Zoning Board of Adjustment
Monday/ March 8, 2004
Present: Betsy Soper (Chair), Charlie Killam (Vice Chair), Tanya McIntire, Katheryn Holmes, Thomas Vannatta and Alex Azodi (Alternate).
Chairperson Soper called the meeting to order at 7:10p.m.
Ms. Soper announced that Jeff Nester, Ernie Pagragan and Del Harris had resigned as alternates on the ZBA.
Ms. Soper said that she feels that it would be helpful to have a contractor and a small business person on the Board.
Katheryn Holmes said that she did not feel the Board needed those specific types of people because it is all about understanding the regulations.
Ms. Soper said that she thought it would be interesting to get other perspectives.
Charlie Killam said that the problem is that they need to get these people to volunteer.
Ms. Holmes asked if it would be appropriate to put an advertisement in the paper.
Thomas Vannatta said that he felt it would be very appropriate.
Mr. Killam said that the Kearsarge Shopper would be an inexpensive place to advertise.
Mr. Killam also mentioned that Jake Kezar used to be an alternate on the Planning Board, but it was too time consuming and may be interested in being an alternate on the ZBA.
Ms. Soper said that she and Lacy Cluff, Land Use Board Assistant, would put an advertisement together, as well as contact Jake Kezar.
Ms. Soper explained the procedure prior to the first hearing:
1. The Board will introduce themselves.
2. The meetings are normally recorded, however, the meeting will not be recorded tonight because the equipment is inaccessible, and 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 would 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.
Tanya McIntire read the public notice as follows:
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Zoning Board of Adjustment will hear the following proposals on Monday, March 8, 2004 at the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH:
At 7:30 p.m., Michael Gobes, 348 Route 103A, Newbury, N.H., will seek the following:
Variance as provided in Paragraph 4.10.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Renovation and occupancy of an accessory apartment prior to the construction (renovation) of the primary dwelling. Newbury Tax Map 18-213-220.
Variance as provided in Paragraph 4.10.4 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of an accessory apartment in a dwelling that is less than five (5) years old. Newbury Tax Map 18-213-220.
Special Exception as provided in Paragraph 4.10.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Renovation and occupancy of an accessory apartment. Newbury Tax Map 18-213-220.
Variance as provided in Paragraph 4.10.8 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of an accessory apartment using more 50% of the floor area of the accessory building. Newbury Tax Map 18-213-220.
Copies of the plans are available at the Town Office building at 937 Route 103 Newbury, NH.
Ms. Soper handed out an introduction to the case and a letter from the Town’s attorney for the Board to review (please see attached).
Ms. Soper noted that the application was complete and that the hearing was properly noticed. She also said that the Town’s attorney said the Board can address all four together, but they needed to be voted on separately.
Bob Stewart introduced himself as the authorized agent for Michael Gobes.
Mr. Stewart explained the history behind what brought him to the ZBA. Originally there was one lot with the house, milk house and barn on it. The property owner wanted to subdivide the lot so that the house was on one parcel and the milk house and barn was on another. Historically, the milk house was an accessory apartment to the main house.
Ms. Soper asked if the milk house was currently a dwelling unit.
Mr. Stewart said that it was not.
Mr. Stewart said that they had not foreseen this as a problem. Had they realized that there was going to be a problem, they would have taken care of it prior to subdividing.
Mr. Stewart said that if they miss one of these Variances or the Special Exception, then they miss all of them. He stated that he was going to address the Variances first because his supporting information was the same for all three.
Mr. Stewart addressed the Variances as follows:
16.7.1 The proposed milk house will not diminish surrounding property values because both the milk house (accessory use) and the existing barn (to be converted to the primary living space) will preserve the existing historic buildings and serve to guarantee the integrity of the structures.
16.7.2 Granting the permit would be of benefit to the public interest because of the above argument and as stated in paragraph 4.10 as the purpose and intent of the Accessory Apartment provision. Furthermore, it is the purpose and intent of this provision to allow for the more efficient use of the Town’s existing stock of dwellings and accessory buildings.
