Docstoc

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Document Sample
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                         Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                  See next month’s minutes
                                                                                   For approval/corrections




                                 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
                                     Rye, New Hampshire
                                   Minutes of August 6, 2008
                                   Town Hall meeting room
                                            7:00 PM



Members present: Frank Drake, Chairman; Ben King, Vice Chairman; Jay Nadeau, Clerk;
Ray Jarvis; and Shawn Crapo.
Also present: Susan Labrie, Building Inspector and Heather Austin, Stenographer.


Chairman Drake opened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. and conducted the Pledge of Allegiance.

Francis and Judy Scott; for property located at 1237 Ocean Boulevard, Map 17.3, Lot 3,
requests variances to Article III, Sections 301.7.A.1 & 2, 301.7.B.1 & 2, Article VI, Section
603.1 and from the Building Code Section 7.9.2.2.1 to permit the construction of an 10’ x
18’ room extending over the footprint of an existing deck, located 38’ from the tidal marsh;
to permit the construction of a 24’ x 20’ two-car garage with living space above 75’ from
the tidal marsh where 100’ is required; to permit the construction of a 13’ x 4’ balcony and
13’ x 4’ bay window 10’ above grade, located 33’ from the tidal marsh; and to install a new
State approved septic system 49+/- feet from the tidal marsh where 100-ft is required, and
30’ from poorly drained soils where 50’ is required. Property is located in the General
Residence, Coastal Overlay District #26-08
Attorney Tim Phoenix and Sherrie Davis, Project Manager of NHSC Inc. were present
representing Mr. & Mrs. Scott, owners, also present.

Chairman Drake opened the hearing.

Attorney Phoenix stated that his applicants’ proposal is a modest request to construct a 10’ x 18’
room extending over the footprint of an existing deck, located 38’ from the tidal marsh; to permit
the construction of a 24’ x 20’ two-car garage with living space above. A new septic system is
proposed and has received approval from NHDES including a Wetlands and Non-site specific
permit 2007-02937 permitting the requested work. A Standard Dredge and Fill Permit
Application and the proposed sewage disposal system have been reviewed by NHSC, Inc. and
their response has been submitted to the Board. (Copy of NHSC, Inc. full report on file.)

Attorney Phoenix stated there is one revision to the plan; the proposed “storage” room should be
shown as a “bedroom”.


Page 1 of 24
                                                                               Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                        See next month’s minutes
                                                                                         For approval/corrections




Attorney Phoenix continued stating that applicant’s variance requests from the Rye Zoning
Ordinance are:



      Under Article 3 Section 301.7.A.l & 3; & Article 3 Section 301.7.B.l & 2:

      To permit surface alteration and the erection of an enclosed 10 X 18 room over and in
      the footprint of an existing wooden deck, located 38 feet from the tidal marsh where 38
      feet presently exists, 100 feet is required, and all structures are within the 100 foot
      buffer zone.


      To permit surface alteration and erection of a 24 X 20 foot two-car garage with a room
      over, located 75 feet from the tidal marsh, and closest portion of the existing residence is
      28 feet, and 100 feet is required.


      To permit surface alteration and the construction of a 13 X 4 balcony and 13 X 4 Bay, 10
      feet above the grade, located at its nearest point 33 feet from the tidal marsh where 100
      feet is required.

      To permit surface alteration for the construction, and to permit installation of a new,
      State DES approved septic system in essentially the same location as the existing septic
      system, located ±49 feet from the tidal marsh where ±49 feet exists and 100 feet is
      required, and within 30 feet from poorly drained soils where 50 feet is required.

      Under Article 6 Section 603.1 -To permit the construction of a 24 X 20 garage with room
      over; 10 X 18 room over the deck, a 13 X 4 balcony, and a 13 X 4 bay where expansions are
      of non-conforming uses are not permitted without variance.

      Lastly, under Rye Building Code Section 7.9.2.2.1 -To permit a new septic system the same
      location as the existing septic system, located ±43 feet from the tidal marsh where ±43 feet
      exists and 100 feet is required, and 30 feet from poorly drained soils where ± 30 exists and 75
      feet is required.




 Page 2 of 24
                                                                         Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                  See next month’s minutes
                                                                                   For approval/corrections




Attorney Phoenix stated that the Scotts' home is at 1237 Ocean Boulevard, bounded by Ocean
Boulevard, a neighboring home, and the "salt marsh". Their existing home and all structures lay
within the 100 foot required setback from the salt marsh. The home is located on a reasonably
sized .87 acre lot. The home has been used as a seasonal residence, now a year-round residence. It
is a two-story, three-bedroom "raised ranch" with a single car garage within the confines of the
existing house structure. Importantly, the home is built on a slab, no basement and because the
lower floor is living area there is very little storage. The Scotts' have recently received approval
from the New Hampshire D.E.S. for a state-of-the-art replacement septic system, and the permits
for soil disturbance within the buffer to accomplish all of the work identified by the instant
variance requests. The Scotts seek to upgrade their home as follows:



 Build a 20 X 24 two-car garage to the right side of the home, above which will be living
 quarters. The home will remain a three-bedroom home. They will then use the existing "garage"
 space as storage. Erect a 10 X 20 "sunroom" over and utilizing the existing footprint of a portion
 of their rear wood deck. "Bump out" the front of the home slightly to create a balcony facing
 Ocean Boulevard and the beach, and a "bay" window in the area of their living room and replace
 the old septic system with the DES approved state of the art system. We believe the project and
 resultant variance requests to be relatively modest given the size and location of the home
 amongst others in the beach front area. The entire home is located within the 100-foot tidal
 marsh setback requirement. None of the improvements will be closer to the wetlands than the
 existing home.


 Attorney Phoenix continued stating to complete the proposal several variances are required for
 the Scotts' project. We urge consideration of the three factors:

 First, the Scotts' lot and home in their existing conditions would be in violation of the same
 provisions if not for their grandfathered, non-conforming status. The variances do not seek relief
 greater than would be necessary if the existing home was to be rebuilt in its current configuration,
 except for the expansion of volume.

 Secondly, granting the variances will allow the driveway to be moved so that part of its length,
 which will now be a permeable surface, will be moved away from the existing wetlands.

 Thirdly, variances are required for the replacement of an existing antiquated septic system. The
 new system will be state-of-the-art, placed in the same location as the existing system, but
 requires variances because of the proximity to the tidal marsh and fresh water poorly drained
 soils, variances are required, but will result in a state-of-the-art and more environmentally
 friendly septic system.




