Zoning Board of Adjustment
Monday/June 13, 2005
Present: Thomas Vannatta, Betsy Soper, Kathryn Holmes, Tanya McIntire, Helen Wright,
Alex Azodi
The meeting was called to order at 7:10
The minutes of March 28, 2005 were reviewed. Mr. Vannatta requested votes on applications be written in role call form.
Chair Vannatta appoints Mrs. Wright a voting member for the first hearing.
Ms. Holmes made a motion to accept the minutes, Mrs. Wright seconded, all in favor the minutes were adopted.
New Business:
Mr. Vannatta handed out 2005 Land Use Law Update from the Spring Planning and Zoning Conference.
At 7:30 the hearing commenced with the reading of the notice.
At 7:30 p.m., Alan Lane Autumn Lane, Newbury NH, will seek a Variance as provided in Paragraph 5.9 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: construction of a house that encroaches 10 feet with in the 30 foot setback requirement. Newbury Tax Map 007-200-381
The Chair, Mr. Vannatta, explains that the abutters have been notified, and also the procedure of the hearing.
Mr. Alan Lane explains the history of the purchase, and his plans to build a retirement home 28’wX 34’l with an attached garage 22’w X 20’l . He states his proposed well and septic design have State approval. He is asking a variance from the 30’ R.O.W. so he can locate his house 20’ from the R.O.W. He reviews the variance criteria.
Ms. Holmes asks for the approved septic plan, it has been submitted. The dimensions of the lot are stated to be 65’ X 144” about .25 acres
The board discusses the setback of the neighboring properties is determined that they do not met the 30” setback either.
The site plan is presented.
Mrs. McIntire is concerned that the well is located too close to the property line, and that in accordance to Article 5.10 the well is not within the building envelope. Mr. Lane explains that it is necessary to be there because of the required 75’ setback from the septic system.
The meeting is opened up for public input.
Herb Dickey of Autumn Lane is concerned that the abutter’s, Flanders, leach field is out of range of the well. Mr. Lane assures him that it is.
Mr. Dickey suggests the house be moved back in respect to the R.O.W. because if the road where ever improved Mr. Lane’s house is the only one on that side, and therefore that would be the probable direction of improvement. He suggests making the rear setback smaller.
Barbara Lanzillo of Autumn Lane was also concerned about the well being so close to the property line.
Richard Lanzillo of Autumn Lane was concerned about the possible damage to the road from construction equipment and wanted an agreement from Mr. Lane to repair any damage to the road. Parking concerns were raised and a questioned asked about the possibility of this house being used as rental property.
Mr. Lane assured that with a two car garage and room in front of the garage parking would be off the road. Mr. Lane did not answer about whether or not he was planning to rent.
Eric Flanders asked about retaining walls being built. Mr. Lane said yes along the front of the property.
Barbara Skinner of Autumn Lane assured the road maintenance would be done. Her husband had the equipment to maintain the road.
Bob Berenski 13 Autumn Lane raised a concern about the runoff during construction and the possible change in the drainage after construction.
Mr. Dickey questioned if the construction could begin in the Fall. Mr. Lane responded that he planned to hold off on building until after August 1st.
Chair Vannatta closes Public input and the Board proceeds with deliberation.
Mrs. McIntire acknowledges the public’s concern about noise during construction, road accessibility and drainage she encourages Mr. Lane to be conscientious of the neighbors. She also acknowledges the possibility that pushing the house back and getting a variance for the rear setback might be worth considering.
Mr. Azodi has no comment
Mr. Wright agrees that if Mr. Lane wants a bigger house he might consider reducing the rear setback instead of the front setback.
Ms. Holmes wants a Permanent Erosion Control plan per Article 7.8.2 as a condition of the Variance.
Ms. Soper agrees and wants an engineer to review the drainage do the Permanent Erosion Control Plan.
The board discusses these concerns.
Mr. Vannatta summarizes the Condition that a Permanent Erosion Control Plan be submitted before the Variance is granted, and the option for Mr. Lane to return to the ZBA to request a variance to the rear set back with out a fee.
Ms. Holmes makes a motion to vote on the application for a Variance from the 30’ R.O.W. setback to place a house 20’ from the R.O.W. with the condition that a Permanent Erosion Control Plan be submitted and with the option for Mr. Lane to return to the ZBA for a Variance hearing on the rear setback without a fee.
Ms. Soper seconds the motion.
The vote is as follows: Ms. Holmes, grant; Ms. Soper, grant; Mrs. Wright, grant; Mrs. McIntire, grant; Mr. Vannatta, grant. The Variance was granted with condition and option.
8:55 the notice is read:
At 8:00 p.m., John and Stephanie Meyer, 1285 Route 103, Newbury, NH, will seek a Variance as provided in Paragraph 4.6 of the Newbury Zoning Ordinance to permit the following: Construction of a covered entry porch that encroaches within the 30’ setback area. Newbury Tax Map 007-019-002
The board introduces themselves. Mr. Azodi is appointed as a voting member.
The Chair, Mr. Vannatta, explains that the abutters have been notified, and also the procedure of the hearing.
John Blom, contractor for the Meyers, explains the project. He reads the definition of R.O.W. it does not cover driveways, but in the deed the driveway is referred to as the right-of-way. He reads the Variance criteria, and explains he is putting a roof over an existing porch.
Ms. Soper indicates she thinks the idea is a good.
Chair Vannatta invites public comment.
Paul and Nancy Maraschio 1297, Rt 103 Newbury NH have no problem with the proposal and are in favor of it for safety and snow removal benefits.
The hearing is closed and the Board deliberates.
Mrs. Wright is concerned about the sharpness of the turn, it is pointed out that this is not a problem for experienced drivers.
Mrs. McIntire indicates that this application should be for a variance to Paragraph 15.1 making a Non-conforming Building more non-conforming.
Ms. Holmes agrees the roof would be an improvement
Mr. Vannatta also agrees that there is a safety benefit to having the roof addition.
With the Variance criteria met,
Ms. Holmes makes a motion to vote on the application as presented. Ms. Soper seconds the vote is as follows: Mr. Azodi, grant; Mrs. McIntire, grant; Ms. Holmes, grant; Ms. Soper, grant; Mrs. Wright, grant; Mr. Vannatta, grant.
The hearing were closed
9:20 p.m. Ms. Holmes makes a motion to adjourn, Mrs. Soper seconds, all in favor meeting adjourns.
Respectfully submitted,
Tanya D. McIntire
| 
