1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 Minutes of the Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting of April 1, 01 A meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on April 1, 01 in the Knightly Meeting Room of the Municipal Office Building, Geremonty Drive, Salem, NH PRESENT: Chairman Gary Azarian; Vice-Chairman Steve Diantgikis; Robert Uttley; Arthur Nobrega; and Ross Moldoff, Planning Director. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at :00 p.m. Chairman Azarian introduced the board members and explained how the meeting will proceed. The ZBA is a quasijudicial board, and all testimony should be truthful and accurate. Per the Statute, all the board members have visited all the sites. Petitions 1,, and, will not be heard tonight. REVIEW OF MINUTES 1.) March, 01 Regular Meeting MOTION by Mr. Diantgikis to approve the minutes as printed. SECOND by Mr. Nobrega. VOTE ON MOTION: - 0 UNANIMOUS PETITION # Map 0, Lot Richard and Carol Silva hereby request a Variance from Article, Sections :.1 and :..1, and ask that said terms of the Zoning Ordinance be waived to construct a single family, year-round dwelling on a, sq. ft. lot, and setbacks from the high water mark of a lake to a proposed deck of. ft. and. ft. to the primary structure, where lot size of,00 sq. ft. by soils and setback of 0 ft. to high water mark is required in the Recreational District. Property Location: 1 Shore Drive Abutters: There were no abutters present. Kurt Meisner, Meisner Brem Corporation, is here representing Mr. Richard Silva. We have a petition to allow a newly constructed year round residence at 1 Shore Drive. The original subdivision plan was created in the 10's. He showed the old lot line and original lot. There was previously a residence on the property that was removed in 00. In 00, we prepared a subdivision plan to join two parts of the property creating the lot as it is now. The septic system was approved by NHDES. On this entire lot, there is only one location where the leachfield can go. We are looking for a variance for the distance to the lake. The building will be. feet, and the proposed deck is at. feet. There is a new drilled Town of Salem, NH Page 1 of 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 artesian well out towards the lake section. We have a shoreland protection permit which was approved. As part of that permit, we show plantings and trees along the shoreline near the bumpout area, and there is proposed infiltration drip trenches. We meet the State's requirements. He then read through the criteria. PUBLIC INTEREST: The lot was previously occupied by a year-round home that was demolished in 00 and had a setback to the lake of ft. The new dwelling will be further away from the lake by. feet and have a new septic system meeting current Town Health Code and NHDES standards. Allowing the lot to be re-developed will increase taxable value of property for the Town. SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE: Proposed use is an allowed use for this district. House location is restricted by septic system which MUST be +feet away from lake. There is no alternative for house location without the granting of a variance for setback to lake. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE: Granting the variance would allow the applicant to utilize their property to its fullest extent. A Town & State approved septic system will be installed. Erosion controls (trenches, plantings) per attached shoreland permit will be installed thus protecting water quality of lake. DIMINUTION: Installing a new septic system on lot will be an improvement over current situation thereby greatly increasing the value of the property and neighborhood. The new dwelling will be of equal or greater value of other property in the neighborhood. HARDSHIP: Special Conditions: Subdivision was originally created in 1 (see attached deed & subdivision plan) prior to adoption of the ordinance. A. i.) Denial of the variance does not result in any gain for the town. The proposed use is common to the area (see attached tax map). The new septic design will protect the groundwater. ii.) Lot will be used in same manner as immediately adjacent lots. Dwelling has similar setbacks to property lines as immediately adjacent lots (see attached tax map). The property has been historically used in the same manner, i.e. residentially. Previous dwelling was demolished in 00. B. The configuration of the lot allows for a septic system in only the approved location therefore limiting the building location. Chairman Azarian asked, you have a new septic system and well, and approved shoreland waiver? And these lots have been legally consolidated? Mr. Meisner said that's correct. Mr. Diantgikis asked, the new dwelling is feet further back than the prior dwelling? Mr. Meisner said that's correct Town of Salem, NH Page of 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 Mr. Nobrega asked, where is the new well location? Mr. Meisner showed the location on the plan. Chairman Azarian asked if there were any abutters to speak in favor of this petition. There were none. He asked if there were any to speak in opposition. There were none. He then closed petition #. Mr. Diantgikis explained