Page 3 of 24
                                                                           Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                    See next month’s minutes
                                                                                     For approval/corrections



  Attorney Phoenix stated in summary, all of these changes are a benefit to the property and the
  neighborhood; none are closer to the existing tidal marsh or poorly drained soils than presently
  exists. Accordingly, there will be no harm to the surrounding properties. Given the values of
  the properties on the beach, significant expansions of properties up and down the beach, and
  the fact that these expansions will make the premises no more violative than presently exists
  and given the updated "look" of the home, certainly property values will not be harmed. There
  is nowhere on site to place the septic system without relief. It is being replaced in essentially
  its existing location. Clearly this cannot harm the value of surrounding properties.


  Attorney Phoenix continued stating it is clearly in the public's interest to permit a property
  owner the reasonable use of their own property. The site has long been a small somewhat
  seasonal dwelling. For full time living, the Scotts intend to modestly increase the size of the
  dwelling, upgrade its overall "look" and therefore its livability to them. Since their personal
  property will now be held on site, cars parked out of the elements and away from the wetlands,
  including the movement of the driveway away from the wetlands, and where none of the
  proposed changes will be closer to the wetlands than presently exists, no harm to the wetland
  will occur, it certainly is not contrary to the public interest, to grant all of the requested
  variances.

  The use of the Scotts' premises as a residence is a permitted use in the zone. All of the
  variances requested relate to setbacks and other "location" issues. Accordingly, the variances
  are area variances governed by the hardship test set forth in Boccia v City of Portsmouth.

  Attorney Phoenix continued stating that virtually the entire site is within the tidal buffer
  setback. No activity of any kind can occur without variances. There is no place else on the lot
  to place these improvements without the need for identical variances. Accordingly, an area
  variance is definitely needed to enable the applicant's proposed use of the property given the
  special conditions of the property.

  Attorney Phoenix stated because the entire site is within the setback, there is no other feasible
  method for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance.

  The living area increase is modest, and within existing setback. Accordingly, the spirit and
  intent of the ordinance will be met by granting these variances and since the entire lot is non-
  conforming, and any use of the property, including the dwelling in its existing state would
  require the same or more significant variances, and where the new construction will be no
  closer to the wetlands than presently exists, denial of the variances requested under the
  circumstances would result in harsh injustice.

  Attorney Phoenix continued stating that for all of the reasons stated; Francis and Judy Scott
  respectfully request that the Board grant all of the submitted variance requests. (Copy of full
  memorandum dated July 9, 2008 to the Rye Zoning Board of Adjustment from R. Timothy
  Phoenix on file.)



Page 4 of 24
                                                                         Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                  See next month’s minutes
                                                                                   For approval/corrections




Shawn Crapo questioned the depth for the proposed permeable surface.


Sherrie Davis (NHSC, Inc.) stated that information was not in the report submitted for her
review.

Ray Jarvis questioned what the total square footage of new living space would be.

Attorney Phoenix replied about 1,083 square feet.

Ray Jarvis commented that 1,083 square feet is about twenty-two percent (22%) and asked if this
residence is used year round.

Mr. Scott stated that the property is used year round; in the summer by them and renters in the
winter. Now, retired they would like expand the house and storage to live year round.

Chairman Drake opened the hearing for any public comments.

Douglas Bordewieck stated that he was a member of the Conservation Commission when this
proposal was submitted. He felt the applicants were asking for major expansions and they are
located in not one but two buffer zones. The applicants were told by the Conservation members
the garage needed to be smaller than originally proposed. The buffer zones were created for a
reason and approval of this project would be detrimental. The new septic system would be the
only positive item. He suggested a site visit be conducted by the members who have not already
viewed this property.

Frank Barnes, abutter at 1235 Ocean Boulevard stated that he is in favor of the project.

Jeff Knapp, abutter at 162 Parsons Road stated that the Scotts have owned this property since
1975 and in favor of the project. He continued stating that the buffer to the wetlands are
developed with good filtration.

John and Joan Riley, abutters at 1285 Ocean Boulevard stated that all the property owners in this
area respect the wetlands and they feel the Board should approve this project especially the new
septic system.

Mr. Mirra, abutter at 1254 & 1308 Ocean Boulevard said that he is also in favor of the proposal.

Attorney Phoenix read a portion of the report submitted by Sherrie Davis of NHSC Inc. as
follows:

“The proposed project is the least impacting alternative that will allow for the modernization of
the single-family residence and improve the utility of the home. Given the site restrictions, the
proposed layout is the only feasible option. The additions to the primary living space extend
away from the highest observable tide line and the driveway is being relocated away from the

Page 5 of 24
                                                                           Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                    See next month’s minutes
                                                                                     For approval/corrections




resource. In addition, the overall project reduces impervious surface by converting the
compacted gravel drive to porous pavers. All the temporary impact areas will be seeded a nd
stabilized following construction

The project is entirely contained within the previously developed upland tidal buffer zone of a
residential lot and does not impact wetlands, surface waters or sand dunes. The tidal buffer zone
is not unique or rare in this residential area. There is no anticipated impact to the five threatened
plant species and six exemplary communities located within the vicinity of the proposed project
as identified by The Natural Heritage Bureau (NHB) on December 19, 2007. The natural
communities cited were tidally influenced systems that are threatened by changes in hydrology
and increased inputs of nutrients and pollutants during storms. The project proposes to reduce the
impervious surface of the site and therefore will increase infiltration preventing any increase in
direct inputs of nutrients and pollutants from surface run-off. The five identified plant species
were specific to salt marsh or dune environments. As previously stated, the proposed project is
limited to previously develop tidal buffer zone and does not propose any impacts to these plant
environments. There is a well vegetated buffer between the developed portion of the lot and the
tidal marsh.”

Shawn Crapo questioned the elevations and lot coverage percent as proposed.

Mr. Scott replied that no elevations would be higher than the existing 28’ feet with the lot
coverage to be about five percent (5%).

Ben King stated that he is concerned, just as the Conservation Commission is, about the large
encroachment to the wetland buffer area and that the garage is just too large.

Ray Jarvis stated that the new septic system and increase of porous pavers is a positive however;
he feels the total project is too large.

Jay Nadeau agreed with Mr. King also and was ok with the project except for the garage.

Chairman Drake questioned if the new septic system would be completed if the proposal is
denied in total.

Mr. Scott replied that if this proposal is not approved the septic would not be done.

Chairman Drake closed the public portion of the hearing and asked the Board to poll vote on the
Variances requested from the provisions of Article III, Sections 301.7.A.1 & 2, 301.7.B.1 & 2,
Article VI, Section 603.1:

Could the variance be granted without diminishing the value of abutting property? King-
NO, Jarvis-NO, Nadeau-NO, Crapo-NO, Drake-NO.




Page 6 of 24
                                                                    Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                             See next month’s minutes
                                                                              For approval/corrections




Would granting the appeal not be contrary to the public interest? King-NO, Jarvis-NO,
Nadeau-NO, Crapo-NO, Drake-NO.
Would granting the permit do substantial justice? King-NO, Jarvis-NO, Nadeau-NO, Crapo-
NO, Drake-NO.


