Zoning Board of Adjustments
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
July 21st, 2020
Public Hearing/Meeting
Members & Staff Present:
Shelley Nelkens (Member), Ray Ledgerwood (Member participating by Zoom), Diane Kendall (Member), Christopher Parks (Alternate), Carol Ogilvie (Planning Consultant), and Ashley Brudnick-Destromp (Assistant)
Absent: John Giffin (Chair), and Bob Holmes (Member)
Public Attendees: Nick Teich (Harbor Camps Inc. participating via Zoom), Ben Renda (Self participating via Zoom), Sue Conklin (Self participating via Zoom), Joan Gorga (Self), and Frank Gorga (Self)
*Due to COVID-19 this meeting was conducted with social distancing and also made available to public access via Zoom*
The Assistant informed the Board she just received the Conservation Commissioners report this evening, and emailed it to the applicant.
Opening of Meeting: Vice Chair Kendall opened the meeting at 7:00 pm.
The Chair appointed Mr. Parks to sit in for Mr. Holmes. Vice Chair Kendall explained Chair Giffin was absent, so she would be filling in as Chair. The Vice Chair explained to the applicant that, where there is not a full Board of 5, they have the right to reschedule, otherwise if there is a split vote the special exception would not be granted and they would not get a rehearing. Mr. Teich said he understood and wished to proceed forward.
I. Public Hearing: Harbor Camps Inc. 2020-04 ZBA Map 240 Lot 002 (4 Brimstone Corner Rd.) Requesting an after-the-fact variance for construction of 4 shed-like cabins within the 100’ shoreland protection.
The Assistant read the public notice, and mentioned the wrong article was used. Vice Chair Kendall explained it should read Article XI-A Paragraph 10-D. She asked if anyone present felt that they weren’t properly noticed, there was no objection.
Mr. Teich introduced himself to the Board. He asked to show the Board through a shared screen on Zoom some photos. Vice Chair Kendall allowed it. Mr. Teich stated he was under the impression there was no Antrim Zoning Ordinance when the cabins were constructed. He gave an overview of the history of the camp when he purchased it to now. Mr. Teich showed slides of when the camp was first purchased by them back in 2014. He stated the tent platforms were existing, and had larger foot prints then the current cabins. He said he thought the tents were an eyesore, and he wanted to replace them with someone more natural and “camp like”. Mr. Teich said that they were very careful with the Lake, and have great respect for it. He also mentioned that he used all local contractors for the project, and SR Jones was the person who assisted in making sure there was erosion control with crushed stone. Mr. Teich explained there was no run off control with the tents that had been used for years, and the crushed stone helped absorb the water.
In regards to the concerns expressed in the letters he had received from abutters for the removal of vegetation by him, Mr. Teich said that the only thing he had removed was an already rotting tree that would have eventually fallen due to its condition. He said that the notion that they cleared a lot of vegetation is false, and that they did not do anything other than that one tree, and the stump is still there.
Mr. Teich showed photos of the preexisting yurt that they removed and placed small wooden benches on the platform so the kids could sit there. In terms of how he got into this position, Mr. Teich said that the cabins are 10’x12’ (Feet), so they did not require a building permit, but he did have a permit pulled when they upgraded the preexisting electricity so that each cabin could have 1 light bulb and 1 outlet for a fan. The electricity that was there was not up to code, and the building inspector signed off on the permit and still did not inform them of any violation of a Shoreland Protection Ordinance. He said when he spoke to the building inspector, the inspector told him that he was unaware that the Town had a Shoreland Protection Ordinance.
Mr. Teich went over some photos with the Board via Zoom. He showed a slide of the shed being built, and mentioned that the size is not that large as you can still see a small tree. He mentioned the boat house was redone, and that there are 4 cabins in total that were constructed with 1 of them being on the other side of the road. Mr. Teich said the old structures had plumbing, and that these have no plumbing. Children are there 2 weeks at a time, and then they have their Family Camping events.
