Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.


Antrim Community
Meetings Calendar
Hours & Contacts
Town Departments
Parks & Recreation
James Tuttle Library
Business Directory
Subscribe to News
Send Us Comments
Home Page

Site  This Folder
 
Advanced Search



Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 03/21/06
Spacer
ANTRIM ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

March 21, 2006 meeting

Members Present:

        Doug Crafts             John Kendall            Len Pagano                              Frank Scales            Don Winchester  Paul Young      
        
Member Absent

        Carol Court             Tim Quachenbush                                                 
Public Attendees:

        Fred Wendt              Shirley Wendt           Yung Keung Lam

Chairman Winchester opened the meeting at 7:15 PM with an explanation of the role of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Members of the Board then introduced themselves.

Keung Garden File # 2006-1ZBA: Mr. Winchester announced the public hearing on the request of Keung Garden for a Special Exception to Article XVII, Section E.3 (Sign Ordinance) of the Antrim Zoning Ordinance for property located at 76 Main Street, Antrim, New Hampshire, Tax Map 1A, Lot 184 located in the Village Business District. The applicant proposes an oversized roof sign. Ms. Lam was asked to present her request. She explained that the only location for the sign that would provide visibility from the road would be on the roof. Ms. Lam was questioned as to why they had not applied for a sign permit. She responded that she was new to the area and was not aware that a sign permit was required; hence did not know the regulations for roof signs or oversized signs. She acknowledged that they contracted with a New York sign company to build and install the sign. The company never mentioned to them that a sign permit may be required by the Town. Mr. Pagano felt that this was the responsibility of the sign company and that they should be held liable. He felt that perhaps they should be responsible for any corrective action required. Ms. Lam indicated that it was a “cash deal” and she had no recourse with the sign company. She was very upset that they had spent $4,000.00 for the sign and now would not be able to use it. Mr. Winchester said that he had no problem with the sign being on the roof. Mr. Pagano disagreed. He felt that an adequate sign could be designed which could be located on the fascia of the building and still be visible from the street. The Secretary read three letters from members of the TIF Committee which essentially stated that the location and the size of the sign were not appropriate for that area of the town in that it was not in keeping with the recent and ongoing programs for the improvement of the downtown area. Considerable discussion followed regarding the design characteristics of the sign as well as the location. Mr. Young called for a vote on granting the Special Exception for a roof sign. The motion was seconded by Mr. Scales and passed. The roll call vote follows:

1.      The proposed use may be similar to one or more of the uses already authorized in the district and is an appropriate location for such a use. Mr. Winchester – nay, Mr. Young – nay, Mr. Scales – nay, Mr. Pagano – nay, Mr. Kendall – nay.
2.      Such approval would not adversely affect the neighborhood, nor otherwise be injurious, obnoxious or offensive. Mr. Winchester – nay, Mr. Young – nay, Mr. Scales – nay, Mr. Pagano – nay, Mr. Kendall – nay.
3.      The use will not create excessive traffic congestion, noise, or odors in the neighborhood where it is proposed. (Consensus was that this criteria was not applicable)
4.      Such approval would be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Winchester – nay, Mr. Young – nay, Mr. Scales – nay, Mr. Pagano – nay, Mr. Kendall – nay.
5.      Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. (Consensus was that this criteria was not applicable)
6.      If the proposed special exception is listed in Article XIII, D, then it must meet all conditions of that article. (Not in Article XIII)

Mr. Crafts called for a vote on granting the Special Exception for an oversized sign. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kendall and passed. The roll call vote follows:

1.      The proposed use may be similar to one or more of the uses already authorized in the district and is an appropriate location for such a use. Mr. Winchester – nay, Mr. Young – nay, Mr. Scales – nay, Mr. Pagano – nay, Mr. Kendall – nay.
2.      Such approval would not adversely affect the neighborhood, nor otherwise be injurious, obnoxious or offensive. Mr. Winchester – nay, Mr. Young – nay, Mr. Scales – nay, Mr. Pagano – nay, Mr. Kendall – nay.
3.      The use will not create excessive traffic congestion, noise, or odors in the neighborhood where it is proposed. (Consensus was that this criteria was not applicable)
4.      Such approval would be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Winchester – nay, Mr. Young – nay, Mr. Scales – nay, Mr. Pagano – nay, Mr. Kendall – nay.
5.      Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. (Consensus was that this criteria was not applicable)
6.      If the proposed special exception is listed in Article XIII, D, then it must meet all conditions of that article. (Not in Article XIII)

The members acknowledge the need for a sign but felt one could be designed in keeping with the downtown area and with minimum deviations from the zoning ordinance. They felt that the applicant should be given the opportunity to correct the current situation. Consequently, the following declarations were to be made a part of the Denial Decision.

1.      The applicant has forty-five (45) days from March 21, 2006 (which would be May 5, 2006) to submit a new appeal to the Board for a redesigned sign.
2.      The existing sign will be allowed to remain in place during the forty-five (45) day period.
3.      If the appeal is not filed by May 5, 2006, the existing sign must be removed. Failure to remove the sign will be subject to the code enforcement procedure.
4.      The applicant will not be required to pay hearing or notification fees if the appeal is filed within the forty-five (45) days.

The applicant was advised that they should contract with a local sign company who should work with TIF and come up with a new design for the sign. It was suggested that they ask TIF if funds might be available to defray the cost of a new sign. Ms. Lam was advised that she should come into Town Hall the following morning and meet with the Town Planner who would explain to her just what needs to be done. The public hearing on the application was closed.

Shirley A. Wend File # 2006-02ZBA: Mr. Winchester opened the public hearing on the request of Shirley A. Wendt for a variance to Article VIII Section C.3 & Section C.4 to install a shed within the setback lines on property located at 15 Masquanipi Drive, Antrim, NH 03440, Tax Map 8A Lot 42 in the Lakefront Residential District. Mr. Wendt explained that they originally proposed to site a garage on the property but the location of the septic field and setback requirements did not make this feasible. They decided instead to install a 15’ x 10’ shed. He presented a plot plan showing four possible locations for the shed, three of which would encroach on the sideline setbacks and one which would encroach on the front yard setback. Some time was spent discussing the suitability of the various locations. The Board felt that the least intrusive encroachment on set backs and minimum disturbance of the septic field and lawn area would be location #1 shown on the plat. This location would require a variance to permit the shed to be located within thirty-two feet of the front property line. Mr. Scales made a motion to vote on the conditions to be met to grant a variance which was seconded by Mr. Young and passed. A roll call vote follows:

1.      The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values. Role call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye.
2.      Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest. Role call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye.
3.      Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because of special circumstances of the property that distinguish it from other properties similarly zoned. Role call vote Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye.
4.      Granting the variance would do a substantial justice. Role call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye.
5.      The use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance. Role call vote: Mr. Winchester – aye, Mr. Young – aye, Mr. Scales – aye, Mr. Pagano – aye, Mr. Kendall – aye.

The following condition was applied to the approval:

“The shed shall be sited no closer than thirty-two feet to the front property line and shall not be situated within the twenty-foot sideline setbacks.”

Mr. Kendall made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 15, 2005 meeting as presented which was seconded by Mr. Young and passed.

Mr. Scales moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Crafts seconded the motion which passed.

Mr. Winchester adjourned the meeting at 9:15 PM.


Respectfully submitted,




Paul L. Vasques, Secretary
Antrim Zoning Board of Adjustment


        


 
Town of Antrim, NH P.O. Box 517, 66 Main Street Antrim, NH 03440
Phone: (603) 588-6785    Fax: (603) 588-2969    antrimatc@tds.net    Monday - Thursday 8:00am - 4:00pm
Virtual Towns & Schools Website