Could the variance be granting without violating the spirit of the ordinance? King-NO,
Jarvis-NO, Nadeau-NO, Crapo-NO, Drake-NO.


Are there special conditions affecting the property? King-NO, Jarvis-NO, Nadeau-NO,
Crapo-YES, Drake-YES.


Is the variance needed to enable the applicant's proposed use of the property given these
special conditions? King-NO, Jarvis-NO, Nadeau-NO, Crapo-NO, Drake-NO.


The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably
feasibly for the applicant to pursue other than by the requested variance? King-NO, Jarvis-
NO, Nadeau-NO, Crapo-NO, Drake-NO.


Are there special conditions which exist such that literal enforcement in the ordinance
results in unnecessary hardship? King-NO, Jarvis-NO, Nadeau-NO, Crapo-NO, Drake-NO.

Motion: made by Ben King to deny the Variances requested by Francis and Judy Scott; for
property located at 1237 Ocean Boulevard, Map 17.3, Lot 3, under Article III, Sections
301.7.A.1 & 2, 301.7.B.1 & 2, Article VI, Section 603.1 and from the Building Code Section
7.9.2.2.1 to permit the construction of an 10’ x 18’ room extending over the footprint of an
existing deck, located 38’ from the tidal marsh; to permit the construction of a 24’ x 20’
two-car garage with living space above 75’ from the tidal marsh where 100’ is required; to
permit the construction of a 13’ x 4’ balcony and 13’ x 4’ bay window 10’ above grade,
located 33’ from the tidal marsh; and to install a new State approved septic system 49+/-
feet from the tidal marsh where 100-ft is required, and 30’ from poorly drained soils where
50’ is required. Second by Shawn Crapo. All in favor.




Page 7 of 24
                                                                           Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                    See next month’s minutes
                                                                                     For approval/corrections




Barbara B. Sedoric, Trustee and Thomas J. Sedoric, Trustee, for property located at 5
Harborview Drive, Map 26, Lot 7, requests a variance to Article II and III, Section 203.3(F)
and 301.7(B) to permit an amendment of the variance which was granted on February 6,
2008. Applicant requests that the Board approve the plan as amended which relocates 6.6-
ft of the structure from the east side of the building to the south (front) side of the building.
#24-08.

Attorney Michael Donahue and John Chagnon of Ambit Engineering were present representing
owners Thomas and Barbara Sedoric, also present.

Chairman Drake opened the hearing.

Attorney Donahue thanked all parties involved with this request. He stated that his applicant is
requesting an amendment to the variance which was granted on February 6, 2008, to reconstruct
a single family residence on an existing lot. Specifically, that a 6.6' portion of the residence be
removed and relocated to the south (front) side of the residence to address a post approval
objection brought by an abutter.

Attorney Donahue continued stating that granting the amendment would allow his applicants to
continue with their plans (already approved by ZBA) to reduce the total impacts within the tidal
buffer zone. The minor adjustment in the construction plans would not be contrary to the public
interest. Further, the applicants are requesting this minor amendment as a result of objections by
an abutter alleging impact on their view. The abutter has no view easement or other real property
right. Nonetheless, as an accommodation, and though it will require a partial redesign of their
residence already under construction, the applicants propose this amendment.


Attorney Donahue said that in order to accommodate the applicants’ proposed residence and
address the abutter's objection, the applicants require the relief requested which is consistent with
the setbacks, building coverage, overall lot coverage which predominate in this neighborhood.
The amendment is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance as the Board acknowledged when it
granted the variance on February 6, 2008. In this instance, a property is improved without, in any
way, interfering with the public or private rights of others, but rather the applicant's are
accommodating a request of an abutter which just recently came to light. As presented and
reflected in the architectural drawings, the proposed home, with its amended footprint, will be a
substantial upgrade in the neighborhood and will not have a negative impact on the property
values of abutting properties.

Ben King questioned if any additional variance approval would be needed for this modification.

Attorney Donahue replied no, the previous reasons necessary for the variances are the same.


Page 8 of 24
                                                                             Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                      See next month’s minutes
                                                                                       For approval/corrections




Discussion followed regarding the revised plan.

Chairman Drake opened the hearing for any public comments.

Attorney Ralph Woodman stated that he is here tonight representing the abutters Donald and
Ellen Ruhl and Ruhl-Winslow, LLC of 1 Harborview Drive who could not be present. He
continued stating that Mr. & Mrs. Ruhl and Mr. & Mrs. Sedoric have reached an agreement and
are in favor of the revised plans presented tonight. All complaints have been withdrawn by both
parties.

Attorney Donahue agreed with Attorney Woodman’s statements.

Robert Jesurum of 11 Harborview Drive, stated that he has a separate dispute with Mr. & Mrs.
Sedoric regarding ownership of about five (5’) feet of land down at the shoreline.

Attorney Phoenix, speaking on behalf of the Sedorics advised the Board that if the Board was
going to consider Mr. Jesurum’s comments as a factor which would be included in any way in
the ZBA’s deliberations for the pending variances that he would address them. He further
advised the Board that if the Board was not going to consider Mr. Jesurum’s statements with
respect to the pending variance requests, he had no coments. After some brief discussion by and
between the Board members, Attorney Phoenix asked the board to confirm specifically that the
Board would not consider Mr. Jesurum’s comments with respect to the pending variance request.
The Board, through Chairman Drake, confirmed same.

Attorney Donahue stated this dispute either way resolved has no bearing on this proposal or the
Rye Zoning and is irrelevant.

Chairman Drake agreed with Attorney Donahue.

Member Crapo asked if there was any impact on the proposal for the amended variance if the
abutter’s claim on the lot line was determined to be correct. Attorney Donahue indicated that
because the claimed discrepancy was only 5 feet at one end of the common lot line
approximately 500 square feet would be at issue which had no impact on the relief sought.

Chairman Drake hearing no further public comments closed this portion of the meeting and
opened for Board discussion.

Ben King stated that there are no factors with the revisions that would change the Boards original
decision. All agreed.

Chairman Drake asked the Board to poll vote on the Variance requested on the amended which
relocates 6.6-ft of the structure from the east side of the building to the south (front) side of the
building, from the provisions of Article II and III, Section 203.3(F) and 301.7(B) to permit an
amendment of the variance which was granted on February 6, 2008.


Page 9 of 24
                                                                      Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                               See next month’s minutes
                                                                                For approval/corrections




Could the variance be granted without diminishing the value of abutting property? King-
YES, Jarvis-YES, Nadeau-YES, Crapo-YES, Drake-YES.


Would granting the appeal not be contrary to the public interest? King-YES, Jarvis-YES,
Nadeau-YES, Crapo-YES, Drake-YES.
Would granting the permit do substantial justice? King-YES, Jarvis-YES, Nadeau-YES,
Crapo-YES, Drake-YES.