that the applicant has met all five criteria. It's improving the condition. MOTION by Mr. Diantgikis to grant. SECOND by Mr. Uttley. Mr. Uttley feels the criteria have been met. Chairman Azarian agreed. There is a new septic and well. They have the shoreland waiver and its a consolidated lot. He believes that reasonable relief has been asked for. Mr. Nobrega In favor Mr. Uttley In favor Mr. Diantgikis In favor Chairman Azarian In favor VOTE: 0 MOTION PASSES. PETITION # GRANTED. PETITION # Map, Lot 0 Daniel A. Weldon hereby requests a Variance from Article, Section :1..1, and asks that said terms of the Zoning Ordinance be waived to permit a lot line adjustment which reduces the size of a acre lot to 1 acre with an existing dwelling and 1 ft. of frontage, where ft. of frontage is required in the Residential District. Property Location: 0 Pleasant Street Abutters: There were no abutters present. Kurt Meisner, Meisner Brem Corporation, is proposing a lot line adjustment. The property now has 1 feet of frontage on Pleasant Street. The lot line creates a flag shape property. We are proposing to take a portion of this property to the back, to transfer that section of land onto another parcel. One parcel will be larger and one will remain at one acre. There is an existing bedroom dwelling with municipal water and onsite septic system. The house was constructed in the 10's. The purpose of the variance is that we are taking a parcel that has a limited frontage and making it smaller. It still exceeds the minimum requirements for area, but it will have the same frontage as it has now. Regarding it being in nonconformance, it will still meet the lot area. Mr. Diantgikis asked, are you talking about by soils? Mr. Meisner said yes. He then read through the criteria. Town of Salem, NH Page of 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 PUBLIC INTEREST: The lot and dwelling currently exist and there is no new construction planned on this lot. The area of the lot after adjustment exceeds the required soils based lot size by 0 sq. ft. SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE: House lot will have enough area, after subdivision, to comply with minimum lot size by soil type requirement. House has municipal water supply and private on-site septic system requiring minimum lot size of,00 sq. ft. (,0 sq. ft. provided). We have NHDES subdivision approval on this. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE: Parcel A will be combined with adjacent lot where it will be effectively used in a + development. Existing horse barn and riding ring on Lot -1 will be removed. There is no new development of this parcel proposed. DIMINUTION: Use is intended as single family home, which is a permitted use for this district. Not proposing any expansion of existing house. House was built in 1 which is approximately the same time when other houses in the neighborhood were built. HARDSHIP: Special Conditions: Lot -0 is a pre-existing lot of record created prior to the adoption of the ordinance (see attached 1 subdivision plan). Lot -1 was created from an approved subdivision in 1 (see attached recorded plan). Subdivision will not result in any reduction of existing non-conforming frontage. A. i.) Proposed lot will have a near adjacency in lot size as other lots in the neighborhood (see tax map). The frontage and access exists and will not change. ii.) Existing dwelling meets or exceeds all other local regulations. No further variances for building setback will be required. Lot will have subdivision approval from NH- DES-SSB. B. The owner wishes to subdivide his property in exactly the same manner as other residential lots in neighborhood. No other reasonable and feasible method can achieve the same benefit of granting the variance. Denial of variance will not result in any appreciable gain for the town. Chairman Azarian asked, are you going to put homes there in the future? What will the future development be? Mr. Meisner said there is a proposal in front of the Planning Board now for a senior housing project. Chairman Azarian asked if the Planning Board is looking for the lot line to be that way. Mr. Moldoff said no, the Planning Board isn't looking for the lot line to be like that, the applicant will need a waiver from the subdivision regulations because we want square or rectangular lots. Chairman Azarian asked if there were any abutters to speak in favor of this petition. There were none. He asked if there were any to speak in opposition. There were none. He then closed petition #. Town of Salem, NH Page of 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 Chairman Azarian said, when he originally saw this petition, he was wondering why they wanted to do this. Now he understands the reasoning. They will need a waiver for the lot line adjustment. Mr. Diantgikis feels that this meets the intent of zoning. There is still adequate room between houses. The purpose of the setbacks is to keep the houses from encroaching on each other. It's not an undersized lot. The applicant is seeking relief from the front lot line only. He doesn't see a problem with it. MOTION by Mr. Uttley to grant. Mr. Uttley said it's a minimal request. SECOND for discussion by Mr. Diantgikis. Mr. Nobrega was