ZBA Meeting Scheduled

Draft Minutes of ZBA Meeting Aug 15, 2019

Call to order by Jason Kovarik at 7:30

Pledge of Allegiance

Roll Call: Members present: Jason Kovarik, Franz Hause, Bud Record, Herb Healy

In attendance: Doug Summerton (see below), Harry Power. Also Mr. Brian Pratt and son Jared Pratt attended as applicants (see below).

Old Business:

There was no expense budget report to review at this meeting.

Hearings: There was nothing on schedule.

Jason reviewed correspondence with Attorney Matt Serge

Jason sent Matt Qs re setbacks and Stoddard’s CPO’s pertaining to the application from Pratt. Specifically asked re installed slab and what the CPO says. Asked can we grant a variance if too close.

Jason posed the following question to Matt:

“My question is where would the edge of the ROW be located? and how can I find out where it is?

Is it 25 feet from edge of ROW plus 25' ?”

Would we be able to grant a variance for a ROW infringement if he is in fact too close?

Matt’s response to my question was this “Hi again. You pose an interesting question. Typically a setback is measured from a property line, so using the edge of a ROW can be tricky. Often one needs to locate the original road layout to fully understand the road width.

You can certainly grant a variance from the setback requirement, and I think 30’ from the property line should be sufficient. I have trouble reading the regulation to require 25’ plus 25’.”

The Board then engaged with the Pratts.

Pratt’s are applicants for a variance for a garage to be built on King’s Highway. Copies of the application were provided to the Members. The request for variance pertains to a concrete slab for the garage that has been installed and subsequently found to be too close to the King’s Highway Right-of-Way.

Board advised that it first needs to determine where RoW is; is it on property?

Board requested the Pratt’s go to Town Offices and get a copy of the map referenced in the deed of the property, to determine where RoW is. Suggested the Pratt’s talk to Pat Putnam. It

was suggested that the Registry of Deeds in Keene may also have map. Jason requested that the Pratt’s show us the map at the time of the site visit (see next).

Harry Power had been to the site, based on a concern of one or more homeowners in Hidden Lake Development re the project. Harry commented he is certain it’s a 50 ft wide RoW. Harry also commented he thought it was a case of an honest mistake.

The Board scheduled the site visit for Mon, 19th Aug, at 7:00 PM at property—1170 Kings Hwy.

Jason reviewed further correspondence with Matt Serge re treatment of Bed & Breakfast facilities in Stoddard. One aspect of the questions pertained to questions asked at the last ZBA meeting by resident Susan Francis of Stoddard who is selling her residence and sought information re future use of the house as a B&B by potential buyers.

Jason posed the following questions to Matt:

“So my questions to you are:

1) Is a B&B a "home business"?

2) Are there state regulations that we need to follow since our CPO is silent on the issue?

3) If we discover there is a relatively new (opened within the last 12 months) B&B currently in operation (Not ab air B&B either...that's a whole other ball of wax) that did not come to us for a variance, what do we do (if anything)?”

Matts response was:

“ I tend to see a B&B like a hotel or an inn, and that it is commercial operation. Typically a home occupation (business) is incidental to the primary residential use, whereas he primary use for a B&B is room rentals and serving breakfast.

I suppose some zoning ordinances may specifically regulate a B&B as a home occupation, but Stoddard does not do so (an amendment could be proposed some time in be future). So, given the absence of specific regulation in the CPO, I would treat the use as commercial.

There are no state regulations governing zoning / permitting of B&Bs as far as I know. There are other regulations governing food and meals tax etc., but that’s a different issue.”

A second aspect of the correspondence with Matt Serge pertained to an existing house in Stoddard operating as a B&B in a residential area absent any approval by the ZBA. Attorney Serge advised that based on the information provided to him, the B&B should have appeared before the ZBA.

The Board was in agreement that a variance should have been requested by the existing B&B. The Board recognized its limited purview does not include enforcement. Board agreed that Jason should forward e-mail from Attorney Serge to Mr. Coffee re existing house operating as B&B, with request to pass info from Attorney Serge to the Board of Selectmen as appropriate.

The Board then had a short, general discussion pertaining to timing of variances: (1) expiration of a granted variance; and (2) pertaining to expirations of variances in instances where a variance (e.g., for usage) was previously granted but usage had ceased. Jason referred to 1 yr on any variance that is not being used. Board agreed this was a topic for further discussion and understanding.

Board reviewed draft minutes of July Meeting, and made several minor revisions to reflect the nature of the inquiry by resident Susan Francis (see above) and fact that members were responding as individuals with perspectives. Minutes were revised and then approved.

New business:

Doug Summerton was welcomed back to Board; he has been re-affirmed by the Selectmen but needs to be sworn in.

The Board then had further discussion of the Pratt project (see above). The history is that the slab was poured before a building permit was executed. Further that it was Harry Power responding to area homeowners’ concerns that led applicants to file for the variance.

The Board discussed that financial hardship is not a reason for a variance per letter of law. The site visit is important to determine if there are considerations that prevent moving the slab; e.g., topography issues such as ravines, ledges, etc. The Board needs to see the site as next step and understand the reasons that the Pratt’s think a variance should be issued.

The Board had a brief discussion re treatment of multi-family vs ADUs and why exception is needed for ADU but no exception or variance is needed for a multi-family in a residential area, per the Town CPO. Board decided this as another area for further understanding.

Meeting adjourned w motion by Franze, seconded by Bud, and unanimously approved.

Respectfully submitted by Herb Healy, acting secretary for meeting