Could the variance be granting without violating the spirit of the ordinance? King-YES,
Jarvis-YES, Nadeau -YES, Crapo-YES, Drake-YES.


Are there special conditions affecting the property? King-YES, Jarvis-YES, Nadeau -YES,
Crapo-YES, Drake-YES.


Is the variance needed to enable the applicant's proposed use of the property given these
special conditions? King-YES, Jarvis-YES, Nadeau -YES, Crapo-YES, Drake-YES.


The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably
feasibly for the applicant to pursue other than by the requested variance? King-YES,
Jarvis-YES, Nadeau -YES, Crapo-YES, Drake-YES.


Are there special conditions which exist such that literal enforcement in the ordinance
results in unnecessary hardship? King-YES, Jarvis-YES, Nadeau -YES, Crapo-YES, Drake-
YES.


Motion: made by Ben King to approve the request by Barbara B. Sedoric, Trustee and
Thomas J. Sedoric, Trustee, for property located at 5 Harborview Drive, Map 26, Lot 7, for
a variance to Article II and III, Section 203.3(F) and 301.7(B) to permit an amendment of
the variance which was granted on February 6, 2008, to approve the plan as amended
which relocates 6.6-ft of the structure from the east side of the building to the south (front)
side of the building . Second by Jay Nadeau. All in favor.




Page 10 of 24
                                                                            Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                     See next month’s minutes
                                                                                      For approval/corrections




Richard G. Boyle for property located at 89 Old Beach Road, Tax Map 84, Lot 129,
requesting a Variance to Article II, Section 204.3 (C), Article III, Section 304.4 and Section
VI Article 603.1 to permit an addition on the existing second story deck. The addition was
constructed in 2006 without a permit and was issued a cease and desist. Addition is located
within two front setbacks and is at 30’3” above grade where 28’ is permitted and 27’ 8”
was the existing highest peak elevation. Property is located in the General Residence
District. #27-08
Attorney Michael McCarthy was present representing Mr. & Mrs. Boyle, who were also present.

Chairman Drake opened the hearing.

Attorney McCarthy stated that his client, Mr. Boyle, enclosed his deck on the front of his
dwelling to correct problems from a roof leak. He is requesting the Board grant him a Variance
after the fact under Article II Section 204.3 (c), Article III Section 304.4, and Article VI, Section
603.1.

Attorney McCarthy continued stating that Mr. Boyle enclosed the deck on the front of dwelling
without first obtaining a building permit. The deck was enclosed to stop a roof leak problem. He
further stated that when the Building Inspector informed Mr. Boyle he needed a permit he
stopped work immediately. The enclosure of the porch on the front of house is a very small
addition of space to a very large home. The addition also blends in with existing structure. Non
conformity is based upon large structures being placed on small lots before zoning requirements
established setbacks and height restrictions. Due to this, the owner would be obligated to hire a
contractor to remove the enclosure with the cost to correct this problem far outweighing any
public benefit because the purpose of the work in no way effects the neighbors or the public.

Chairman Drake stated he reviewed this file for past building permits for the existing bulk and
did not find any, however there has been major bulk added to this home over the years.

Mr. Boyle replied that his home has been there since 1919 and the bulk was added over 25 years
ago before permits were required.

Discussion followed regarding Town zoning requirements and when established.

Ben King questioned if the applicant requested a Petition for Inequitable Waiver.

Chairman Drake replied yes and the waiver was denied. He continued stating he feels this is a
self imposed hardship.

Chairman Drake opened the hearing for public comments.


Attorney McCarthy read a letter of support into the record as follows:




Page 11 of 24
                                                                           Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                    See next month’s minutes
                                                                                     For approval/corrections




“August 6, 2008


Board of Appeals/Adjustment
Town of Rye, New Hampshire
Central Road
Rye, NH 03870


To whom it concerns:

My name is John J. Bellino and I live at 2136 Ocean Blvd and I am an abutter to Ruth and
Richard Boyle on Jenness Avenue. As stated in a previous letter to the board I am not opposed to
the changes in roof line that are being addressed in tonight's meeting.”


Tammy Incollingo abutter at 9 Jenness Avenue stated her family has lived here for over 40 years
and feels the project added character with no ill effects. She continued that she is in favor of the
Board approving the started project.

Chairman Drake hearing no further comments, opened for Board discussion.

Ray Jarvis stated he feels the water leak could have been fixed another way and requested the
original structure be restored by re-moving the enclosure.

Chairman Drake re-opened the hearing for further public comments.

Mr. Boyle questioned clarification as to what the Board was requesting.

Chairman Drake replied that the Board is requesting Mr. Boyle to remove the enclosure that was
done without a building permit and required variance. All Board members showed their
agreement.

Mr. Boyle disagreed and left the meeting abruptly.


Chairman Drake re-closed the public comment portion of the hearing and asked the Board to poll
vote on the requested Variance to Article II, Section 204.3 (C), Article III, Section 304.4 and
Section VI Article 603.1 to permit an addition on the existing second story deck.


Could the variance be granted without diminishing the value of abutting property? King-
NO, Jarvis-NO, Nadeau-NO, Crapo-NO, Drake-NO.




Page 12 of 24
                                                                      Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                               See next month’s minutes
                                                                                For approval/corrections




Would granting the appeal not be contrary to the public interest? King-NO, Jarvis-NO,
Nadeau-NO, Crapo-NO, Drake-NO.


Would granting the permit do substantial justice? King-NO, Jarvis-NO, Nadeau-NO, Crapo-
NO, Drake-NO.


Could the variance be granting without violating the spirit of the ordinance? King-NO,
Jarvis-NO, Nadeau-NO, Crapo-NO, Drake-NO.


Are there special conditions affecting the property? King-NO, Jarvis-NO, Nadeau-NO,
Crapo-NO, Drake-YES.


Is the variance needed to enable the applicant's proposed use of the property given these
special conditions? King-NO, Jarvis-NO, Nadeau-NO, Crapo-NO, Drake-NO.


The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably
feasibly for the applicant to pursue other than by the requested variance? King-NO, Jarvis-
NO, Nadeau-NO, Crapo-NO, Drake-NO.


Are there special conditions which exist such that literal enforcement in the ordinance
results in unnecessary hardship? King-NO, Jarvis-NO, Nadeau-NO, Crapo-NO, Drake-NO.


Motion: made by Ben King to deny the request by Richard G. Boyle for property located at
89 Old Beach Road, Tax Map 84, Lot 129, requesting a Variance to Article II, Section 204.3
(C), Article III, Section 304.4 and Section VI Article 603.1 to permit an addition on the
existing second story deck. The enclosure is to be removed and restored to its original state.
Second by Shawn Crapo. All in favor.