concerned about frontage, but it won't change and the lot is big enough. Mr. Uttley In favor Mr. Diantgikis In favor Mr. Nobrega In favor Chairman Azarian In favor VOTE: 0 MOTION PASSES. PETITION # GRANTED. Chairman Azarian agreed that the applicant has met the five criteria, and he doesn't believe this will encroach on neighbors. PETITION # - Map, Lot 1 Louise Boucchiere hereby requests a Variance from Article, Sections :.1, and :..1, and asks that said terms of the Zoning Ordinance be waived to convert a seasonal cottage to a year-round dwelling, add a covered porch to front, addition to side, and deck to rear of building, on a lot with a lot size of 1,0 sq. ft., and frontage of 0 ft., where lot size of,00 sq. ft. by soils and frontage of 0 ft. is required in the Recreational District. Property Location: Shore Drive Abutters: There were no abutters present. Kurt Meisner from Meisner Brem Corporation, is representing Louise Boucchiere. We have an application for a variance to convert a seasonal cottage to a year round dwelling. The lot in question was created prior to 1. In 1 they added a section of property to the lot, creating the lot as we see it now. He showed the location of the existing building, where we show a proposed story construction of a house on top of the existing foundation. And we are proposing a covered porch in front, a proposed deck in back, and a proposed addition to the north side of the dwelling. All of the proposed construction is within the requirements of the building setbacks and the lot as it exists from 1. We have a State approved septic system, and we have a NH shoreline protection permit. Everything on the plan was approved by NHDES. He then read through the criteria. Town of Salem, NH Page of 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 PUBLIC INTEREST: Granting variance for conversion and expansion will increase taxable value of the property for the town. Town will benefit from increased development on the lot without degrading water quality of lake. The new house will have a State approved septic system. SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE: Proposed use is an allowed use for this district. No variances for setbacks to property lines or lake are required. Water quality of lake will be protected by installation of new Town & State approved septic system. All activity on lot shall be in accordance with attached Shoreland permit. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE: Granting the variance would allow the applicant to utilize her property to its fullest extent. Expansion of dwelling does not involve an increase of bedroom or sewage flow. House is limited to bedrooms per attached State approved septic design. DIMINUTION: Expansion of dwelling will greatly enhance the value of the property thereby increasing the value of the neighborhood. Expanded dwelling will be of equal or greater value than surrounding properties. Special Conditions: Subdivision was originally created in 1 (see attached deed & subdivision plan) and house was constructed in 1 (see attached tax card) prior to adoption of the ordinance. A. i.) Denial of the variance does not result in any gain for the town. The proposed use is common to the area (see attached tax map). The new septic design will protect the groundwater. The lot currently has an outdated building on it that will be renovated to current standards. ii.) Lot will be used in the same manner as immediately adjacent lots. Dwelling has similar setbacks to property lines as immediately adjacent lots (see attached tax map). The property has been historically used in the same manner, i.e. residentially. Existing shed on property is not to be used as a residence per variance granted in April, 000. Electric service to said shed has been removed. B. It was a buildable lot prior to the adoption of the current ordinance which regulates lot size, frontage and building setbacks. Existing dwelling was constructed in 1. Chairman Azarian asked, we have an approved septic design and approved shoreland protection permit, and the existing well is to be abandoned and the new well will be further away from the neighbor's well? Mr. Meisner said that's correct. Mr. Diantgikis asked, is that a covered porch? Mr. Meisner said yes. Mr. Moldoff said we need some clarification. The shoreland permit says they are adding an addition, deck and covered porch to an existing single family dwelling. The septic plan shows an existing bedroom dwelling. The application that was submitted says they will convert an existing seasonal dwelling to year round use. The plot plan says proposed two story house on existing foundation. So we'll have to bring all those together. The testimony tonight was clear, they will raise the dwelling and build a new house. Those other things Town of Salem, NH Page of 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 we'll get clarified, and we can do that at the building permit. He just wants to make sure you know. Chairman Azarian said he was going to stipulate that they have to meet all the requirements set forth by the Building and Engineering Departments. Chairman Azarian asked if there were any abutters to speak in favor of this petition. There were none. He asked if there were