Zoning Board of Adjustment
Monday/July 26, 2004
Present: Thomas Vannatta (Chair), Betsy Soper (Vice-Chair), Ernie Pagragan, Alex Azodi, Katherine Holmes, William Cluff, Del Harris and Tanya McIntire.
Thomas Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
The Board reviewed the minutes from June 28, 2004. A motion was made to accept the minutes as drafted. Seconded. All were in favor.
The Board reviewed the minutes from May 24, 2004 and made corrections. A motion was made to accept the minutes as corrected. Seconded. All were in favor.
Mr. Vannatta passed out a Variance check list for the Board. He said that he tried to define each section.
At 7:30 p.m. Mr. Vannatta called the hearing to order and asked Lacy Cluff, Land Use Board Assistant, to read the pubic notice.
The notice read as follows:
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Zoning Board of Adjustment will conduct a public hearing on the following proposal on Monday, July 26, 2004 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH:
At 7:30 p.m., James Lord, 109 Village Road., Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance as provided in Paragraphs 16.7 and 4.6 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of an addition within the 30' setback requirement from an adjoining right of way. Newbury Tax Map 043 Lot 553-309.
Copies of the applications are available for review at the Newbury Town Office building.
Mr. Vannatta explained the hearing procedure:
1. The Board would introduce themselves.
2. Asked that the attendees identify themselves for the record when they spoke.
3. The applicants would present their case and the Board would then ask questions. The public would be then be allowed to ask questions. The Board will deliberate and vote.
4. There is a thirty-day appeal period during which persons directly affected can dispute the decision of the Board. A notice of the ZBA decision will be mailed to the applicant and Selectmen and there will be a copy available at the Town Hall.
Mr. Lord explained that the front porch of his home needed to be replaced and he would simply like to extend it and wrap it around the house. The existing porch currently does not meet the 30' setback and he would like to square off the building because he thought that it would improve the appearance.
Mrs. Lord said that they wanted to make their home more presentable, but want to start with the addition before re-siding and replacing the windows. She said that she thought it would increase the value of their property as well as surrounding properties.
Mr. Lord said that he tried to answer all of the Variance criteria to the best of his ability:
16.7.1 No diminution in value of surrounding properties would be suffered because he felt that it would increase the value of surrounding properties.
16.7.2 Granting the permit would be of benefit to the public because it would improve the appearance of his property and not make the village appear so run down.
16.7.3.1 The zoning restriction as applied to the owner’s property interferes with his reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment because the structure was existing and already non-conforming.
16.7.3.2 No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because the structure was already existing.
16.7.3.3 The Variance would not injure the public or private rights of others.
16.7.4 By granting the Variance substantial justice would be done because it would improve the appearance of the home and neighborhood.
16.7.5 The use would not be contrary to the ordinance because it would be brining life back to an old home.
16.7.6 Does not apply to his property.
Mr. Pagragan asked how many people use the private driveway that abuts his property.
Mr. Lord said that it was used to access only two homes.
Mr. Pagragan asked him if he had approached them.
Mr. Lord said that he had and that they were both in favor of him making these improvements.
Ms. Holmes asked when they were planning to start the project if the Variance were to be granted.
Mrs. Lord said that they would like to tear the existing porch down now and start to re-build in the Spring. They do not want the area to be under construction during the winter.
Ms. Holmes asked when the home was built.
Mr. Lord said that it was built in 1820.
Mrs. McIntire asked if there would be a foundation or second floor on the addition.
Mr. Lord said that there would be a cement slab under the addition, but no second floor.
Mr. Pagragan asked what the setback requirement was from a driveway.
Mr. Vannatta said that it was 30' and that he would need Variances for both the road and driveway setback.
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board if they had any additional questions.
With no public comment, Mr. Vannatta closed the hearing for deliberation.
Mr. Pagragan said that his only issue was the private driveway because he thought that he needed to be 30' from that as well.
Ms. Holmes said that they only needed to be 15' from the private driveway.
Mr. Vannatta said that he did not agree with Ms. Holmes and was going to research.
Ms. Holmes said that she did not have any problems granting the Variance because they were simply trying to make their home look more beautiful.
Mr. Azodi said that he agreed with Ms. Holmes that they were trying to improve their property.
Mr. Harris said that he thought that it would be a vast improvement to the property and the addition would not be encroaching anymore into the setback than it currently was.
Ms. Soper said that she felt it would be a huge improvement to the property.
Mr. Vannatta said that he agreed with everyone’s thoughts, but felt that he needed to be 30' from the private driveway.
Mr. Lord said that it was not a right of way, it was a private driveway and the owner charges them to use it.
Mr. Vannatta said that in that case it probably would be 15' whereas it was someone’s private driveway, not a road or right of way.
Mr. Vannatta closed the deliberation and asked for a motion.
Ms. Holmes made a motion to vote. Mr. Pagragan seconded it. The vote was as follows:
Katherine Holmes Grant
Tanya McIntire Grant because they met all 5 criteria for a Variance.
Betsy Soper Grant
Ernie Pagragan Grant
Thomas Vannatta Grant
Mr. Vannatta told Mr. Lord that they would receive a notice of decision in the mail within 72 hours and reminded him that there was a 30 day appeal period.
Old Business
Mr. Vannatta asked if anyone had any questions or anything that they wanted to share regarding the materials that were passed out at the last hearing from the Planning and Zoning Conference.
Mr. Azodi said that he was not prepared because he did not know that they would be discussing it tonight.
Ms. Soper said that she would have some comments, but not at that time.
New Business
Mr. Vannatta asked how the flow chart that Mrs. McIntire and Mr. Pagragan were working on was going.
Mr. Pagragan said that he really hasn’t had the time to work on it.
Mr. Vannatta asked if anyone else would be interested on working on the project with Ms. McIntire.
Ms. McIntire said that it would be more helpful if each member took a section, but she thought that it may be getting too large and perhaps just a chart would be more helpful.
Mr. Vannatta said that she could prepare a chart and the Board could review it at the next meeting along with the Planning and Zoning Conference.
A motion was made to adjourn. Seconded. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lacy L. Cluff
Land Use Board Assistant
| 