Page 13 of 24
                                                                          Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                   See next month’s minutes
                                                                                    For approval/corrections




Rannie Webster Foundation, for property located at 795 Washington Road, Tax Map 11,
Lot 52 and 6, requests a special exception as provided in Article II, Section 203.2 (C) to
permit construction of a single story addition to the existing nursing home with a maximum
size of 15,000 sf to create a skilled rehabilitation wing and increase maximum nursing
home occupancy from 51 to 71. Property is located in the Single Residence District. #19-08
(This is a rehearing granted in July 2008.)

Mr. Tom Argue, Webster at Rye, CEO; Attorney Bernard Pelech; Eric Weinrieb, P.E. of Altus
Engineering and Peter Knight, Director of The Stanhope Group LLC, Appraisers and
Consultants were present representing the owners. Attorney McGee and Michael Marconi of
Marconi Enterprises, Inc. were present representing Mrs. Margaret Harrington and Mr. & Mrs.
Leo Harrison, abutters.

Mr. Argue stated in May 1982 the Rye Board of Adjustment granted the Rannie Webster
Foundation a special exception to establish a home for the elderly with total occupancy of
seventy residents consisting of 35 nursing home occupants and 35 independent retirement
occupants, with a maximum size of 44,000 square foot.

Mr. Argue explained that eleven years later in August 1993 a special exception was granted to
expand the maximum occupancy to eighty six residents and 53,000 square feet. This allowed for
the construction of laundry facilities, expansion of the kitchen, eight new resident rooms and a
larger activities area where we now have many resident activities and events such as our annual
art in bloom program. Ten years later in March 2003 a Special Exception was granted to increase
the size to 58,500 square feet with no increase in occupancy. This allowed us to expand our
resident dining area, construct a small rehabilitation room, a small satellite kitchen and renovate
the nurses’ station.

Continuing, Mr. Argue stated that in May 2008 a special exception was granted to increase the
maximum occupancy to 106 and the total size to 73,500 square feet. This project was undertaken
in response to surveys of residents who had received rehabilitation services at Webster.
This would involve two phases of construction, the first of which would not increase occupancy
and would add 4,000 square feet to the building. This addition would include a dining room, a
sitting room and a larger rehabilitation gym to replace the current rehab gym which is too small
to meet current needs. The second phase would include 11,000 square feet of additional space
and room for 20 additional nursing home residents. This would result in a total nursing home
occupancy of 71 residents. In the not inexpensive designing of the addition, care was given to
continue the respectful relationship that Webster has always had with its neighbors. A dense
evergreen buffer is planned to actually be an improvement over the current deciduous tree buffer
that losses its leaves every fall and leaves a clear view. The exterior lighting was all designed
using the Dark Skies initiative; the driveway along the west side of the building was designed for
use by emergency vehicles only as is currently the case. “Do Not Enter” signage is already in
place that restricts all other traffic. No staff, no delivery trucks, no visitors use this roadway
which is actually several feet narrower than the two-way driveway around the opposite side of
the building. Webster at Rye is currently a skilled rehabilitation facility. The type of care we
provide will not change with this addition. The average age of individuals receiving skilled


Page 14 of 24
                                                                             Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                      See next month’s minutes
                                                                                       For approval/corrections




rehabilitation care at Webster over the past year is 82. The average age of residents who are at
Webster for other types of care such as Alzheimer’s or hospice care is slightly older, but not a
great deal. As with our earlier requests for a special exception, our intention is to be able to
better respond to and serve the health care needs of Rye’s seniors and continue to be good
neighbors. We believe this project accomplishes both of those goals.

Mr. Argue finished by stating that he has received a couple of letters of support from abutters to
Webster at Rye that he would appreciate having an opportunity to read into the record.


Attorney Pelech stated that Phase 1 driveway changes and addition meet the fifty foot (50’)
buffer requirement. He continued stating the applicant has requested Mr. Peter Knight of The
Stanhope Group, LLC to inspect the property and review the conceptual plan and provide an
opinion with respect to abutters concerns regarding traffic, lighting, noise and views.


Mr. Knight read his report into the record as follows:

“I have inspected the above-mentioned property, reviewed the conceptual plan for the proposed
expansion of Webster at Rye, and inspected the property's location and surrounding
improvements/uses. The purpose of this inspection and subsequent analysis is to provide an opinion
with respect to an abutter requested rehearing of a Special Exception granted by the Rye Zoning
Board of Adjustment to allow the expansion of a nursing home with a rehabilitation wing and 20
additional private rooms in the Single Residence Zoning District.

This report is intended to convey to you my rationale in formulating my opinion with respect to the
Special Exception. While you represent the client in this matter, my opinions are intended for use by
Rye's Zoning Board of Adjustment. The appraiser does not intend use of this report by any other
party.

He continued that this report is not an appraisal as there is no "subject property" to which an opinion
of market value has been rendered. It is also not an appraisal consulting assignment. As a result, the
Uniform Standard of Professional Appraisal Practice's (USPAP) requirements for the development
and reporting of an appraisal or appraisal consulting assignment do not apply. Only the Ethics,
Competency, Jurisdictional Exception, and Supplemental Standards rules of USPAP govern this
assignment and report.

The Webster at Rye facility is located at 795 Washington Road in the south westerly section of Rye
within the Single Residence Zoning District. The area in general is composed of light density, single-
family residential development. Most development fronts main town roads. Abutting the subject to
the south is a residential development built out primarily in the 1940s through the 1960s. The
neighborhood is comprised of Blueberry Lane and Mountain View Terrace. The homes in the
neighborhood are generally modest size capes, ranches and colonials. The improvements are
generally modest by Rye standards.




Page 15 of 24
                                                                               Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                        See next month’s minutes
                                                                                         For approval/corrections




Mr. Knight continued stating that Webster at Rye is a full-service nursing home and retirement
community. The facility's first 44,000 s.f. was built in 1983. A 9,000 s.f. expansion was completed in
1993. A 5,500 s.f. expansion was completed in 2003. The nursing home component is operating
under a State of New Hampshire license for 5I beds. With 31 nursing home rooms, some of the
rooms are private, but most are shared. In addition, there are 23 one-bedroom and 6 two-bedroom
retirement apartments. According to the owner, Webster at Rye's staff includes 92 full and part-time
employees. Webster at Rye proposed, and received a Special Exception on May 7, 2008 to expand
the facility. That Special Exception was required as a convalescent or nursing home is not a
permitted use by right in Rye's Single Residence Zoning District.