any to speak in opposition. There were none. He then closed petition #. Mr. Diantgikis said this is a reasonable request. They are changing something from a nonconforming use to a conforming use and improving the situation. The applicant has met all five criteria. MOTION by Mr. Diantgikis to grant with the stipulation that they meet all the requirements as set forth by the Building and Engineering Departments. SECOND by Mr. Uttley. Chairman Azarian agrees that all five criteria have been met. This is an opportunity to upgrade a parcel on Arlington Pond. Mr. Diantgikis In favor Mr. Uttley In favor Mr. Nobrega In favor Chairman Azarian In favor VOTE: 0 MOTION PASSES. PETITION # GRANTED WITH STIPULATION. PETITION # Map 1, Lot 1 Realty, LLC hereby requests a Variance from Article, Section 0-:..1, to permit construction of a freestanding sign with electronic readerboard, where electronic readerboards are prohibited in the Commercial-Industrial B District. Property Location: 0 North Broadway Mr. Jordan agreed to let the abutters list be entered into the record as printed. Abutters: There were no abutters present. David Jordan, engineer/land surveyor with MHF Design, is here on behalf of 1 Realty. Also here is the owner and operator, Chris Mastriano. The proposal is a request to construct a freestanding sign, a portion of which will have LED for changeable copy. The location of the sign is on the plan. It's in the upper left corner, and is at the intersection of Taylor Street and North Broadway. The location of the sign complies with the setback requirements, and the size and height comply with the zoning requirements. We're here for the LED display portion of the sign. We are in the Commercial Industrial B District. The maximum size for a freestanding sign is 0 square feet. Freestanding signs in commercial districts are allowed to have changeable copy. Up to twenty percent of the face can be dedicated changeable copy, but it cannot be electronic. The sign that is proposed is square feet. And based on that size, just under 0 square feet can be dedicated to changeable copy. The Town of Salem, NH Page of 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 proposed LED panel is only 1 high x wide, and just under square feet in size. The electronic changeable copy will be yellow letters with a black background. It makes up about % of the face of the sign. We're here because Section :. deals with prohibited signs and materials. He read Section 1 of that part of the ordinance. The applicant is proposing to limit the changing of the message portion of the sign, so that the messages will only change no more frequently than once every two minutes. It won't be animated, flashing, scrolling, or rolling. It's static messages within the panel. Prior to 00, the last sentence of Section 1 that he just read, where it says electronic readerboards and electronic changeable copy signs are prohibited, it went on to say except for time and temperature messages. In August of 00, through an appeal of an administrative decision, New Hampshire Superior Court found that the last sentence was invalid, but it left intact the first part. He read from that decision. In 00 the Salem zoning ordinance was amended and basically struck the sentence except time temperature messages. Our opinion is that, that is not what the Superior Court decision had intended. Regarding this application, it's our opinion that this sign complies with the purpose of the sign ordinance, specifically the first section of the sign ordinance, which he read. We believe the sign is aesthetically appealing and will fit in with the surrounding area and does promote information and advertising in an orderly, effective and safe manner. It will only change once every two minutes so it won't be distracting or cause a hazard to drivers. No basis exists to suggest that a sign with changeable copy, that is changed manually, is safer or more aesthetically pleasing, than one that is changed electronically. He argued that in some instances, electronic ones are more aesthetically pleasing. He drove down Route and counted 1 electronic signs, many of which are flashing or scrolling. Most of those predate zoning. But the point is that electronic signs are part of the Route corridor. People are accustomed to seeing those. We suggest that an electronic readerboard with a static message is something they are accustomed to and it won't be distracting. Those 1 signs he counted didn't include the gas stations. He finds it ironic that in May 01, the Salem Building Department issued a permit for a new sign for the Salem Fire Department, which includes electronic readerboard. The LED portion makes up about % of the sign. At Salem High School, the LED panel makes up about 0% of the sign, and there are messages displayed in about a minute. He then read through the criteria. PUBLIC INTEREST: The Salem Zoning Ordinance does allow signs to have changeable copy provided that it not exceed 0% of the sign. Providing an LED display will allow the changing of messages from inside the building, which provides safety to both employees and passerby. The applicant is proposing to limit the changing of messages to no less than once every two minutes. Other electronic readerboard