Mr. Teich explained to the Board that he did not do enough homework, but that he wanted to stress that they did not clear out vegetation within the shoreland protection area, that he cares about the lake, and that when he bought the property it was all about the lake. He said he does not let kids or anyone access the lake from the replaced tent platforms, and believed he constructed the cabins in a tasteful way without hurting anything. He is fully aware that people have questions.
Mr. Teich then went through his answers for the 5 Criteria’s that applied to his application:
Criteria 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 used because: “We have many cabins on our camp property. These small shed-like cabins were built in the same spot and in a smaller footprint than platform tents that the previous owners erected.”
Criteria 2: Such approval would not adversely affect the neighborhood, nor otherwise be injurious, obnoxious or offensive because: “Please see above. Additionally, there was already electricity connected to the platform tents and no plumbing or anything else was added during the construction of the new shed-like cabins. They are 144 square feet each and were built with natural wood, so that they blend into the surroundings as best as possible.
Mr. Teich added that the cabins are mostly smaller than 144 square feet.
Criteria 3: The use will not create excessive traffic congestion, noise, or odors in the neighborhood where it is proposed because: It is not increasing capacity of our camp; people already used the platform tents and in fact the new cabins have less capacity than the platform tents did.
Criteria 4: Such approval would consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, after having given due consideration to recommendations received from the Planning Board, because: The State (DES) has now approved these small cabins. As stated above, the replacement of the larger wooden platform tents with these cabins was meant, and we believe succeeded, ina more aesthetically pleasing look to the property. They are 144 square feet each, and are therefore far from imposing structures. There is no damage to the lakefront as those who reside in these cabins are not allowed entry into the lake except at the waterfront area, as always, stated by camp policies.
Mr. Teich added that Fieldstone did their application for the State, and that he did not realize people were under the impression vegetation was removed until he read the abutters letters that came in.
Criteria 5: Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use: These cabins do not have plumbing. Electricity was extended (it was previously there) to allow for one lightbulb in each camp. After this wor was done, certificate of occupancy was provided by Dario Carrera (Antrim Building Inspector) on 6/18/2019.
Vice Chair Kendall asked Mr. Teich if he had anything else to add, he did not. Vice Chair Kendall then asked if there were any questions from the Board.
Mr. Ledgerwood asked if the person who did the grass seeding was Mr. Jaeger, and Mr. Teich said it was. Mr. Teich said that Mr. Jaeger is the facilities manager, and lives at 60 Brimstone Corner Rd on the camp and has been there for 11 years. Mr. Ledgerwood asked if there were 3 trees removed, Mr. Teich said yes, in total 3 were removed, and that the State is having them replace those trees with blueberry bushes. Mr. Ledgerwood told Mr. Teich that he is doing an honorable thing with good intentions, but asked why Mr. Jaeger didn’t realize or say it was too close to the lake when doing the seeding. Mr. Ledgerwood expressed his concerns if the Board allows this application to be passed, the next person might not have such good intentions. Mr. Teich said he understood what Mr. Ledgerwood was saying, and the State is ok with the blueberry bushes as replacements.
Ms. Nelkens said out of the 3 trees, 1 was very rotten on the inside, and that she was unaware of the other 2 trees that were removed. Mr. Teich said that the other 2 trees are not in the Shoreland Protection area, but on the other side of the road. Only the rotten tree was in the specific area.
Vice Chair Kendall asked if there were any before and after photos of the trees prior to them being remove or any photos of the tent platforms from the water. Mr. Teich did not have any photos of either, and said that in 2014 when they purchased the property he took photos of everything except the tent platforms because they were ugly to him.