He continued stating the facility expansion is proposed in two phases. The first phase would include
the construction of a 4,000 s.f. addition off the northwesterly corner of the existing facility. The
addition would serve as a skilled care and rehabilitation facility. As the northerly portion of the
emergency driveway running along the facility's westerly side is in the location of the expansion, the
driveway would be relocated approximately 120 feet to the west along the property's westerly
boundary line. The 250 feet of relocated driveway would tie in to the existing rear parking lot. The
current driveway to the rear parking lot located on the complex's westerly side is used for
emergencies and fire protection only. It handles little or no daily traffic as the main access for
employees, residents and deliveries is around the easterly end of the complex. The majority of the
relocated road would be no closer than 50 feet of the westerly property line. The second phase would
include the construction of an 11 ,000 s.f. addition to the north and west of the phase I expansion.
The addition would include 20 private rooms for occupancy by individuals utilizing the rehabilitation
facility. As the 35 rear parking spaces are located in the phase II expansion area, the paving would be
removed, and 70 spaces would be created farther to the north. As the relocated road and building
expansion would be in closer proximity to the Blueberry Lane Mountain View Terrace neighborhood
than the existing facility, and because a section of existing vegetated buffer between the complex and
neighborhood would be removed to accommodate the expansion, a two deep by 360 feet row of six foot
tall evergreen trees would be planted along the westerly side of the relocated road and parking lot.

Mr. Knight stated based upon a physical inspection of the site and a review of municipal tax map #11, it
is the appraiser's opinion the following properties could be affected by Webster at Rye's expansion, and
warrant analysis:




783 Washington Road - 2,800 s.f. Cape
761 Washington Road – 4,100 s.f. Farmhouse
811 Washington Road - 1,900 s.f. Cape
48 Mountain View Terrace- 2,900 s.f. Cape




Page 16 of 24
                                                                                  Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                           See next month’s minutes
                                                                                            For approval/corrections




6 Blueberry Lane -1,800 s.f. Cape
14 Blueberry Lane - 2,000 s.f. Ranch
20 Blueberry Lane -3,300 s.f. Cape
19 Blueberry Lane -3,600 s.f. Colonial
10 Blueberry Lane -2,000 s.f. Ranch

These properties could be affected as a result of the overall expansion, proximity of the driveway
relocation and building expansion to their easterly property lines, and the loss of a portion of the buffer
between the properties and Webster at Rye.

Mr. Knight continued stating the possible impacts of the Expansion regarding:

Traffic The 250 feet of relocated driveway would handle little or no traffic on a daily basis, as it will
continue to be used for emergency access/fire protection only. All vehicles and delivery trucks entering
the facility will access the parking/delivery areas around the complex's easterly side.

Lighting Webster at Rye proposes that all exterior lighting on the building expansion, in the relocated
parking area, and the relocated driveway will be designed and installed in accordance with Dark Skies
initiatives. In general, this initiative's goal is to reduce light pollution. Lighting compliant with this
initiative shines toward the ground only. As a result, when the light hits the ground its intensity decreases
substantially and very little leaks back into the sky.

Noise The expansion is forecast to create little if any additional noise at the facility. The expansion would
create no new outdoor seating areas that would be in close proximity of the adjacent neighborhood. While
250 feet of driveway would be relocated to the west by roughly 120 feet, the owner of the complex
projects the driveway to continue for use as emergency access/fire protection only, its current use.

An abutter (19 Blueberry Lane) of Webster at Rye has requested a rehearing before the Rye Zoning
Board of Adjustment regarding a Special Exception granted on May 7, 2008 allowing the expansion
of the existing nursing home with a rehabilitation wing and 20 additional private rooms in the Single
Residence Zoning District. Article VlI, Section701.3 of the Rye Zoning Ordinance authorizes the
Zoning Board of Adjustment as follows:

‘To hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of the zoning ordinance upon which such board
is required to pass under such ordinance. In passing upon any application for a special exception,
the board shall deny any proposed use which it finds to be injurious or detrimental to the
neighborhood. All special exceptions shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
zoning ordinance and shall be in accordance with the general or specific rules contained herein.
Special exceptions shall be heard as appeals under this ordinance, and all procedural requirements

Page 17 of 24
                                                                               Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                        See next month’s minutes
                                                                                         For approval/corrections




for appeals hereunder shall apply thereto, in addition to any special provisions prescribed
hereunder.’

Mr. Knight stated in order to determine if the proposed expansion would be "injurious or detrimental
to the neighborhood", the appraiser analyzed the expansion plans and surrounding neighborhood, and
completed a paired sales analysis.

Neighborhood Analysis on the northerly side of Washington Road, there are nine residential abutters
to Webster at Rye.

He continued stating given the distance from the proposed expansion, the fact that the existing
facility already shields them from the expansion and that little additional traffic will be created at the
existing entrance by the expansion, it is the appraiser's opinion the properties located at 761
Washington Road and 783 Washington Road would not be affected in an "injurious or detrimental"
way.

Given that the existing driveway on the complex's westerly side will remain in its present location,
that little additional traffic will be created at the existing entrance, the existing buffer will remain
intact, and the homes front on Blueberry Lane, it is the appraiser's opinion the properties located at
795 Washington Road, 6 Blueberry Lane, 10 Blueberry Lane, 14 Blueberry Lane, and 20 Blueberry
Lane would not be affected in an "injurious or detrimental" way.

Mr. Knight further stated that the rear yard of 48 Mountain View Terrace abuts Webster at Rye in the
northwesterly corner. Currently there is a roughly 200 foot vegetated buffer of deciduous trees
between the existing rear parking area and the property's easterly boundary line. The distance to the
residence is farther. The expansion of the facility will move the northerly edge of the parking area
100 feet to the north but no farther west. As a result, the vegetated buffer would be reduced to
approximately 100 feet. All parking lot lighting would be in accordance with Dark Skies initiatives.
The expanded parking lot would generate little additional noise. Finally, a two deep row of six-foot
tall evergreen trees would be planted along the parking lot's westerly boundary. As the evergreen
trees would produce a buffer that could not been seen through during the spring, fall, and winter
months, it is the appraiser's opinion the visual separation from Webster at Rye felt by 48 Mountain
View Terrace would be enhanced.


The rear yard of 19 Blueberry Lane abuts Webster at Rye to the west. As a result of the expansion,
the driveway located on the complex's westerly side will be relocated 120 feet to the west. As a
result, that 120 portion of the vegetated buffer comprised of deciduous trees between the residence's
easterly lot line and the existing road would be removed. While the road would be closer to the
residence, as previously stated, no additional traffic would utilize the road, as it would continue to be
used for emergency access/fire protection only. The building and parking lot expansion would also
be closer to the residence's easterly lot line. All parking lot lighting would be in accordance with
Dark Skies initiatives. The expanded parking lot would generate little additional noise. The
expansion would create no new outdoor seating areas that could produce additional noise. A two
deep row of six-foot tall evergreen trees would be planted along the relocated driveway and parking
lot's westerly boundary. As the evergreen trees would produce a buffer that could not been seen



Page 18 of 24
                                                                              Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                       See next month’s minutes
                                                                                        For approval/corrections




through during the spring, fall, and winter months, it is the appraiser's opinion the visual separation
from Webster at Rye felt by 19 Blueberry Lane would not be reduced.