16.7.3 Unnecessary Hardship.
16.7.3.1 This is reasonable use of the property considering the fact that the milk house has historically been used as an accessory building with appurtenant facilities such as kitchen plumbing, bathroom, bedroom and supporting well and septic. This is a unique situation as a result of the subdivision in December of 2003. The subdivision left the property with an accessory apartment and a building (the barn), for which the owner wishes to use as a primary home.
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; and it is the history of the existence of the two buildings in question that would give justice to the owner to allow an existing condition (the milk house, existing accessory) and the existing barn as the primary structure after the fact.
16.7.3.3 The Variance would not injure the public or the private rights of others because all further zoning ordinances are adhered to and the upgrade of the existing structures will only add to the charm and character of the neighborhood.
16.7.4 By granting the permit substantial justice would be done because it will allow the owner to continue the existing use of the established accessory building and allow the owner to convert an existing structure into the primary homestead. As one of the specific purposes and intents of paragraph 4.10 to “allow the more efficient use of the Town’s existing stock of dwellings and accessory buildings” would be substantial justice.
16.7.5 The use would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because it complies with the ordinance in its’ entirety except the accessory building will be subordinate to the primary dwelling until the remolding is complete.
Mr. Vannatta asked if he was planning on using 100% of the milk house as the accessory apartment.
Mr. Stewart said that he was.
Mr. Stewart explained that if the barn had been renovated prior to the milk house being renovated, he would have to go for a Special Exception as a matter of course. He gave the following argument for the Special Exception as provided in paragraph 4.10.4:
16.6.1 The proposed use will not diminish surrounding property values because both milk house (accessory use) and the existing barn (to be converted to the primary living space), will preserve the existing historic buildings and serve to guarantee the integrity of the structures. This in no way will be detrimental to the neighborhood by way of undue variance or undue violation.
16.6.2 The use of the property will be as it has historically been, residential. The stone barn will be restored and converted to a home. The milk house will be used as it has since the 1960's.
16.6.3 The use will not be contrary to the public health in any way. This is a residential use as is all the other homes in the neighborhood.
16.6.4 No new structures are proposed. Existing structures, drives, parking, etc. will be used as it would in any residential setting.
16.6.5 The proposed use is a residential use with an accessory building. Operations normally associated with residential living will be exercised.
Mr. Stewart showed plans of the property as it exists today. He said that they are not planning on adding any more driveways from Route 103A.
Mrs. McIntire asked what the acreage of the property was.
Mr. Stewart said that it was 3.25 acres. The reason that they subdivided the lot was because another family member was planning on buying the house.
Ms. Holmes asked if they intended to make the barn the main home.
Mr. Stewart said that they did. They needed to subdivide the lot first to make it work financially.
Mr. Stewart showed the Board plans of what the future barn would look like. They are planning on keeping the architectural integrity of both the milk house and the barn.
Mr. Stewart said that this was a very unique property and that it would be of benefit to the neighborhood to restore it.
Mr. Killam asked what the milk house would be considered where as they are performing the legal work opposite of the normal procedure.
Mr. Stewart said that it would be a guest house, but they would need to live in it temporarily while they renovated the barn.
Ms. Soper opened the hearing to public comment.
Mr. Barden, an abutter, said that he had no objections. Mr. Gobes had met with the abutters last September and explained his plans.
Suzanne Levine, an abutter, said that she collaborated with Mr. Barden.
Ms. Soper read the last paragraph from a letter from the Board of Selectmen dated February 28, 2004; “We believe that this project will have a positive impact on the neighborhood and the town, and not be a detriment in any way. We believe that by granting the property owners petition, justice would be done.”
Ms. Holmes asked Mr. Stewart if the barn was going to look the same from the road.
Mr. Stewart replied that it would. However, they plan on putting in some dormers on the side that faces the lake.