and electronic changeable copy signs already exist along both North and South Broadway, many of which have scrolling and/or flashing messages, without apparent harm to the safety or welfare of the community. SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE: The purpose of Section : is to regulate the erection of signs for the purpose of providing information and advertising in an orderly, effective and safe manner. That section goes on to say restrictions on type, location and size of signs protect the public from hazardous and distracting displays. The purpose of the proposed LED display is to advertise and provide information to promote this business. The LED display is less than square feet in size, makes up just % of the sign and will be visually appealing. Since the messages will be displayed for a minimum of two minutes each the Town of Salem, NH Page of 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 sign will be neither hazardous nor distracting and therefore is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE: The proposed sign is more nearly conforming compared with other commercial signs with electronic displays in the area and will allow the applicant to enjoy the benefit of being able to advertise and promote his business in a manner currently enjoyed by many other business owners along Route. Denial of this variance to allow a LED message board at this location would not result in any appreciable gain to the public and would be an injustice to the applicant. DIMINUTION: There are numerous electronic signs along both North and South Broadway that currently operate without apparently diminishing the value of surrounding properties. All adjacent land uses along this section of North Broadway are commercial. HARDSHIP: Special Conditions: This business is located in a highly developed section of North Broadway where there are numerous businesses on relatively small lots, resulting in a large number of signs along Route. The proposed LED display is intended to improve this business' visibility and awareness to the passerby. In addition, the nature of the business, vehicle sales with its ever changing inventory and promotions, lends itself to the need to change messages in order to continually attract customers. A. i.) The applicant's proposal will not result in a hazardous or distracting display. Changeable copy on a sign is allowed by the zoning ordinance. LED technology provides an orderly, safe and effective way to change messages on a sign, consistent with the intent of the ordinance. ii.) Compared to non-electronic changeable copy sign panels, the proposed LED display panel results in a cleaner, more attractive sign that will enhance this business and the surrounding area. Chairman Azarian said there is a letter in the packet. It cited that there was a fatality there a few years ago and the concern that putting an electronic readerboard sign may cause distractions. Mr. Moldoff said there is a memo from the Safety Officer at the Salem Police Department, and he thought the sign was a bad idea. This location has a lot of fast moving traffic on North Broadway. The Safety Officer thought it would be a hazard to traffic safety. These signs are meant to distract you and grab your attention. In 00, the residents voted to prohibit these signs. They did it in consultation with the town attorney in response to the 00 court case. The vote to prohibit them was done on the advice of town counsel. There are about 1 of these signs in town and there are about 00 retail properties. Those 1 signs came in prior to the prohibition. It's one thing to do a static price change sign, but it's different to have an electronic sign with different messages. It's difficult to enforce the time restriction. Regarding the Fire Department and School District, the Town and School District are exempt from town zoning ordinances, so the Building Department was required to issue those signs. It would have been nice if the town complied with their own Town of Salem, NH Page of 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 ordinances, and he had encouraged them to do that, but it wasn't something the Board of Selectmen or School Board wanted to follow. Chairman Azarian asked, of the ones that the ZBA has granted, are most of those static? Mr. Moldoff said yes. Also, there is nothing to distinguish this property from any other properties in the area. So if this is granted, you will see a lot of these coming in. Mr. Diantgikis asked, the Superior Court says content can't be restricted? Mr. Jordan said yes. Prior to 00, there was an exception to electronic signs if it was displaying only temperature and time. And the Superior Court said that was a restriction on free speech if you allow time and temperature, a noncommercial message, but disallowed or prohibited commercial messages. They said it was an unfair restriction to free speech. They were talking about a decision of an administrative official to deny the issuance of a permit to have an electronic sign with more than just time and temperature on it. He read the section again. It's our opinion that the change in 00 is still too broad. We fail to see the rationale between being able to manually change the sign, and changing it