DUBLIN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
On September 10, 2009 the Dublin Board of Adjustment met at Town Hall to continue hearing an appeal for a Special Exception (to operate a beauty salon) and Area Variance (to operate a Beauty Salon and Artisan Shop) from Mike and Robin Clifford at their property at 1533 Main Street, Dublin, NH.((Map 8, Lot 24). On August 26, 2009, at the start of the hearing, the Board heard all relevant public testimony and received and reviewed relevant letters and E-mails concerning the application, and continued the meeting to September 10, 2009 to allow the Board to enter into deliberations and reach a conclusion. Inasmuch as the portion of the hearing relative to receipt of public testimony was completed on August 26, 2009, the continuation of the hearing on September 10, 2009 was limited to deliberations and no further public
imput was allowed.
Attending for the Board of Adjustment on Sept. 10, 2009:
Joe Cavanaugh (Chairman)
Dan French
Susan Phillips-Hungerford
Will Oja (Alternate)
Jim Sovik
In addition, Mary-Liz Lewis, a regular Board member, was in attendance and available to serve. However, since she was not present at the August 26, 2009 hearing, Chairman Cavanaugh elected to retain the Board Composition shown above as those individuals had participated in both the Site Visit and the August 26, 2009 session.
Town Counsel, represented by David Tower, was present and available to answer questions and provide advice to the Board.
The continuation of the hearing was called to order by Chairman Cavanaugh at 7:00 PM, September 10, 2009.
The Draft Minutes of the August 26, 2009 hearing were reviewed and approved on a unanimous vote.
Joe presented a written meeting format agenda to be followed and various standard documents which were to be used by the Board for this and future hearings, including “findings of facts” and “approval/denial” forms. The zoning-mandated conditions which must be met when considering both special exceptions and variances were also included to facilitate the Board’s deliberations, as were excerpts from the current Board of Adjustment handbook which clarified, via case law, how recent court decisions impacted the zoning conditions.
-2-
The Special Exception to operate the Beauty Salon was first considered, and each zoning-mandated condition was read aloud and made available for Board comment. Discussions concerning each condition were invited, and comments generally reinforced that the conditions were met. Condition # 5 regarding hazardous waste disposal was discussed and the possibility of requiring compliance reports on a regular basis was considered, but ultimately dropped on the basis that the State periodically and regularly moniters this activity as does the Dublin Code Enforcement Officer.
Regarding Condition #8, it was noted that the Planning Board supported the application.
Discussion relating to hours of operation and scope of Salon activity were discussed. It was determined that it was advisable to limit, as an approval condition, the number of Salon Chairs to a maximum of 2 which was consistent with the applicant’s request. Hours of operation were considered not critical due to the Salon’s relatively small size and the fact that the structure fronted on Rt 101, where some evening activity and lighting, if it occurred, would have no adverse effect on abutters.
The motion to allow the special exception for the Salon to operate, with a maximum of 2 chairs, was approved on a 5-0 vote.
The Board then addressed the application for an area variance, to operate both an Artisan shop and the Beauty Salon on a lot which was less than the 4 acres required in the Rural Zone and was accordingly non-compliant. The five conditions which were necessary to be met were individually read and discussed:
Condition #1, relating to property values, was considered, and discussed. It was determined by the Board that surrounding property values would not be impacted due to low additional traffic volume and that the activity was confined within the structure’s existing footprint.
Condition # 2, regarding public interest or benefit, was discussed. The public benefit due to the building’s use being consistent with the State’s objective of preserving historically significant agricultural old barns, which was raised during the August 26 meeting, was again brought up. Jim offered that he had researched both the law and the Town of Dublin’s earlier positions relating to the benefit of granting tax relief to specific buildings to achieve this objective, and he had concluded that the significant alterations to the building, the fact that it had been moved, etc., suggested that the building did not meet the objective and that no public benefit was created. It was decided that this condition was essentially neutral, ie., no public benefit or harm was created by the proposed use of the
building.
-3-
Condition #3, regarding the necessity of obtaining an area variance, alternatives, etc., it was determined that the property’s land area could not be reasonably expanded to eliminate the need for an area variance, and that use of the existing building for the proposed activities represented a higher and better use than leaving the space unoccupied. Jim asked whether the Town Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) had, as requested in the August 26 meeting determined whether setback regulations were being met. Joe reported that the CEO had determined that an attached pergola to the building was in violation, but that this finding represented an enforcement issue which is not the responsibility of this board.
4.Condition #4, dealing with substantial justice, was discussed. It was concluded that by allowing the existing building to be used to a higher and better use (than empty space) supported this requirement.
5. Condition #5 relating to meeting the Spirit of the Ordinance if the variance were granted was discussed. Jim expressed concern that some items of declared intent within the zoning were not addressed within the conditions referenced above. On the advice of Town Counsel, it was determined that these concerns were again an enforcement matter and not specifically relevant to the matter currently before the Board.
After verifying that the Board had no further comment, Joe called for a vote. On a
4-0 vote with 1 abstention, the Variance was granted.
The Minutes contained herein were determined to be made a part the approvals granted by the Board for both the Special Exception and Variance relief granted by this Board on September 10, 2009.
Joe closed the meeting at 8:15PM, September 10, 2009.
Jim Sovik-member
Dublin Board of Adjustment
| 
