the contention of the area variance posed by Attorney Campbell and determined that one of the lots in the original variance also required relief to the setback of the rear line and therefore this was not strictly an area variance and this information did not apply.

Abutters list was read with the following present:

Mr. and Mrs. Dulin

Mr. Dulin explained that he was a teacher and during the summer he painted. Mrs. Dulin used to run a gift shop and they thought they could open a small antique business and also sell handmade furniture from their barn. The Board reviewed the application. The Board was not sure if this site could accommodate the traffic that might be associated with this type of business, especially during the holidays, given its high traffic location. The Board reviewed some photos of the area to be used for parking and questioned the ability of cars being able to turn around, as well as site distance when exiting the property. Mr. Dulin said there was plenty of space in the back to expand the parking area. The Dulins did not have any idea of how much business they might generate, because they were new at this. They did not want to invest in a business at another location without having some idea of how much success they would have. Mr. Dulin did state that it was his intention that if this business did grow into something profitable and expanded, they would get space in another location and would not continue as a home business. The Board agreed that they needed to visit the site and determine if they would need the input of the Police and Fire Chief.

Mr. Polito read a letter from Mrs. Matte, who opposed this plan for a home business. As a prior owner of the home, she did not think the property could accommodate this type of business because of the traffic.

The Board told the Dulins they would like to work with them in this issue and suggested that the Dulins continue this request so that they could visit the site. The Dulins agreed and were willing to do whatever was necessary to get approval..