Mr. Knight stated as the Neighborhood Analysis represents only the appraiser's professional opinion,
a further Paired Sales Analysis was completed. Single-family residence sales in close proximity to a
retirement complex were paired with single-family residence sales not in close proximity to the
retirement complex in the same town, to determine if location near the retirement complex had an
impact on value. The appraiser searched communities in New Hampshire and southern Maine for
similar type retirement/nursing home complexes. That search produced the following complexes:

Webster at Rye

Riverwoods at Exeter (CCRC)-This is a retirement center offering 281 independent living units, 11
cottages, and assisted living complex. It is located off Route 111 in Exeter, New Hampshire

Harborside Healthcare-This is a long-term care, skilled nursing, and rehabilitation facility located off
Route 202 in Peterborough, New Hampshire

Huntington Common (CCRC)-This is a retirement center offering independent homes and
apartments, enhanced independence units, assisted living, and a 24unit Alzheimer's & memory
impairment facility. It is located off Ross Road in Kennebunk, Maine


Mr. Knight continued stating a search within close proximity of Webster at Rye produced two sales.
In 8/06, a single family residence located at 740 Washington Road sold for $965,000. The property is
located across the street from the Webster at Rye facility. That sale was paired with a single-family
residence located at 617 Central Road that sold for $1,000,000 in 12/05. After the necessary
adjustments to 617 Central Avenue, its adjusted sale price was $963,000. As a result, it is the
appraiser's opinion 740 Washington Road's location next to the Webster at Rye facility is not an
externality that reduces its value.

In 5/03, a single-family residence located at 10 Blueberry Lane sold for $460,000. The property is
located just to the west of the Webster at Rye facility. The sale was paired with single-family
residence located at 15 Willowbrook Avenue that sold for $499,000 in 7/03. After the necessary
adjustments to the two sales, the sale prices were $458,000 and $456,200. As a result, it is the
appraiser's opinion 10 Blueberry Lane's location next to the Webster at Rye facility is not an
externality that reduces its value.

Riverwoods at Exeter: A search within close proximity of Riverwoods at Exeter produced one sale.
In 6/06, a single-family residence located at 5 Hillside Avenue sold for $525,000. The property is
located at the entrance to Riverwoods in a small cul-de-sac neighborhood. That sale was paired with
a single-family residence located at 1 Kelby Scott Way that sold for $525,000 in 7/06. After the
necessary adjustments to 1 Kelby Scott Way, its adjusted sale price was $525,000. As a result, it is
the appraiser's opinion 5 Hillside Avenue's location at the entrance to the Riverwoods at Exeter
facility is not an externality that reduces its value



Page 19 of 24
                                                                              Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                       See next month’s minutes
                                                                                        For approval/corrections




Harborside Healthcare: A search within close proximity of Harborside Healthcare produced one sale.
In 12/06, a residential condominium located in Colonial Square sold for $200,000. The complex has
a shared driveway with Harborside Healthcare. That sale was paired with a residential condominium
located in the Long Hill complex that sold for $199,900 in 6/06. After the necessary adjustments to
the Long Hill sale, its adjusted sale price was $199,900. As a result, it is the appraiser's opinion the
Colonial Square complex's location at the entrance to the Harborside Healthcare facility is not an
externality that reduces its value

Huntington Common (CCRC): A search within close proximity of Huntington Common produced
one sale. In 5/05, a single-family residence located across the street from Huntington Common sold
for $240,000. That sale was paired with a single-family residence located at 7 Kingsbury Lane that
sold for $235,000 in 4/05. It was also paired with a single-family residence located at 25 Hillcrest
Drive that sold for $246,000 in 8/05. After the necessary adjustments to the two sales, the sale prices
were $238,500 and $241,500. As a result, it is the appraiser's opinion 34 Ross Road's location next to
Huntington Common is not an externality that reduces value.

Mr. Knight continued stating as a result of the above analyses, it is the appraiser's opinion the
granting of the Special Exception by the Rye Zoning Board of Adjustment to allow the expansion of
a nursing home with a rehabilitation wing and 20 additional private rooms in the Single Residence
Zoning District would not be "injurious or detrimental to the neighborhood". (Full report on file.)

Attorney Pelech explained the “Dark Sky Lighting” proposed for the outside lights.

Mr. Ague stated the requested “Storm Water Management Report” is on hold until one or both
phases of this plan are approved. This eliminates unnecessary costs.

Building Inspector Susan Labrie stated that the “Storm Water Management Report” requested is
under the Planning Board.

Chairman Drake opened the hearing for any public comments.

Attorney McGee stated he is here tonight representing Mrs. Harrison the abutter that would have the
most detrimental impacts if this project is allowed. He continued, stating that Webster is a beautiful
and wonderful facility for the Town of Rye however, the proposal is much too large and mostly
encroaches towards the Blueberry Lane residents and Mrs. Harrison’s property at 48 Mount View
Terrace. He is requesting the Board to deny the proposal and suggested the plans be revised to show
any future expansions toward the other side on the large area of vacant land.

Attorney McGee further discussed the history of this facility and submitted three (3) previous
Special Exceptions granted by the ZBA for the record.

Mr. Ague stated that he would like to submit a letter dated August 4, 2008 from Liz Rubin, 808
Washington Road, expressing her support. Letter was read to the Board. (Copy attached to these
minutes.)




Page 20 of 24
                                                                          Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                   See next month’s minutes
                                                                                    For approval/corrections




Discussion followed regarding if the Board could legally approve of both Phase One, with
construction starting within one (1) year and Phase Two, not beginning construction for another
four (4) plus years. (See file for legal information.)

Mr. Ague stated the phases are so that they qualify for a “Certificate of Need”.

Mrs. Harrison stated she has major concerns with the existing drainage and future issues caused
by this proposal. She further stated, as the BOA is considering endorsing the plans for expansion
(both Phase 1 and Phase 2) at Webster at Rye, she would like the Board to address the following
questions. First, according to the February 11, 2003 minutes the present addition of a new wing
and enlargement of the parking lot was subject to several conditions. Were the conditions fully
completed? Second, where is the Special Exception granted in 2003? We could not find this
receipt from the BOA. Third, the required "Satisfactory drainage review by the Planning Board
Engineer." When was this done and can I have a copy to review? Fourth, it says in the minutes
motion the "Chairman may sign plan when #2 and 3 conditions are accomplished." Do you have
a written record of this?