electronically, which we feel is safer and more orderly. Chairman Azarian agrees that it's more efficient to change it electronically. The issue is that this is changeable copy, not static. Does the applicant have any idea of what the copy will read? Chris Mastriano, 1 Realty, Mastriano Motors, will be advertising automobiles, help wanted, and time and temperature. Anything that will enhance his business at that time. There is no clearcut advertising he will do, that's why he'd like to have the readerboard. Mr. Diantgikis asked, there will be no animation, it will just be something that is on there for a couple minutes? Mr. Mastriano said that's correct. His purpose is not to have it scrolling and distracting. The purpose is to enhance the business and put messages to help the community and also what he is doing at the dealership. Chairman Azarian asked, if you didn't have an electronic readerboard sign, what would your alternative be for advertising? Would you put signs in windows? Mr. Mastriano said he is trying to keep the lot clean and fresh looking. He doesn't want to mark up all his windows and that's one reason he wants the readerboard. Mr. Moldoff argued that this is a business where the products are on display and visible to everyone traveling up the road. The state of the law has changed. The City of Concord banned all electronic signs. That was upheld by the NH Supreme Court. There is an approval for that complete ban in the City of Concord. Mr. Mastriano said that financing is a big part of the automobile industry. He would like to let the community know the rates. It's a big benefit to have that on the board. You can't see rates and mileage from the road. Mr. Diantgikis mentioned the lighting on the sign. Do we have an idea of how bright that readerboard sign will be, especially in the evening? Mr. Mastriano doesn't know the answer, it's a regular readerboard sign. Mr. Diantgikis asked, would that be a consideration to dim the light in the evening? Chairman Azarian asked, will it be on /, days a year, or will it go off? Mr. Mastriano said he can shut it off when the lights go off at night. Mr. Jordan said the sign can go off. We can entertain the idea to tone down the LED display. Mr. Mastriano just wants to get the message out there about the business. We are Town of Salem, NH Page of 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 sensitive to the enforcement issue, but this board has granted variances with stipulations. Enforcement is required on some of these. This applicant has suggested a two minute display time. There are a couple other electronic boards on Route that have static messages. We're just looking for equal relief that other businesses on Route enjoy. Mr. Diantgikis asked, if you had the sign, can we prohibit someone from having a sign with time and temperature? Mr. Moldoff said no, that's what the court said. We can't limit it to just time and temperature because it's discriminating. He is allowed to have time and temperature. Mr. Diantgikis said the point is the distraction, and that is what we're concerned about. If they have a display that changes every couple of minutes, he doesn't see the difference between having the time and temperature, and having a display on things related to the business. Mr. Jordan also mentioned that the message won't be animated. Chairman Azarian asked if there were any abutters to speak in favor of this petition. There were none. He asked if there were any to speak in opposition. There were none. He then closed petition #. We heard testimony from the engineer, the petitioner and the town. We have seen the site and read the ordinance. There is case law on some of this, and there is the five criteria. This is a non scrolling sign. It's difficult to stipulate how often to have it change. Mr. Nobrega said the town voted that they didn't want these signs, and it's not a permitted use in the area. The Safety Officer thinks it's a safety issue. So it fails on the criteria of contrary to public interest. Mr. Uttley agreed. The Safety Officer doesn't want it and we have a letter from a concerned citizen that doesn't want it. The ordinance says you can't have it. Mr. Diantgikis disagrees. He thinks the lifeblood of these businesses on Route is signage. He can't distinguish the difference between having a sign with temperature and time, and yet we're going to limit signage by saying a business owner can't display what he has to offer our community. He could have a manually changing sign. People can get hurt doing that also. They have put up a beautiful business. If we ask him to do two minutes or put any stipulations, he thinks the applicant would comply. Chairman Azarian said these are all good points. Signage is the life of the business. He discussed the criteria. In his opinion it won't be contrary to public interest. It will allow him reasonable use of a business to promote his product. However, the spirit of the ordinance is not observed because zoning prohibits this type of signage. Regarding substantial justice, he doesn't think it will do substantial justice because it goes against the spirit of the ordinance. Will it diminish surrounding values? No. He believes it meets that criteria, because all the property in