Ms. Holmes asked if it was going to be a year round residence.
Mr. Stewart said that it will be a year round residence, but he was not sure if Mr. Gobes intended to live there year round.
Mr. Vannatta asked how long it was going to take to complete this project.
Mr. Stewart said that they were estimating that it would take about 18 months.
Ms. Soper asked if the Board had any more questions for Mr. Stewart.
With no further questions, a motion was made to grant a Variance as provided in Paragraph 4.10.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Renovation and occupancy of an accessory apartment prior to the construction (renovation) of the primary dwelling. Seconded. All we in favor.
A motion was made to grant Variance as provided in Paragraph 4.10.4 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of an accessory apartment in a dwelling that is less than five (5) years old. Seconded. All were in favor.
A motion was made to grant a Special Exception as provided in Paragraph 4.10.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Renovation and occupancy of an accessory apartment. Seconded. All were in favor.
A motion was made to grant a Variance as provided in Paragraph 4.10.8 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of an accessory apartment using more 50% of the floor area of the accessory building. Seconded. All were in favor.
Ms. Soper explained the procedure prior to the second hearing:
1. The Board will introduce themselves.
2. The meetings are normally recorded, however, the meeting will not be recorded tonight because the equipment is inaccessible, and 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 would 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.
Mrs. McIntire read the public notice as follows:
At 8:00 p.m., James C. Woods & Deborah J. Hall, Great Island, Newbury, N.H., will seek a Special Exception as provided in Paragraphs 7.5 and 15.1.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following alterations to an existing non-conforming building: Construction of a 4' X 3' addition to make room for a shower in an existing bathroom, a 4' X 9' addition for a bathroom at the rear of the guest bedroom and a 4' X 8' addition for a water heater and closet. Newbury Tax Map 16-771-092.
Copies of the plans are available at the Town Office building at 937 Route 103 Newbury, NH.
James Woods introduced himself and explained that his family had recently purchased this property and were looking to make some minor modifications. There would be no additional bedrooms or living space. The additions will not be visible from the lake or any of the abutting properties. He also noted that they would not be making it more non-conforming because they are building away from the lake.
Mr. Woods explained the requirements of paragraph 16.6:
Since most Great Island homes are somewhat larger than this one, the construction of two modest additions to the rear of this building should in no way be “detrimental to the character or enjoyment of the neighborhood.” These small additions will not change the use of the property in any way, given that no additional bedrooms of living space are being added. The new shower and bathroom will be hooked into the existing community septic system currently used by this property.
It is expected that the proposed additions will not be visible from wither Lake Sunapee of from the homes on the abutting properties. The style of construction will be unobtrusive and in keeping with the existing rustic character of the cottage. The exterior will be stained to match the rest of the cottage. The maximum 9-foot height will extend the slope of the existing roof line downward and so not to be visible from the lake.
Ms. Holmes asked how many feet the cottage was from the lake.
Mr. Woods said that the cottage was about 20 feet from the lake and 40 - 45 from the rear of the cottage.
Mr. Woods explained that there were two bedrooms on either side. One has a sink and shower, but no enclosure. They would like to expand back so that they have some closet space and make room for a water heater.
Mrs. McIntire asked if there was a foundation.
Mr. Woods said that there was not and said that there would be a minimal amount of excavation.
Ms. Holmes said that it appears to her that they are just trying to make the cottage a little more comfortable.
A motion was made to grant a Special Exception as provided in Paragraphs 7.5 and 15.1.1 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following alterations to an existing non-conforming building: Construction of a 4' X 3' addition to make room for a shower in an existing bathroom, a 4' X 9' addition for a bathroom at the rear of the guest bedroom and a 4' X 8' addition for a water heater and closet. Seconded. All were in favor.
The minutes from December 8, 2003 were reviewed.
With no changes, a motion was made to accept the minutes. Seconded. All in favor.
A motion was made to adjourn. Seconded. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lacy L. Cluff
Land Use Board Assistant
| 
