Members present: Dan Coolidge, Chair; Jim Delaney; Charlie McCrave, alternate.

Also present for duration of appropriate item: Dave Powers, Zoning Administrator; Robert and Karen Richardson, Pierre Bedard.

Public Hearing: A request from Robert and Karen Richardson for a variance to permit the operation of a one-bay general automotive repair shop with New Hampshire State Inspection Service in a building that does not meet the setback requirement of 150 feet from residential property lines of two abutters. The property is located at 29 Currier Road and is in the Rural/Residential District.

Coolidge advised the applicants that as there was not a full board present, they had the option of continuing with those Board members present, or continuing to a specified future date. Should they opt to continue, the vote would have to be unanimous, and the applicant is not eligible to appeal based on less than a full board being present. The applicants chose to continue with three voting members present.

The proposal was presented to the Board. There being no abutters present, the Board reviewed the criteria for a variance.

Would the variance be contrary to the public interest? The response was no.

Would the spirit of the ordinance be met if the variance is granted? The response was yes.

Would substantial justice be done if the variance is granted? The response was yes.

Would the value of surrounding properties be diminished if the variance is granted? The response was no.

Would a fair and substantial relationship exist between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property if the variance was granted? The response was yes.

Is the proposed use a reasonable one? The response was yes.

There being no further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the variance with the condition that the applicant maintain the site barriers on either side of the property.

Public Hearing: A request from Pierre Bedard, agent for Joseph and Joyce Cioffi, for a variance to permit the construction of a garage within the 30-foot front setback. The property is located at 368 Bradley Lake Road and is in the Forest/Agricultural District.

Coolidge advised the applicants as described above. The applicants chose to continue with three voting members present.

The application was presented along with photos of the property. The proposal is to construct a 16’ x 22’ garage on the lot across the road from an existing residence. There being no abutters present, the Board reviewed the criteria for a variance.

Would granting of the variance be contrary to the public interest? The response was no.

Would the spirit of the ordinance be met if the variance was granted? The response was yes.

Would substantial justice be done if the variance was granted? The response was yes.

Would values of surrounding property diminish if the variance was granted? The response was no.

Would a fair and substantial relationship exist between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property if the variance was granted? The response was no.

Is the proposed use a reasonable one? The response was yes.

There being no further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the variance.

Public Hearing: A request from Pierre Bedard, agent for Joseph and Joyce Cioffi, for a special exception to allow the construction of a single-stall garage as an accessory structure to an existing cottage. The property is located at 369 Bradley Lake Road and is in the Forest/Agricultural District.

Coolidge advised the applicants as described above. The applicants chose to continue with three voting members present.

The application was presented along with photos of the property. Bedard stated that conditions of the Special Exception can be met to provide vehicle storage off-site rather than on the road. A State Shoreland Permit is necessary due to being within the 250′ setback. It was noted that any decision made by the Board of Adjustment does not pertain to the 250’ setback requirement for Shoreland Protection. There being no further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the Special Exception.