Vice Chair Kendall inquired about water runoff from the roofs. Mr. Teich said that they are using the crushed stone and woodchips for absorption, and that he worked with Steve Jones to avoid any pooling or puddling. Vice Chair Kendall also asked how many tents were removed. Mr. Teich said there were 3 tent platforms and the yurt platform. Mr. Teich added that the Building Inspector never said anything about Shoreland Protection when he signed off on the electrical permit, which he could not have done without a site visit. Mr. Teich said when he asked Mr. Carrera about the Shoreland Protection after receiving the Notice from the State and then the Town, Mr. Carrera informed him that he was unaware the Town had Shoreland Protection. Mr. Teich expressed he spent a lot of time and money on his after-the-fact application with the State which he did through Fieldstone, and then found out after that was over that now he had to go through the Town as well.
Mr. Ledgerwood asked who informed the applicant that there was an Antrim Ordinance. Mr. Teich said he did not know who reported the violation to the State, but that when the Town learned of it from NHDES, he then got a letter from the Town informing him of the local ordinance.
Vice Chair Kendall asked if there was any abutter present that wished to speak in favor of the application.
The Assistant read a letter from Steve Ullman in favor of the application, and she will attach the full letter to the minutes.
Vice Chair Kendall asked if there was any abutters who wished to speak in opposition to the application.
The Assistant read a letter from Susan Ward in opposition, and then a letter from Joan Gorga that wasn’t necessarily in opposition, but more informative. Both letters will be attached to the minutes as well.
Frank Gorga asked to speak, and said he had 2 comments. He said that 1) the applicant implies smaller is better but has no proof of the size of the tents vs the size of the cabins, and 2) the applicant provides no argument for why the cabins need to be placed there and not somewhere else on the property.
Mr. Teich addressed Mr. Gorga and said that the in terms of the size, the pads of the cabins are larger to cover the run off. In terms of location, Mr. Teich said that they do not have to be there, but saw an opportunity for a very handicap accessible location for campers with physical disabilities because the road is right there. He added that there is obviously the beauty of nature aspect, but that the main reason is handicap accessibility since the other cabins are all on a hill.
Mr. Teich addressed the previously read abutters letters, and said that he had already addressed the concerns in them. He added he felt he didn’t have a great defense, but that this will never happen to them again because it was overlooked. In terms of vegetation, the 4 blueberry bushes is more than what was removed. He mentioned one abutter had said to just pick up and move the cabins to another location, and how moving cabins would be a much bigger deal then that letter makes it out to be.
Mr. Parks added he wanted to clarify how many cabins were built and how many tent platforms there were and where exactly are they located. There was a discussion as other Board members also said it was not very clear. The conclusion was that there were 2 tent platforms where there are now 3 cabins, and the yurt platform remained as is with wooden benches, and another cabin was put on the other side of the road where another tent platform was. There were technically 3 preexisting tent platforms.
Vice Chair Kendall asked if there were any more comments, there was none. She closed the public hearing to public input at 7:58PM. Vice Chair Kendall said that the Board will now deliberate on the criteria for special exception.
Ms. Nelkens and Mr. Ledgerwood both expressed concerns for setting a precedent for future applicants if this were to be granted. Vice Chair Kendall discussed with the applicant the specs of the old tents vs the new cabins, and also verified the tents would be taken down and put in storage when not in season. Ms. Nelkens asked about if the cabins were grandfathered in since they were built where there once were tents. Ms. Ogilvie explained that they can’t be because tents are not a structure, and the concern here is impact. Mr. Teich didn’t have much information on the preexisting tents in terms of use.
The Board discussed the structure of the cabins, and how they are no a storage shed or gazebo but also not a living space because there is no bathroom or cooking facilities. NHDES States that an accessory structure can’t be living space. Mr. Parks wanted to remind the Board that the State has already approved this application as well. Ms. Ogilvie informed the Board that she and Mr. Carrera had discussed this, and the language is subject to different understanding. In both their professional opinions, the cabins are not dwelling units because they are clearly not be used as such, so they decided they were accessory dwellings. Mr. Parks added that essentially they are hard tents, with Vice Chair Kendall adding that essentially they would be a yurt, and if it was a yurt there wouldn’t be so much objection and it’s a similar use. She added that the Town can be more strict then the State, and that this is a special exception and not a variance. The applicant therefore has to meet the criteria, and if so, it is granted.
