Chair Richard Booth reviewed the lot dimensions on the application to confirm we were looking at lot 5.  The Chair then asked Mr. Marcello if he moved the house on this lot, would they need less relief.

Mr. Marcello replied probably not due to the width of the lot and the right-angle dimensions between the lot lines, there would not be enough room to turn the house sideways.  He stated that the proposed house size is 44 x 26 with a garage underneath and a driveway on the side with the septic located in the rear of the property.   Mr. Marcello stated they have met and exceeded the front and rear setback lines, and reiterated the only relief they are seeking are the side setbacks. He also stated that they are consistent with all the other homes on that side of the street and are comparable lots. Chair Richard Booth asked if Mr. Marcello if they rotated the house by 90 degrees – instead of going left to right, go front to back - would this make it comparable to the other houses.

Mr. Marcello stated that most all of the houses in that area are situated left to right due to the grading and topography of the land would not be conducive to turning the house. Joe St. Lawrence asked Mr. Marcello about the elevation on the lot and asked if there is a gradual elevation going back from the road.

Richard Marcello replied in the affirmative. He also stated that a lot of thought has gone into where the houses will be positioned and located on the lots in regards to privacy. He added they plan to leave as many trees as possible for privacy purposes.

Richard Quattromani had no questions.

Tim Robertson stated that he appreciated Joe St. Lawrence’s questions and stated he is looking at a satellite shot of Gardner Road and could see that the houses generally run parallel with the road versus trying to turn them sideways.  He stated he does not have any additional questions as the details provided seem to show a house that is consistent with the area.

Susan Franco-Towell attempted to make comments but was inaudible during the meeting.

Tom McMillan stated that he needed some clarity on the left side setback (if looking from the road).  The application states they are requesting 20 feet of relief from the 60 feet required.  A discussion ensued with Mr. Marcello and the Board.  In conclusion, it was agreed the correct amount of relief required for the left setback is 24 feet/36 feet proposed/60 feet required.

Tom McMillan did continue to voice other concerns regarding the existing houses on the street, especially the neighbor next door on lot 6, and how this new home could change the environment for the residents who have lived there for years.   He added that according to the ordinance, the Board can and shall actually specify the size of the building and its placement on the lot when dealing with legal non-conforming lots. Mr. McMillan believes the Board should seriously consider turning the building 90 degrees which would minimize the proximity to the neighboring properties and lessen the amount of variance they need.  Further discussion ensued regarding how the variance could be affected.

The clerk asked to clarify both side setbacks for this application; the Chair confirmed for the left-side setback – 24 feet of relief requested, 36 feet proposed, and for the right-side setback – 20 feet of relief requested, 40 feet proposed.

Chair Richard Booth asked for any other questions or comments prior to taking public

comment.

Richard Marcello stated that they have worked really hard to design this and to be sure it blends in well with the rest of the neighborhood. They plan to keep the lot as wooded as possible so it will remain private as that’s what people like in the area and be a nice addition to the community.

At this time, Chair Richard Booth asked if there was any public comment and recognized

the following people and swore them in as they introduced themselves. Also, to be noted and included for the record, four (4) letters were received from abutting neighbors and shared with the Zoning Board of Review.

1.)  Cindy and Michael Chappron of 668 Gardner Road were recognized by the Chair and both parties were sworn in.  Cindy and Michael Chappron stated that they have lived in this location since 1988. Cindy Chappron stated that they had been told that the land was preserved for a bird sanctuary and thought the lots were not buildable. They stated they are both opposed to this application.

2.)  Melinda Jrid of 686 Gardner Road, was recognized by the Chair and was sworn in. Ms.

Jrid stated that if they build a house on this location, it will be in her back yard.  Ms.

Jrid stated when they bought their house, they were under the impression that this said lot was unbuildable.  She is opposed to this application.

3.)  Mark and Linda Talbott of 688 Gardner Road were both recognized by the Chair and were sworn in.  They also stated that they had been informed that the said lots were bird sanctuaries and were non-buildable lots.  They both stated they are opposed to this development.

4.)  Joe Sullivan of 698 Gardner Road was recognized by the Chair and was sworn in. Mr.

Sullivan stated that he has lived on Gardner Road for 45 years back to when it was a dirt road and wants it to stay rural.  He is opposed to approving these variances on both lot 5 and lot 8.

Hal Morgan, Zoning Official for the Town of Exeter, stated that the owners prior to the current owners were “Second Scobco LLC,” which is Michael Metcalf’s company.   Mr. Morgan stated that the issue with this land being labeled as a bird sanctuary is due to SCOBCO stands for South County Bird Company which was the name of their whole property and people used to come hunt birds there.  He added that the land was not a “bird sanctuary.”

Chair Richard Booth thanked Mr. Morgan and asked for a motion to close the public hearing.

Tom McMillan made a motion to close the public hearing; Joe St. Lawrence seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. Voted all in favor. Motion passed. Public hearing was closed. Chair Richard Booth stated that he sympathizes with the abutting neighbors and would feel the same way if he had lot next to him that had been vacant for 40 years. He stated, however, that this is a legal nonconforming lot of record and that the applicant has a right to build on this property.  The Chair stated that the job of the Zoning Board is to make sure that any relief that they grant him is the least amount of relief necessary.

Tom McMillan explained his concerns with this application and stated that he feels this will adversely affect their use and enjoyment of the privacy they have come to know over the past 40 years and will not be compatible with the existing neighborhood.

Joe St. Lawrence  stated that he believes the entire Board feels the same way and sympathizes with these residents.  He added that we all understand about these legal nonconforming lots and have had many different cases on different roads pertaining to legal nonconforming lots.  He stated that the Board has had testimony on these cases similar  to  what  we  heard tonight,  and it  is  difficult.    Mr.  St. Lawrence  stated  that unfortunately, people have a right to sell their lot(s), people have a right to buy the property and the road will change to some degree.

Tim Robertson stated that he echoes Joe St. Lawrence’s comments and sympathizes for these residents. He mentioned the Cedar Grove and Boone Lake neighborhoods and that the Board did not create these legal nonconforming lots.  He shared that he was looking at the aerial shot of Gardner Road and there are other lots with houses fairly close to each other already, and having some people be able to build and others not, is discriminatory as well; so, it is a tough balance.

Tom McMillan asked Solicitor Peter Ruggiero if we (the Board) need to revisit the frontage of the lot in question and grant a variance on that or not.

Solicitor Ruggiero stated that the Board does not have to; it is a pre-existing legal lot of record and the width of the lot along the road is fixed.

At this time, Chair Richard Booth asked for a motion.

Tim Robertson reviewed Exeter Zoning Code, Appendix A, Section 1.3.E.C as follows:

 

In granting a variance, the Exeter zoning board of review shall require that evidence to the satisfaction of the following standards be entered into the record of the proceedings:

 

1.   That the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area; and is not due to a physical or economic disability of the applicant;

2.   That said hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant and does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain;

3.   That the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general character of

the surrounding area or impair the intent of purpose of the Exeter zoning ordinance or the Exeter comprehensive plan, upon which this ordinance is based; and

4.   That the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary.

 

Additionally, Section 1.3.E.D as follows:

The Exeter zoning board of review shall, in addition to the above standards, require that evidence be entered into the record of the proceedings showing that:

 

In granting a dimensional variance, that the hardship that will be suffered by the owner of the subject property if the dimensional variance is not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience. The fact that a use may be more profitable or that a structure may be more valuable after the relief is granted shall not be grounds for relief.