that area is commercial. But special conditions don't exist that distinguish it from other properties because all of the properties are commercial and are all allowed signage. Regarding fair and substantial relationship, it does exist because we do not allow signs. The use is a reasonable use because it would allow a business to put signage up. Can the property be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance? Yes it can. And really we don't need a variance. So it meets on some criteria, it fails on others. There are safety concerns. MOTION by Mr. Nobrega to deny. Town of Salem, NH Page of 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 Mr. Nobrega feels it hasn't met all criteria. SECOND by Mr. Uttley. Mr. Nobrega In favor Mr. Uttley In favor Mr. Diantgikis Opposed Chairman Azarian In favor VOTE: 1 MOTION PASSES. PETITION # DENIED. PETITION # Map 1, Lot Paul Fauvel hereby requests a Variance from Article, Section 0-:..1, to permit the construction of a deck to within 0 ft. of the high water mark of Shadow Lake, where 0 ft. is required in the Recreational District. Property Location: Shadow Lake Road Abutters: There were no abutters present. Paul Fauvel, owner, is looking to put a deck on the property along the lake and return it back to the set of stairs that are existing. Underneath the proposed deck is a concrete retaining wall. We've already filed with shoreland and it was approved providing we don't extend past the retaining wall. The reason we are here is that we don't meet the setbacks. He then read through the criteria. PUBLIC INTEREST: The property has an existing dwelling that is within the 0 foot setback from Shadow Lake. No impact on surrounding area. SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE: Structure is existing and granting the variance will allow deck to be built above existing concrete retaining wall. It will also allow access to the sliders on the lake side of building. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE: Variance will allow construction of deck and will improve the property, by allowing access to the sliders. DIMINUTION: Deck will improve property and is similar to other homes in the area. HARDSHIP: Special Conditions: Site has existing home within the 0 feet high water mark. Setbacks from Shadow Lake require variance to install deck. A. i.) Property is located within the 0 foot setback from Shadow Lake. Deck would be constructed above existing concrete retaining wall and not to extend over lake. Town of Salem, NH Page 1 of 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 ii.) Property has existing structure within the 0 foot setback of Shadow Lake with no additional land available to make this conforming. Proposed setbacks are similar to existing properties in area. Mr. Fauvel said there are a few homes on lake that have decks that extend over the water. We're not looking to extend over the water, just over the retaining wall and to be able to use the sliders. Chairman Azarian asked, shoreland will grant you a waiver as long as you're not over the water? Mr. Fauvel said yes. Mr. Nobrega asked, do you need a permit from wetlands? And also do you need a permit for shoreland to repair the wall? Mr. Fauvel said he spoke with Craig Day at shoreland. We were actively repairing the wall that collapsed into the lake. It was only four feet of land from the house to the lake. He called the State at that time and asked if there was a permit required to repair the wall. They said, as long as there is beach sand in front of the wall, there is no permit needed to repair the wall. He told them how close the house was to the water. Mr. Moldoff explained that wetlands would require a permit for the retaining wall. Shoreland would be involved with the patio that was built. He will check with wetlands, and if needed, they will have to go through that as part of the permitting process with the town before he builds a deck. You can make that a stipulation. Mr. Fauvel said he mentioned that to Craig Day, and he said the plan overall was accepted. Chairman Azarian asked if there were any abutters to speak in favor of this petition. There were none. He asked if there were any to speak in opposition. There were none. He then closed petition #. MOTION by Mr. Nobrega to grant with the stipulation that the Building Department check to make sure that the retaining wall and any other work there either meets Conservation Commission approval or shoreland protection approval. SECOND by Mr. Uttley. Mr. Uttley feels that all the criteria have been met. Mr. Diantgikis In favor Mr. Uttley In favor Mr. Nobrega In favor Chairman Azarian In favor VOTE: 0 MOTION PASSES. PETITION # GRANTED WITH STIPULATION. Chairman Azarian said we will wait on election of officers until next month. Mr. Moldoff said there is a planning and zoning conference. There is money for training in the budget. If anyone is interested, call Mr. Moldoff. MOTION TO ADJOURN by Mr. Diantgikis. Second by Mr. Nobrega. MEMBERS IN FAVOR: All were in favor. Town of Salem, NH Page 1 of 1
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 1, 01 The meeting adjourned at : p.m. Minutes by: Susan Strugnell Approved: Zoning Board of Adjustment Date: May, 01 Town of Salem, NH Page 1 of 1