Vice Chair Kendall went to go over the criteria with the Board. Mr. Ledgerwood asked Mr. Teich about the possibility of moving the cabins, Vice Chair Kendall spoke on the States recommendations.
Mr. Gorga asked to speak again, and it was granted. Mr. Gorga said that the State is not addressing the 20’ foot zone where nothing is allowed to happen, and they are not talking about the same area as impact. Vice Chair Kendall once again asked Mr. Teich what vegetation was removed within that 20’ area, and he said the one rotted tree, no grass was removed.
Ms. Nelkens said she has viewed the property both before and after, and the area is exactly the same as it was before minus the tree.
Ms. Ogilvie wanted to remind the Board to understand that granting the exception is not legally setting a precedent, since it had been mentioned multiple times, and that each application is heard on it’s own merits. Vice Chair Kendall also added that imposing a requirement made by an abutter who is not an expert is also setting a wrong precedent. She then referred to the Conservation Commissioners review, and the last page 3rd paragraph down where Mr. Beblowski goes over their recommendations.
The Board continued to go over the criteria with Ms. Ogilvie. There was further discussion on Conservation Commission’s recommendations, and the overall layout of the other 20 cabins on the property. There was discussion on conditions, and making the Conservation Commissioners recommendations part of the conditions.
Vice Chair Kendall asked Ms. Ogilvie about Criteria #6, and Ms. Ogilvie explained that it didn’t apply to this application.
The Board decided that the application was not proposing a different use, but the same use just the use of a cabin. Mr. Ledgerwood asked Mr. Teich again if the cabins could be moved. Mr. Teich said he has not looked into it, but he honestly doesn’t know the answer. Vice Chair Kendall informed Mr. Ledgerwood the applicant is applying for a special exception, not discussing moving the cabins, and that there is no mention in the criteria of moving the structures.
Criteria 2 had no concerns from abutters other than possibility of injurious to the water. No one had any concerns on Criteria 3, Criteria 4 had recommendations from NHDES and Conservation Commission. This was also addressed in Ms. Ogilvie’s staff report, that the case did not go before the Planning Board but has already gone through NHDES. There was also discussion on how the Fire Chief saw no issues, as well as the Road Agent.
Ms. Nelkens initiated a discussion on how, in her opinion, if the applicant had come there 1st it would not have been granted. Ms. Ogilvie and Vice Chair Kendall said that it is unknown if it would have been granted, as they would have had to go through the criteria for the special exception. Mr. Gorga added that NHDES would never have allowed it as well. Vice Chair Kendall reminded everyone that the State did approve it after-the-fact.
Criteria 5, It is adequate for someone to sleep in, and the bathroom facilities are walking distance. Mr. Teich added that the kids stay up to 3 weeks at a time, 50% of the summer.
Vice Chair Kendall clarified with Ms. Ogilvie to not vote on each criteria one at a time, but to vote as a whole. The Board discussed imposing the condition from the Antrim Conservation Commission, and then have the building inspector inforce it. Ms. Ogilvie said that the Board can require the applicant work with the Conservation Commission, but that the Commission has no approval authority.
Motion: Mr. Parks made a motion to approve the special exception with the conditions as stated in the letter by NHDES dated February 24th, 2020, and conditions in the Conservation Commissions report dated July 21st, 2020 on the last page, 3rd paragraph down, Ms. Nelkens second the motion.
Discussion: There was no further discussion.
Vote: Ms. Nelkens, “Aye”, Mr. Ledgerwood, “No”, Mr. Parks, “Aye”, and Ms. Kendall, “Aye.”
The motion passed 3/1 the special exception was GRANTED
II. Approve/Amend Minutes from 7/9/2020
Due to the time, the Board decided to hold off on amending minutes until their next meeting on July 28th.
Meeting Adjourned: 8:49 PM
Respectfully Submitted,
Ashley Brudnick-Destromp
Assistant to Land Use Boards