BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Dec. 11, 2007

Case # 366 continued from Nov. 28, 2007. Terry and Debbie Mitchell

Bill, Jim, Tony, Niel and Bob were present.

Applicants, 3 abutters, Code Officer and Board Alternate Betsy Frago were present.

Bob opened the meeting and noted that: floor plan, license, Code 805, 801 and RSA 151 have been filed. Asked about the letter that was sent with the petition. Phil Sheridan presented a copy of the letter. Jim asked him if he (Sheridan) could verify that all who had signed the petition had read the letter prior to signing. He could verify all except the ones who lived on Schoolhouse Rd. Board accepted the petition with the exception of the Schoolhouse Rd. signers.

Bob would like to ask the board if they felt that by definition could this be classified as a lodging house? Bill said he had looked up definitions and he felt it could come under rooming house. Rooming house is a permitted use in that district. Bob asked if they were more commercial than rooming or lodging house. No.

Mrs. Dow felt that if you weren’t going to live there it would be commercial and it should not be allowed, if owner lived there it would be entirely different.

Niel said he had talked to a State attorney concerning this and a cell tower and the State does not have a format for this kind of facility, it is not a boarding house as per the attorney. Niel felt questions had not been answered. Costs, security, food, who prepares? Jim responded that it is regulated by the State guidelines under 801, they are licensed by the State. This use variance is limited by the State’s licensing for a “Residential Care Facility” as per 801, 805 and RSA 151. This is a very stringent licensed facility.

Tony felt if it was classified as a boarding/ lodging house then they would not be here asking for a variance.

Niel asked to see the license, has it been reviewed? Yes. Jim read part of RSA 151 policy and procedures. They meet them all. Niel asked why the owners don’t live there? Debbie explained that because there is only three bedrooms it would not be cost effective for them to live there. They would live at their Union Wharf residence. There are two paid employee’s at the home at all times. The caregivers do all the cooking and taking care of the home.

Bob felt that a Bed and Breakfast is allowed in that area and that is more commercial than this. Niel’s concern is, are we satisfied that they will provide the objectives they are stating? Debbie responded that they are under State Human and Health regulations and they have to follow the regulations or lose their license.

Board felt that they needed to make a decision concerning this application but also needed to notify the Planning Board that they should not put off adding something about “Residential Care” in their “uses”, this is something that will be more and more prevalent.

Bob felt “intent” is one of the boards dilemmas, Jim felt the board does the best it can to interpret boarding house and we should move forward and he felt they do meet the criteria for “use”. It is slightly different than lodging. The use could be limited as a “Residential Care Facility”. Niel’s opinion was that 3.6. b.2 could allow this.

Bob asked if there were any other comments? Mrs. Dow still concerned about “commercial”.

Tony made motion: That a “use” variance be granted at 141 Mountain Rd. (subject to the intent of 3.6.b.2 as interpreted by the ZBA) to be limited to a State licensed “Residential Care Facility”, managed by a State licensed “Home Health Provide” offering “Homemaker Services” to no more that 6 residents. Such USE to be defined by RSA 151 “Residential Care and Health Facility Licensing”, and also Chapter He P 800 Part HeP 805 and part HeP 801 of the NH Code of Administrative Rules. Jim seconded. Niel asked if the Health Officer was in favor of the motion? He was. Motion made and 2^nd. All voted in favor. Variance granted.

Mr Sheridan commented afterward that he accepts the approval.

Hearing Adjourned.

Minutes of November 28 were approved as written.

Jackie Rollins

Secretary