Mrs. Harrison continued, saying that if the Board would look on Sheet#C3 of the set of site plans
dated May 16, 2008, the Board will note that the drainage swale does not come down the hill far
enough to divert runoff from the new additions of 2003 so as it now stands the lower corners of
the Harrington and Harrison properties are impacted by the excess water. From the blueprint plan
of our septic tank and leach field dated Oct. 13, 1986 you can see that our leach field is right now
dangerously close to the low corner and back stone wall where we have been impacted since
2003-2004. Prior to that, from 1988 (when this house was constructed) we had approximately
fifteen years of no problems with collected water in that area during some very wet seasons as
we are experiencing right now. It has been only the last five years that we have standing water
half the year. What is the explanation if not the additions at Webster in 2003?


Mrs. Harrison continued, saying that with yet other additions of a new road, parking lot brought
down opposite our leach field, rehabilitation building and added nursing wing we have real
reason to be deeply concerned about the adverse impact it will have on our property. We are
also concerned about the plans of buffering this added construction but have been assured that
that can be accomplished satisfactorily. Our priority here is the big problem of run-off seriously
impacting our septic system as well as having water in the basement. So far, we have never had
to install a sump pump however if this project is completed we probably will.

Mrs. Harrington stated she has the exact same issues and concerns.

Attorney McGee stated that they have also hired their own professional, Michael Marconi,
CNHA of Marconi Enterprises, Inc., to inspect the property and review the conceptual plan and
provide an opinion with respect to abutters concerns regarding if this project would adversely
affect the value of her and other abutters homestead.




Page 21 of 24
                                                                            Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                     See next month’s minutes
                                                                                      For approval/corrections




Mr. Marconi stated first, I inspected Mrs. Harrington's home and I walked around her yard. I
paid particular attention to her common boundary with Webster at Rye and actually walked
along her boundary with a multi-page plan prepared by Altus Engineering, Inc. dated April 16,
2008 which shows Webster's proposed site improvements as well as the existing condition of the
area. Second, I looked at various real estate transfer records which I thought would help in
understanding the situation. Third, in addition to re-reviewing the Altus Plan, I also reviewed the
applicable Minutes of the May 7, 2008 & July 2, 2008 Board of Adjustment meetings; a letter
dated June 28, 2008 from Attorney Michael Donovan to the Rye Planning Board with an
attached sketch; the Application of Rannie Webster Foundation to the Rye Planning Board dated
May 16, 2008 as well as Attorney McGee's Motion for Rehearing with a cover letter dated June
6, 2008.

Mr. Marconi continued, stating that based on those inspections and his review of Phase I of the
project proposed by Rannie Webster Foundation, it would seriously and adversely affect the
value of Mrs. Harrington's homestead at 19 Blueberry Lane in Rye. Phase II would continue that
serious and adverse effect. In my opinion, Phase I would create a loss in fair market value of at
least $80,000 (Eighty Thousand Dollars) to Mrs. Harrington' premises. Phase II would add at
least another loss of $150,000 (One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars) to fair market value.

He further stated that this is a single-family residential district. Homes for the elderly and nursing
homes are allowed if they meet the requirements of a Special Exception. In reviewing the Boards
minutes of May 7, 2008 at least one of those requirements is that the Special Exception doesn't
allow something "to be injurious or detrimental to the neighborhood". Right now the Town
already has a rather large scale skilled care nursing home, which abuts Mrs. Harrington.

Mr. Marconi continued, saying that to date, Mrs. Harrington has been fairly well buffered from
that "commercial development" by a growth of trees and brush, which provides a marginally
acceptable buffer area. In reviewing the plans, it clearly appears Phase I will essentially
obliterate this buffer and have the current building come somewhat closer to Mrs. Harrington's
boundary. I cannot see how that buffer can be replaced in any fashion which would keep the
current "commercial development" separate from Mrs. Harrington's single-family home. Phase
II, if allowed, would essentially bring a major wing of a new building right up to Mrs.
Harrington's backyard. There is no way that this building will be able to be hidden from view
and there is no question but that both phases are going to be seriously "injurious" and
"detrimental" to Mrs. Harrington and her property. (Copy of full report and credentials in file.)

Chairman Drake hearing no further comments closed this portion of the hearing and opened for
Board discussion.

Chairman Drake questioned if there were reasons the project is proposed in the location shown.

Mr. Ague replied yes, the site issues are the leech and septic locations, buffer zones and the need
to have a nice view for the rooms.




Page 22 of 24
                                                                           Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                                    See next month’s minutes
                                                                                     For approval/corrections




Shawn Crapo questioned if the emergency service road would remain just as an emergency
service road for Phase 2 as well.

Mr. Ague replied yes, however the Board could place a condition on the service road if they are
concerned.

Ben King stated that all these issues/concerns were already discussed and addressed. He said he
feels this facility and expansion is all beneficial to the Town residents and others. Most issues
raised tonight are not under our Board but the Planning Board. He finalized that he stands by his
original approval of this proposal.

Chairman Drake stated the residential properties may have values affected and is concerned with
the new proposed buffer.

Jay Nadeau stated this facility is beautiful and necessary for the care to the elderly however;
more information is needed and he is not comfortable with the approval of both Phase 1 and 2 at
this point in time.

Shawn Crapo stated he has issues with the proposed location of the addition and would like
stakes put in to clearly show where the addition would be and service road would be moved to.

Ray Jarvis stated he feels the existing facility and the proposal are all positive however there are
some valid abutter concerns that need to be addressed first before this Board can approve.

Discussion regarding possible negotiations followed.

Mr. Ague stated that he is requesting to withdraw the Webster at Rye application before the
Board.

Chairman Drake and the Board accepted the requested withdrawal.

Motion: made by Shawn Crapo to accept the withdrawal of the Rannie Webster
Foundation application, for property located at 795 Washington Road, Tax Map 11, Lot 52
and 6, request for a special exception as provided in Article II, Section 203.2 (C) to permit
construction of a single story addition to the existing nursing home with a maximum size of
15,000 sf to create a skilled rehabilitation wing and increase maximum nursing home
occupancy from 51 to 71. Property located in the Single Residence District. Second by Jay
Nadeau. All in favor.




Page 23 of 24
                                                                      Unapproved minutes of Aug. 6, 2008
                                                                               See next month’s minutes
                                                                                For approval/corrections




OTHER BUSINESS

Barbara B. Sedoric, Trustee and Thomas J. Sedoric, Trustee, for property located at 5
Harborview Drive, case #23-08 withdrawn

Donald and Ellen Ruhl and Ruhl-Winslow, LLC, 1 Harborview Drive, case #25-08
withdrawn


Approval of minutes from the July 2, 2008 meeting. (to be approved at the September 2008
meeting.)



Chairman Drake hearing no further business requested a motion to adjourn.

Motion: made by Ben King to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m., second by Jay Nadeau.
All in favor.




Respectfully submitted by,



Heather Austin




Page 24 of 24

				
DOCUMENT INFO